Agenda and draft minutes

To approve the minutes of the meetings held on 9 July 2024 and 11 September 2024 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the previous meetings held on the 9 July and 11 September 2024 were approved as an accurate record.

Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act 2011, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), some other registrable interest (ORI) or a non-registrable interest (NRI) in relation to any matter on the agenda. If advice is needed, Members should contact the Monitoring Officer in good time before the meeting.

If any Member or co-opted Member of the Council identifies a DPI or ORI which they have not already registered on the Council’s register of interests or which requires updating, they must urgently complete the disclosure form which can be obtained from Democratic Services at any time, copies of which will be available at the meeting for return to the Monitoring Officer.

Members and co-opted Members are required in general to disclose any relevant DPIs, ORIs or NRIs at the meeting.

-       Where the matter relates to a DPI they may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the room unless granted a dispensation.

-       Where the matter directly relates to the financial interest or wellbeing of an ORI they may not vote on the matter unless granted a dispensation.

-       Where a Member or co-opted Member has an NRI which directly relates to or affects their or a relevant person’s financial interest or wellbeing, whether they can participate in any discussion or vote on the matter or stay in the room depends on the detailed rules in paragraphs 7 to 9 of Appendix B of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure of interests orally at the meeting and they will also be recorded in the minutes.

There were no disclosures of interest made at the meeting.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There was no urgent business for the consideration of the Homes Sub-Committee at this meeting.

The Sub-Committee is asked to consider the performance of the Council’s Housing Service through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

This item was considered as part of the Housing Responsive Repair Service Update.

The report provides the Scrutiny Homes Sub-Committee an overview of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and General Fund (GF) forecast outturn 2024-25 as at Period 4 (July).

The Sub-Committee reviewed a report on pages 37 to 40 of the agenda providing an update on the Housing Revenue Account and Housing General Fund. Cllr Lynne Hale, Cabinet Member for Homes, introduced the item, highlighting a predicted overspend of £2m for the HRA against a budget of £103m. Key areas of concern included damp and mould, void repairs, communal repairs, estate inspections, and ongoing legal disrepair cases. A substantial overspend of approximately £15.7m was also predicted for temporary accommodation, primarily driven by increased reliance on nightly paid accommodation.

• Cllr Lynne Hale – Cabinet Member for Homes
• Orlagh Guarnori – Finance Manager
• Beatrice Cingtho-Taylor - Director of Housing, Homelessness Prevention & Accommodation
• Sue Hanlon – Director of Assets
• Simon James – Change Manager

The first question from the Sub-Committee addressed the Council’s confidence in forecasting, especially in light of new government policies and landlords exiting the market. The officers explained that the roll-out of the NEC system would enhance tracking of temporary accommodation placements and associated costs. While acknowledging that precise predictions were challenging given economic and legislative changes, the officers explained that based on the information they had, they also allowed for more flexibility in the budget.

The Sub-Committee then inquired whether additional pressures, such as the fast-tracking of decisions on asylum seekers’ applications, were considered in forecasts. The officers confirmed that additional placements, including for asylum seekers, were accounted for. They highlighted a proactive approach involving collaboration with the Home Office, allowing early support to asylum seekers and facilitating moves to alternative accommodation. The officers reported that these kinds of early intervention were having a positive impact on housing outcomes.

The Sub-Committee inquired further about the percentage impact of this proactive approach. The officers explained that they were placing approximately 100 new individuals in temporary accommodation each month, equating to around 25% of applications, with additional capacity for 50 placements per month. A follow-up question asked whether the Council was only obligated to place asylum seekers with positive decisions who were families. The officers clarified that obligations were similar to those for any homeless person, with priority given to applicants with children. Single applicants were also assessed for vulnerability, although the officers acknowledged that most placements involved families.

The Sub-Committee’s next question concerned the expected completion date for the Sycamore estate and whether any budget reduction was anticipated. The officers responded that they were working closely with the leaseholder and anticipated completion by March 2025, with reoccupation following soon after. Financially, the forecast assumed Sycamore would remain as it was for the rest of the financial year, resulting in a £1.6m budget pressure. The Sub-Committee also queried whether estates like Concorde, Windsor, or Sycamore House, once back in use, could be utilised for nightly stays. The officers clarified that both estates were currently part of the temporary accommodation portfolio and fully occupied, so additional use for nightly stays was not under consideration.

The Sub-Committee then asked about communal repairs and how they were budgeted. The officers explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64/24

The report sets out the current performance of our three contractors, Mears, Wates and K&T Heating and a summary of the delivery of Social Value initiatives.  It also includes a service update in respect of the repair contact centre and our improving position in respect of complaints management.  The report includes our areas of focus for the next six months.

The Sub-Committee reviewed reports on pages 31 to 36 and 41 to 49 of the agenda providing an update on the Housing Responsive Repair Service Update and KPIs. The report was introduced by Cllr Lynne Hale, Cabinet Member for Housing, who clarified that the procurement exercise for the repairs contract occurred in 2022, with the contract awarded in 2023 and mobilised in August that year.

• Cllr Lynne Hale – Cabinet Member for Homes
• Susmita Sen – Corporate Director of Housing
• Orlagh Guarnori – Finance Manager
• Beatrice Cingtho-Taylor - Director of Housing, Homelessness Prevention & Accommodation
• Sue Hanlon – Director of Assets
• Simon James – Change Manager

The first question asked by the Sub-Committee addressed improvement plans for contractors and whether these were standard in the sector. The officers clarified that while the improvement plans were not part of the contract or they were not introduced due to considerable underperformance, the plans were introduced to ensure continuous improvement of the provided services. It was further explained that these plans targeted specific areas for improvement, such as ensuring contractors consistently displayed ID badges. This kind of issues were reviewed at cyclical improvement meetings.

The Sub-Committee then inquired about performance data collection and the number of residents surveyed. The officers explained that the Acuity survey, conducted by an independent third party, sampled approximately 15% of repairs completed in the previous month. As a transactional survey, it was based on residents’ most recent repair experiences. Acuity asked residents 10 questions leading to monthly reports that provided insight into reported issues and highlighting areas that needed improvement.

The next question focused on the reasons behind the fluctuation in the rate of repairs completed at the first attempt. The officers explained that achieving a “first-time fix” was their target, however, it was acknowledged that it could fluctuate. This was often due to the availability of van stock. They provided an example, noting that K&T Heating recently conducted a van stock review in preparation for winter to improve the “fixed now” percentage. Contractors attempted to carry parts for the 20 most common repairs and additional stock for the top 100 most frequent repair types. Officers noted that contractors regularly review the types of repairs undertaken to ensure their van stock aligned with demand.

In response to a question regarding K&T Heating’s recent “deep-dive” review and resident involvement, the officers clarified that the review, completed between July and September, focused on “fixed now” performance and included resident involvement. The review led to adjustments in van stock and the availability of parts in local stores to allow operatives quick access to items when needed.

The Sub-Committee then asked about the learning from previous contracts concerning subcontractor management. The officers explained that Wates used approved subcontractors, with the Council involved in the approval process. Earlier this year, the officers observed inadequate management of subcontractors, particularly in communication with residents. In response, Wates introduced a subcontractor portal to better track work status and improve communication. The officers clarified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65/24

The proposed Placement Policy for Temporary Accommodation and Private Rented Sector Offers (PRSO) sets out the criteria for prioritising households for housing in Croydon, within the local area and other areas within and outside London.

The Sub-Committee reviewed a report on pages 51 to 110 of the agenda providing an overview on the Placement Policy for Temporary Accommodation and Private Rented Sector Offer. The report was introduced by Cllr Lynne Hale, Cabinet Member for Housing. The Cabinet Member highlighted the challenges posed by rising property costs, which were making it increasingly difficult to procure sufficient and affordable accommodation. It was noted that, while a Placement Policy for Temporary Accommodation was not a statutory requirement, having such a policy was considered good practice. The Cabinet Member emphasised that the policy includes criteria for identifying vulnerable residents.

• Cllr Lynne Hale – Cabinet Member for Homes
• Susmita Sen – Corporate Director of Housing
• Orlagh Guarnori – Finance Manager
• Beatrice Cingtho-Taylor - Director of Housing, Homelessness Prevention & Accommodation
• Sue Hanlon – Director of Assets
• Simon James – Change Manager

The first question from the Sub-Committee asked why the Placement Policy focused heavily on geographic location rather than a broader set of factors. The officers explained that a key objective of the policy is transparency, particularly regarding out-of-area placements. They noted that this policy, like others, focused on the factors considered when deciding to place residents out of area. The officers emphasised that the preference was to place residents within the borough wherever possible, and the policy clarified the factors that influenced placements when this was not feasible.

The Sub-Committee then inquired about the data and input from residents used in developing the policy. The officers stated that the policy development process included substantial benchmarking work, examining policies from other London boroughs and considering the Homelessness Code of Guidance. The officers also reviewed local data and practices, noting that in Croydon, approximately 65% of placements are within the borough, 29% in other London boroughs, and 6% outside of London.

Further questioning from the Sub-Committee referenced some other London boroughs' placement policies, which were more detailed regarding the assessment process. The officers explained that the suitability assessment was conducted on a case-by-case basis, with consideration of sustainability factors such as affordability, health conditions, and educational needs. The officers noted that these factors were based upon governmental guidance, with geographic placement becoming a secondary consideration after suitability is assessed.

The next question related to how the policy accounted for the unique characteristics of Croydon. The officers confirmed that they considered Croydon’s specific circumstances, including current practices, supply, and the affordability of accommodation. The policy also considered the impact of placements from other boroughs into Croydon. Despite these unique factors, the primary objective remained placing as many residents as possible within the borough.

The Sub-Committee then asked whether there was a property exchange programme for residents in temporary accommodation. The officers responded that no such programme was currently in place.

A query was raised regarding guidance on school travel times, specifically for primary school children. The Sub-Committee engaged with South West London Law Centres that recommended a maximum travel time of 45 minutes one way, which was based on the governmental guidance, while  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66/24

To consider any additions, amendments or changes to the agreed work programme for the Sub-Committee in 2024-2025.

The Sub-Committee expressed their interest in adding a deep dive into the private rental sector to the Work Programme.

The Homes Sub-Committee is presented with the most recent Cabinet responses to its past recommendations.

The Sub-Committee noted the Cabinet Response to Scrutiny Recommendations report.