Agenda item

Councillor Ross Houston, Cabinet Member for Homes & Regeneration, and Cath Shaw, Deputy Chief Executive, presented an overview of the report stating that it provided performance data from the main registered providers in the Borough.  It was noted that this was a detailed report and some of data was from borough level and some London wide.

The Committee asked how the ratings were determined as Ward Councillors had found high levels of dissatisfaction with the repair work and timeliness of their responses, particularly in relation to Notting Hill Genesis. Officers confirmed that the data had been gathered via a questionnaire sent to all housing associations who provided feedback on how they were performing.

The Committee said we needed to reconsider this approach and have direct engagement with residents to obtain true satisfaction data as Ward Councillors had not seen improvements in quality of service via their case work. The Committee further queried the methodology of data collection and if comparison data was available or independent data as the data available makes it difficult to draw out meaningful conclusions, without a uniform methodology for data collection. 

The Cabinet Member for Homes and Regeneration said there is a new regulatory regime on how repairs and other information is recorded, and it would lead to better standardisation of data. The department are also working with regulators to get better comparable data.

Officers confirmed that the Committee could influence what data is reported in future. Future data collection can be done differently and presented in the performance review for next year.  Action: Scrutiny Officers to work with Customer & Place officers on alternative formats to present information in future years reports.

A committee member said whilst they recognise that housing providers are under pressure, there has been a lack of engagement with residents, we need to get feedback from resident’s associations, not just the providers.

A Committee Member also raised concerns about Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association speed of repairs. In addition, it was questioned what was being to address anti-social behaviour on the Grahame Park Estate.

The Deputy Chief Executive said standardisation of data would help and give us confidence that the data provided by the registered providers was reliable. The Housing team were also committed to community engagement and would be holding community listening events, but noted that there were resource implications of conducting a direct resident’s survey. It was suggested that when we had an understanding of the new regime, the Council could determine our approach and any supplementary work which needed to be undertaken.

The Chair suggested that the Committee could invite the registered providers to attend a future meeting to respond to questions about the concerns raised.

A Committee Member sought clarification on social rents for different size accommodation as there was a lot of variation including a three bed being cheaper than one bed home. Officers confirmed that the rents took into account the benefits cap and made some of the large units affordable, and there were on-going discussions on the cost of rents in some particular developments. 

A Committee Member asked if any performance data was available from the registered providers regarding tackling damp and mould. The Cabinet Member said reporting was not standard, and there were varying levels of knowledge in registered providers s and different reporting levels. It was being taken seriously and was a challenge. Regulators would look at it as part of the standardisation process. It was reported that Barnet Homes has a damp and mould action plan.

Councillor Emma Whysall moved recommendations below which were duly seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED that the Committee:

1.     Note the Barnet Annual Performance Review of Registered Providers.

2.     Request that the Cabinet Member for Homes & Regeneration and officers explore amending the format of the registered providers report which is due in September/October 2024, with a revised approach on the presentation of the data based on the new regulatory regime. The report to this committee is to include the detailed data to provide the committee with context to scrutinise the information.

3.     The Committee request that officer facilitate a meeting with tenants and registered providers in advance of the next committee meeting where registered provider performance is considered to explore issues around disrepair and satisfaction ratings and report its findings.

4.     Request feedback on what action had been taken by Notting Hill Genesis to address the anti-social behaviour on the Graeme Park Estate.

5.     Requested that the Cabinet Member for Homes & Regeneration and officers to explore the standard of reporting on damp and mould across the registered providers.