Agenda item

As resolved at full Council on 18 February 2021, the Committee are asked to receive information about delays to housing repairs in the District.

The Committee received a detailed presentation from the Head of Operational Services and the Property Services Manager, which explained the process involved in the repair and maintenance of the housing stock within the District, the Council’s day to day repairs policy which followed government guidance, the Covid risk assessments undertaken, along with an overview of the current data on the backlog of housing repairs.

The Committee was informed that the Council were responsible for responsive day to day repairs, bringing void properties back up to standard, and a housing improvement programme.  It was explained that there were three categorises of repairs, emergency repairs which were required to prevent a serious risk to health and safety, these would be carried out within 24 hours; urgent repairs, those that required attention but were no risk to health and safety, these would be carried out within 5 days; and finally, non-urgent repairs which would have little effect on the property and would be carried out within 25 days.

The Head of Operational Services further explained that the area of most concern was the day-to-day repairs, as a backlog had arisen due to the Covid pandemic.  During the first lockdown in March 2020 only emergency repairs had been undertaken; urgent and routine repairs were put on hold, and void works continued but under strict ‘social distancing’ guidelines.  Members heard that from July until the second lockdown in November 2020 the number of outstanding repairs had been reduced, however following the implementation of further lockdowns, non-urgent repairs were once again suspended.

Members noted that of the 15,754 repairs raised since April 2020, 1,383 day to day repairs were outstanding: these related to 924 properties.

The Committee raised concerns again around housing repairs, which it was felt were not being undertaken in a timely manner. 

Members had a number of queries about the housing repair delays, in relation to what percentage of the housing repair team were Council trades staff as opposed to private sub-contractors, it was confirmed that there was a mix of both Council staff and contractors, which depended on the nature of the job, and the volume and scale of the work involved.  It was further confirmed that the Council repairs team were mainly joiners and plumbers and consisted of 20 staff, however some members of the team were shielding or on amended duties due to medical conditions.

In terms of the urgent and non-urgent repairs it was queried if the Council would use a mixture of Council staff and contractors to complete the work, Members heard that, yes, a mix of staff would be used as once the property had been inspected the repair required could require more substantial work than when first reported by the tenant.

Members acknowledged that during the first lockdown repair work ceased while risk assessments were adapted, and having come out of lockdown, repair work re-commenced, and the number of repairs reduced significantly.

It was queried why with the implementation of further lockdowns the non-urgent repairs were once again suspended. The Head of Operational Services explained that this was to ensure that both tenants and Council employees were protected, as if an employee had attended a property and had been asymptomatic with Covid-19, they could have spread the disease unknowingly.

The Property Services Manager took Members through the housing capital improvement programme and explained that during the first lockdown all planned works had been suspended as the Council’s external contractors had put their respective workforces on furlough.  Members noted that following lockdown most contractors started to operate again in August 2020, however 45% of tenants, once contacted, declined to have contractors attend the properties due to Covid.

Members raised concerns regarding the training of the Council staff who logged the repair calls received from tenants and stated that communication was critical, and that the correct questions were asked to ensure that the repair was put into the correct category of repair.

A question was raised regarding the required risk assessments, officers confirmed that the Council had to be a model of best practice.

Officers informed the Committee that capacity within the repairs team had also been impacted, with three staff vacancies and other staff members being shielded, therefore repairs were being prioritised on a basis of urgency.  It was confirmed that since the report had been written progress had been made in terms of a new structure for the service and recruitment had commenced.

Members heard that as the Council sought to recover from the national lockdowns resulting from Covid-19, Property Services were seeking to recruit to five staff vacancies, there would be increased overtime provision for current staff, along with additional temporary staff to work solely on the backlog of non-urgent repairs which had built up while works had been suspended.

Queries were raised with regard to the 45% of tenants who had refused to have work done and what numbers of people this equated to, if the work was classed as capital work and if so, were they separate to repairs.  It was explained that the capital work and repairs all linked together, as quite often when the team attended the property a temporary repair was made which was then followed up with a replacement.

The Chair requested that the figures be amended to show how long the 1383 repairs had been on the books; and the capital fund for major projects figures be separated from the general repair’s figures. 

Concerns were raised that some repair works would not have been internal, such as painting, repairs to fencing, double-glazed windows, along with adaptations and referrals for joint working with North Yorkshire County Council.

Members requested further information around the proportion of repairs that were met within the Council targets, comparisons to previous periods, and what was the total housing stock with the Selby District.  In terms of improvements, did an improvement affect the amount of rent payable by the tenant, and it was also queried why the Council did not employ their own gas fitters.  Officers confirmed that they would look into the questions, make the data clearer, and circulate a response to the Members after the meeting.

The Chair stressed that Members wished to see the delay in housing repairs improve in a timely fashion, and recognised that Councillors and officers must work together to highlight any issues, and to support tenants within the District.

RESOLVED:

i)                To note the presentation and information around delays to housing repairs in the Selby District.

ii)              To ask officers to revisit the figures in the report and separate out the Capital Improvement Programme figures from the repair figures.

iii)             To ask officers to provide figures showing, of the 1383 repairs outstanding, how long they had been logged.

iv)             To ask officers to provide further information around the proportion of repairs that were met within the Council targets, comparisons to previous periods, and figures for the total housing stock within the Selby District.

Councillor R Sweeting left the meeting at this point and did not return.