Agenda item

·       2023/24 Reports are attached.

·       Q1 Performance 2024/25 is to follow.

The Housing Strategy and Development Officer presented the report of the Tenant Satisfaction Measures (TSM) to the Group.  The TSM was introduced by the UK Government in April 2023; it was designed to monitor the provision of quality homes and services by landlords and understand how to make improvements.

For the last year, data on the tenant satisfaction surveys have been brought to the Group.  Attached as Appendices 1 and 2 were the final reports outlining performance against the TSMs for 2023/24.  Data was being gathered for 2024/25, with the survey to be sent to all tenants.  An update on Q1 2024/25 data would be presented to the following Group’s meeting.

For the perception report attached as Appendix 1, there were new regulations which required every landlord to provide information annually to the regulator on the set measures.  The deadline on this had been 30^th June, and the Council had successfully submitted the data.  This data had also been made available online for all tenants to access.

Responses had been primarily from older tenants.  Guidance from the Regulator of Social Housing stated results needed to be as representative of the tenant population as possible.  To achieve this, the results had been weighted to adjust for correct proportions of respondents.

While the weighted results were lower than the original, all but 2 indicators remained well above average.

The Chair sought more information on the 2 results that had fallen below target.  The Housing Strategy and Development Officer explained those that had fallen marginally below target were TP05, “Satisfaction that the home is safe” (87%, with 88% being the target (the unweighted measure was above target at 88.9%)) and TP08, “Agreement that the landlord treats tenants fairly and with respect” (83.8%, with 85% being the target (the unweighted measure was on target at 85.2%)).

The Council had achieved an average of 80%, with the national average below this.  The Assistant Director Housing Management and Enforcement added the national data would also be reviewed by the regulator and published October 2024; this would enable the Council’s performance to be directly compared with other areas.

The Chair and a Tenant sought to know why tenants were not satisfied that their homes were safe.  The Housing Strategy and Development Officer reiterated that 87% was still very high, with the Assistant Director Housing Management and Enforcement adding comments could not be collected at the point of asking for feedback; the parameters of the survey required a level playing field for all tenants in all areas.  However, the next survey would be sent to every tenant, and this would request the tenants’ reference number to provide more background detail to each complaint.

The Chair and a Tenant agreed there remained the need to understand why a tenant might feel unsafe in the home.  The Customer Service, Complaints and Standards Manager stated that the Contact Centre was the initial contact of the Council and that live feedback in the future would be collected.  Live feedback was now being collected for email and webchat, with phone call feedback to be collected soon.  This data would be reported to the Group and the Customer Services Scrutiny Committee in the future.

The Housing Strategy and Development Officer stated that after the 30^th June 2024 deadline, Tpas had carried out a straw poll of 60 landlord websites.  While landlords did not need to have their information on their websites for that deadline, almost half had nothing and those that had the results were mixed.  There were negative comments on how information was presented, concerns on the language, information being oversimplified, etc., and the reports did not necessarily provide the methodology to support results.  The Council felt reassured its response to the criteria had been to a very high standard.

A Tenant asked if the Council would now address the areas it had fallen behind on (with the weighted results).  The Assistant Director Housing Management and Enforcement explained there had been no referral with regards repairs to the Ombudsman, and that the Council investigated and responded to any/all complaints.

A Tenant theorised if, with regards Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), the high number of complaints was because of residents not understanding due process.

To a Member’s question, the Housing Strategy and Development Officer explained the Council had received no response from those living in sheltered housing, hence the lack of data.

For the management information measures attached as Appendix 2, the Housing Strategy and Development Officer informed the group with regards complaints responded to within Complaint Handling Code timescales, the previous policy had been 15 working days but was now 10; the Council had met its own timescale at the time the complaints had been received.

Other results in the tables listed on Pages 50-51 were classed as “amber”; these were just below set targets.

With the work being undertaken in the Independent Living Scheme, some homes without tenants were currently being refurbished, and in one building the lift check had not taken place (also due to refurbishment).  As a result, while these did register as below standard, this was due to ongoing work delaying required safety checks.

The Chair stated some repairs often did not go ahead due to tenants agreeing on a time but then not being available; this was not necessarily the Council’s fault but negatively affected the target result.

The Housing Strategy and Development Officer stated the results from surveys being carried might not correspond with the Group’s meetings, but findings would still be reported at the following meeting.

The Chair left the meeting.