Repairs and Investment Panel – 27 November 2024

Attendees:

Tenant members – Trish, Pamela, Heather H, Irene, Christine, Evelyn, Kim S, Dawn, Derek, Chloe

Lee Nesbitt, Assett Intelligence and Logistics Manager

Tony Ormston, Service Delivery Manager, Repairs and Maintenance

David Foster, Head of Property Services

Nathan Brown, Policy, Intelligence and Research Officer

Angela Melvin, Engagement Manager

Apologies: Tenant members – Kim R, Lisa

1. Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising

The Damp and Mould Policy and the Repairs and Maintenance Policy were both approved at the Cabinet meeting on Monday 25 November.

Notes of the last meeting are also published on the Our North Tyneside Voice website, alongside those for all our tenant panels.

2. Performance scorecard

NB shared the draft scorecard, which showed 10 different measures and three figures for each in a table format:

September 2024 performance
Year-to-date performance
Target

The measures cover percentages of different repair categories completed within target time, gas safety, number of working days to complete repairs jobs, jobs where follow-up visits were required, cancellations and homes meeting the Moving In Standard.

The panel were asked to comment on the information, its presentation, and give their views. Feedback was:

Graphs/charts would help people to understand the data more easily
A rating of Red/Amber/Green would highlight what was going well and what wasn’t
Make it clear what the target was so we can focus on only those below target
Percentages could be based on a low number of jobs and there’s no way of recognising that from the data. An actual figure would help.
Clarification between what is classed as ‘urgent’ and ‘emergency’ repairs would help.
Could we have some benchmarking information on how other organisations perform so we know what good looks like
Could there be an indicator of the number of days taken to complete repairs in empty homes, before they can be re-let?
Could there be an indicator which would show the condition of houses being returned?

There was also discussion around how customer satisfaction feedback for repair jobs is collected. TO replied that we get very few responses to feedback cards, out of around 4,000 repair jobs per month only a few receive feedback.

DF added that the Tenant Satisfaction Measures survey has been out to tenants over the last few weeks, which is a random survey, but it does go to several thousand tenants and gives an opportunity to provide feedback. The new IT system, which will be introduced in 2025, should improve things and there will potentially be an option to provide feedback via text message, which the panel agreed would help.

There was discussion about how to incentivise people to complete it. Other ideas for feedback were via a link on the website to a general form about feedback for repairs, being able to pick up a paper card from one of the libraries to leave in a box there. The panel would like to consider how to encourage feedback in more detail. AM to follow up.

DF suggested showing the overall year-to-date figures, not just the most recent month’s, to show the direction of travel. Where we are consistently exceeding a target, should we adjust that target to challenge ourselves? The panel agreed.

A question was asked around whether reasons for follow-up visits were looked into. TO reported that some can’t be done first time, eg if a part needed to be ordered, or scaffolding. ‘Right first time’ jobs are more efficient for us. NB said he could separate out why a follow up was needed and reflect that in future reports.

TO also gave an example of condensation, damp and mould issues, where the most obvious things would be tried first and it would be tackled in stages. We have a team dedicated to this, separate to the rest of our repairs work, so they can be reported on separately. Lifestyle factors do affect it, eg not opening windows causes condensation. DF added that we need to consider how we provide information to help people help themselves, as everyone’s circumstances are different.

NB will add some measures for damp and mould into the scorecard. It would also be helpful to add in abortive calls – where the team cannot get access to a property, which occurs around 1,000 times per year and there are costs associated with this.

DF suggested keeping a core set of measures, for which the panel will help set the targets, and we can consider specific issues in more detail separately. AM to look at additional sessions to consider specific issues.

The regular scorecard should hold complaints information to understand volume of complaints, themes and learning that can be taken to improve services.

3. Draft Repairs Handbook review

The panel reviewed the draft of the updated repairs handbook in terms of its content and accessibility.

Feedback was:

Some of the terms need better definitions as tenants wouldn’t necessarily know what they are, along with a photo or image to illustrate.
Section 9, home improvements, needs to make clearer that this is set out in the Tenancy Agreement.
Section 10, support to stay in your home, would benefit from a table of the aids/adaptations that are available and the timescales to install.
Section 11, handyperson scheme, can this be offered as a service tenants who didn’t qualify for the free service could pay for?
Section 14, There needs to be more detail in the handbook around condensation, mould and damp – what each of those terms actually mean, what people can do to prevent it and how the repairs service would respond to it.
Include QR codes to let people easily link to how-to videos or web links.
Where web links are included in the text, it also needs to have alongside how to access that information if you are not online.
Contact details for the repairs service and the emergency repairs service should be nearer the front. The emergency number needs clarifying as it’s the same as the regular number.
Contact details need to have a text service number, or how people with a hearing impairment could contact the team.
The table in the appendix with tenant/landlord responsibilities was very helpful.

TO/LN will take these comments and incorporate them into an updated draft, which will be shared with the panel.

4. Draft Chargeable Repairs Policy review

The panel reviewed the draft of the updated repairs handbook in terms of its content and accessibility. Feedback was:

Section 1, list of documents, should be links to these or details of how to request paper copies.
Section 4, proactive prevention, needs to include condensation and damp.
Section 5, applying charges, clarify who/what determines if a repair is an emergency or urgent. References to ‘health and safety’ and ‘security matters’ need to be clearer.
Section 6, appeals process, needs to state how long the process takes

5. Suggestions for topics the group would like to cover:

How to get feedback from repairs visits and improvement work
No access issues/abortive calls
Fixed wire testing
Repairs reporting process and call handling
Condensation, damp and mould issues
Review of stock condition
Voids process/empty homes
Plans for affordable homes
Review of materials/choices on home improvement works
Complaints information
Investment specifications
TSM perception measures
Review of the self-help on the website

The project team for the new IT system, Unified, will be looking to engage with tenants around February/March and panel members can get involved with that too if they wish.

AM to follow up.

6. Future ways of working

The engagement team is introducing a standardised approach to all our tenant panels. From the start of the 2025-26 cycle of meetings, the aim is for panel members to receive information ahead of each meeting relating to performance and complaints relevant to the panel’s remit, so they can better scrutinise the service.

A standardised terms of reference will also be developed, to cover membership, responsibilities and code of conduct. AM asked if a tenant would like to chair the panel and will send a reminder before the next panel.