OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MINUTES of the OPEN section of the meeting of the OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE held on WEDNESDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2005 at 7.00 P.M. at the Town Hall, Peckham Road, London SE5 8UB PRESENT: OFFICER SUPPORT: Councillor Kim Humphreys (Chair) Councillor James Gurling (Vice-Chair) Councillors Billy Kayada (reserve), Eliza Mann, Andy Simmons, Bob Skelly and Neil Watson Amma Boateng Legal Services Shelley Burke Head of Overview & Scrutiny Michael Connor - Business Technical Manager, Housing Fiona Cliffe Housing Investment Strategy Manager Martin Green - Divisional Leasehold Manager Eamon Lally - Corporate Strategy Executive Louse Turff - Leasehold Management Peter Roberts Scrutiny Project Manager APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Councillors Fiona Colley and Barrie Hargrove. CONFIRMATION OF VOTING MEMBERS The Members listed as being present were confirmed as the Voting Members. NOTIFICATION OF ANY OTHER ITEMS WHICH THE CHAIR DEEMED URGENT There were none. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS AND DISPENSATIONS There were none. RECORDING OF MEMBERS VOTES Council Procedure Rule 1.17(5) allows a Member to record her/his vote in respect of any motions and amendments. Such requests are detailed in the following Minutes. Should a Member s vote be recorded in respect to an amendment, a copy of the amendment may be found in the Minute File and is available for public inspection. The Committee considered the items set out on the agenda, a copy of which has been incorporated in the Minute File. Each of the following paragraphs relates to the item bearing the same number on the agenda. 1

2 MINUTES RESOLVED: That, subject to the following addition to item 1, Customer Service Centre, the Minutes of the Open section of the meeting held on 11 October 2005 be agreed as a correct record of proceedings and signed by the Chair: Councillor Bob Skelly asked the Assistant Chief Executive if the Call Centre provided a level of data unrivalled and unequalled in any other authority. The Assistant Chief Executive confirmed that this was so. 1. MANAGEMENT OF MAJOR WORKS ISSUES FOR TENANTS AND LEASEHOLDERS [see pages 16-33] Leaseholders Issues 1.1 The Committee considered a letter from Harriet Harman, MP, of 20 October The Divisional Leasehold Manager clarified that, through the individual decision making process, Southwark had agreed a policy in respect of the Secretary of State s directions of 1997 and The limits of discretion were not as wide as was suggested and contained measures of hardship that had to be met. The Council was already using its discretion to the maximum in order to alleviate service charges. The Committee asked for a copy of the policy to be circulated to its members. 1.2 In response to questions, the Divisional Leasehold Manager confirmed that it was not possible for the Council to apply a blanket cap on charges for major works and indicated that he was not aware of any authorities using other mechanisms to achieve this. The Committee agreed to seek further comments on this issue from Harriet Harman, MP. 1.3 A Member asked whether the Council could make use of the power of well-being in order to make grants available. The Divisional Leasehold Manager stressed the importance of making a clear distinction between the Council incurring a cost as a local authority and as a landlord. If the cost was incurred as a local authority then the cost should fall on the general fund rather than the housing revenue account and should not feature in the service charges. The Committee agreed to consider including a recommendation in its final report to seek the view of Executive Members in respect of the appropriate levy of service charges. 1.4 The Divisional Leasehold Manager outlined the statutory consultation process for major works contracts prescribed in Section 20 regulations. He reported that Section 20 Notices were being redrafted in order to make them easier to understand, as part of the communications strategy, and emphasised that leaseholders were entitled to look at all information relating to the service charge and that Officers were available to provide this information. Another element of the communications strategy was a redrafting of the Leaseholders Handbook. Members asked that the new draft of the Leaseholders Handbook be brought to the Committee for comment. 2

3 1.5 The Divisional Leasehold Manager indicated that Officers from the unit were available to attend meetings with residents at the early stages of any consultation concerning major works to estates. It was important that residents gained some sense of the cost implications as soon as possible in the process. The Divisional Leasehold Manager emphasised that initial meetings focused on possible design solutions and that subsequent meetings were necessary to address specific service charge issues. The Committee agreed to consider encouraging the Housing department to ensure that the Leasehold Management Unit is invited to participate in all stages of consultation, as a possible recommendation in its final report. 1.6 The Divisional Leasehold Manager outlined situations in which the Council applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for dispensation in terms of complying with Section 20. He also explained the process for billing leaseholders in respect of major works and the payment options offered by the Council. Area Investment Programme 1.7 Members asked for clarification as to how schemes were prioritised in the Area Investment Programme. Officers indicated that the programme was determined by the demand to meet the decent homes standard for all properties in the borough by The Committee asked Officers to report back on the process by which investment decisions are made between projects and to clarify where final decisions are taken. Brayards Estate 1.8 Officers reported back on issues raised by representatives of Brayards Estate at the meeting on 12 September The Business Technical Manager indicated that from April 2002 onwards the level of consultation on Brayards had been extensive. Once the contract started, fortnightly surgeries had been arranged to address concerns raised. The contract had also been reviewed via tenants and residents association meetings. Officers were surprised at allegations about poor contract monitoring. 1.9 Members were concerned that issues raised at meetings of Housing Forums had not been adequately investigated or reflected in the Officers report. For example, the view was expressed that major problems had arisen during work on the first block, which had been raised at Forum meetings, and that the Tenant Liaison Officer had been appointed as a consequence. Officers reported that the Liaison Officer had been appointed within two weeks of work starting on the first block but Members remained of the opinion that no-one was working in that capacity at the start of the contract Members identified particular issues that they felt had yet to be resolved. There were still complaints about inadequate consultation on the car park, specifically that a decision had been taken to install bollards, which had resulted in a reduction in space available for parking. Officers agreed to look into this issue and report back to the Committee Members asked Officers to report on how much notice residents were meant to receive of works on their own individual properties, and to confirm how much notice they actually received. Officers gave an initial response that the exhibitions held in April 2002 provided the opportunity for residents to look with contractors at the scope of works in a typical flat. After this, residents were normally given 7 days notice of work and invited to advise the contractors of any special needs that would need to be taken into account when doing the work. 3

4 1.12 Members asked Officers in addition to report on what the expected contract time was and what the eventual time was spent on site. Specifically, in view of evidence given by the representatives from Brayards, they asked Officers to look again to identify any complaints about time taken to complete work in respect of kitchens. Members were concerned that tenants did not necessarily know the appropriate procedure by which to escalate complaints and that consequently any formal record might be lost In response to questions, Officers confirmed that contracts were evaluated on completion and also any issues that arose during the contract, which would have a future impact or could turn into risks, were logged and monitored. Members asked that Officers report back on tenant satisfaction surveys returned following stage one of the contract Members were also interested to find out whether the size of the investment programme meant that it was more difficult to find suitable contractors and whether building work associated with the Olympic Games would have an impact on all contracts across London. Officers indicated that the volume of work allowed the Council to insist that contractors provide a specific level of resource. A major works strategy was to be submitted for consideration by the Executive. Four Squares Estate 1.15 Officers reported that, in terms of security measures, work would initially be done on two of the squares and eventually on all four. A request had been made to the London Housing Board to use all grant on security measures. Lighting would be improved as part of the security contract Members asked whether there were any proposals to address problems with garages on the estate. Officers explained that there were plans to change the layout of the garages to increase visibility and to make them accessible via a security system. The area would be redesigned Members raised concerns about the approved list and asked whether Southwark s requirements of contractors were more rigorous than the requirements of other authorities. Members also asked whether Southwark s contracts specified a different quality of work as compared to other authorities. RESOLVED: 1. That the individual decision, in respect of the Council s discretion under the Secretary of State s directions of 1997 and 1999, be circulated to all committee members. 2. That further clarification be sought from Harriet Harman, MP, in respect of her understanding of the council s discretion in terms of charging leaseholders. 3. That a draft of the revised Leaseholders Handbook be brought to the Committee for comment. 4. That the following be considered as possible recommendations in the final scrutiny report: - View of Executive Members to be sought in respect of the appropriate levy of service charges (i.e. split between council as local authority and council as landlord) 4

5 - Housing department to be asked to ensure that the Leasehold Management Unit is invited to participate in all stages of consultation with residents concerning major works to estates 5. That Officers clarify and report back on consultation undertaken in respect of the car park on Brayards Estate. 7. That Officers investigate and report back on any issues raised through housing forums in respect of the major works on Brayards Estate. 8. That Officers report on how much notice Brayards Estate residents were meant to receive for works on individual properties (and how much notice they actually received). 9. That Officers report on what the expected contract time was for Brayards Estate, and the eventual time spent on site. 10. That Officers look again to identify any complaints about time taken to complete work on Brayards Estate, particularly in respect of kitchens. 11. That Officers report back on tenant satisfaction surveys returned following stage one of the Brayards Estate contract. 11. That Officers report back on requirements of the approved contractors list and whether these are more rigorous than the requirements of other authorities. 12. That Officers outline the process by which investment decisions are made between projects in the investment programme and clarify where final decisions are taken. 2. LEASEHOLD MANAGEMENT BRIEFING PAPER [see pages 1-12] 2.1 The Committee noted the briefing paper. 3. CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE SUMMARY OF ISSUES [see pages 13-14] 3.1 The Committee agreed the summary of issues with the addition of possible difficulties arising from the Noise Response Service and Anti-social Behaviour hotline sharing the same telephone line. 4. OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 2005/2006 WORK PROGAMME [see page 15] 4.1 The Committee noted its draft work programme. ANY OTHER BUSINESS The Chair reported back on ongoing discussions with the communications department in terms of supporting scrutiny. He hoped that a suitable press release would be issued on the Committee s final report on Southwark Alliance. 5

6 The meeting closed at 9.15 p.m. CHAIR: DATED: 6