The Committee decided to undertake an enquiry into the use of secured under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘Section 106 monies’).  The enquiry is intending to consider where the monies are being spent across the District, what schemes are being supported through those monies, the process for monitoring use of such monies and the governance of choices of schemes/scheme details approval.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Councillor Paul Honeywood, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee; responding to questions on the items referenced here.  The Assistant Director for Housing and Environment was also present and addressed the Committee on the matters here.

The term ‘Voids’ reflates to untenanted Council Homes and most commonly occurred between one tenant leaving the property and a new tenant moving in.  Void works was therefore the required refurbishment etc works before the new tenant moved into the property after the previous tenant had left.

Implementation of the New Maintenance Contract

The Committee received a report in relation to the new responsive repairs term contract and how the appointed contractor had commenced responsibility for void works on 05 April 2021. Officers considered that was appropriate to make allowance during the initial stages of the contract and some initial performance issues had been discussed with the contractor.

It was reported to the Committee that the initial set up period of the contract had ended in July 2021 and liquidated damages provisions in the contract would start to take effect from that point. The damages level was set to allow for lost rent and increased administrative and other costs but would apply only to the period during which the contractor had control of the properties. The time allowed for works within the contract was related to the extent of works required with a series of thresholds providing different timescales for different levels of work.

Once contract arrangements became fully established it was hoped that all properties would be returned within timescale or any delay offset, financially, by the liquidated damages provisions.

The detail of the contract provisions, including the liquidated damaged provisions relating to the contractor, could be provided to the Committee if that was requested.

Points raised following the All Member Briefing in April 2021

1.   “Expected inspection rate of a TDC property and what was the actual inspection rate”?

Members heard how the repairs and estates services for individual properties operated on an essentially responsive basis. Regular visits to dwellings did take place in the form of annual gas servicing and safety visits, electrical and detector testing and servicing and, away from those visits, the teams respond to concerns raised by tenants.   Some Committee Members asked about the potential for reports to the Council from its gas/electrical service checks as to concerns about maintenance of the properties inspected.  The Assistant Director for Housing and Environment indicated that such reports could be actioned.

The potential for additional inspections had been considered both in response to the voids condition question but also in relation to potential disrepair claims. That would however introduce additional costs that have to be assessed against the likely benefits achieved.

In response to a line of questioning, the assistant Director for Housing and Environment reported that some initial consideration had been given to a full stock condition survey of the Council’s residential properties which could be outsourced for a relatively speedy survey or brought in-house with additional resource to the existing team and conducted over a longer period of time.  The Portfolio Holder indicated that if such stock condition surveys identified additional works were needed the Council would need to address the funding of those additional works.  Such a survey could assist the Council with its Net Carbon Neutral Climate Change pledge. Further consideration of this concept would need to be given.

2.   “What percentage of returned properties are left empty, clean and requiring no repairs caused by resident damage”?

The Committee was advised that it was very rare for properties to be returned clean, empty and free from defect. In 2020/1 the Void maintenance costs built up was:

£0-£500                            5 Properties

£500-£1000                      8 Properties

£1000-£5000                    73 Properties

£5-0000- £10,000            54 Properties

£10,000- £20,000            19 properties

Over £20,000                   1 Property

The average cost of words on void properties was not available at the meeting.

A Councillor referenced that, using the above figures, the cost of maintenance for the ‘worst’ 20 properties was likely to be between £210,000 and £400,000.  Members of the Committee considered that some mechanism for achieving reports on those properties, and recovering those costs from the former tenants, would therefore help reduce that financial penalty going forward.

3.   “Annual cost of clearing / cleaning / repairing properties left in a poor state by residents, and how much of this money is reclaimed annually”?

1. The total cost of clearing properties was £177,000
2. The total cost of all void works was £937,082
3. No cost was reclaimed from any former tenant in 2020/21

The Committee was advised that a revised tenant recharge policy had been agreed earlier that year that set out the circumstances in which attempts would be made to recover costs from former tenants. However, to date no recharges under the policy had been made to former tenants.

Void Duration

The assistant Director for Housing and Environment reported that there were, at the date of the meeting 179 void Council dwellings; 130 were general stock dwellings and the remaining 49 were in the sheltered housing stock.  Of those 61 were ready to be re-let to new tenants. The average time dwellings were void was not reported to the Committee.

It was reported to the Committee that 2020/21 saw an increase in the length of time properties remained vacant. Largely that was attributable, it was said, to the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions placed on the letting of properties and the ability and desire from people to move home. However, the Committee was advised that the Council’s void rate had increased prior to the pandemic. It was said that other stock retained councils had reported a rise in void properties during 2020.

The requirement to work from home had an impact of the Allocations Team and there was no doubt in the minds of officers that the process of letting properties became more challenging and time consuming over the last 12 months or so.

It was also reported to the Committee that Void maintenance works were slowed during the pandemic to some degree in the general housing stock and paused altogether (save for safety work) in the sheltered units. Rental income lost as a result of void properties for the 2020/21 financial year would be published within the financial performance report in September 2021.

Members heard that in February 2021 an officer working group was set up to address the increase in void times and consequent financial loss. A new monitoring system had been introduced that allowed the allocations and building services teams to share data and track progress with individual properties. Previously that data had been held separately. Some operational processes had also been streamlined.

At the time of writing the report, the end of the first quarter of the financial year 2021/22 had not been reached although officers were optimistic that the void rental loss would show improvement that would continue throughout the year.

The Committee was advised that the month of July 2021 had seen a significant focus on letting the properties that were available and developing a strategy for letting vacant sheltered flats and lower demand properties. Additionally, new housing allocations software would be introduced that would improve the process of managing the housing register and allocating vacant properties. Implementation of that system had been delayed due to technical difficulties identified during testing.

Achievement of a 2% void rate

Previously a 2 – 3% void rate was achieved and on that basis officers believe it is possible to return to that level, especially in respect of general stock housing. Due to the age and nature of some of our sheltered housing schemes it may be more difficult to achieve a lower rate without more drastic action.

Comparisons of void rates with other stock retained Councils were not presented to the Committee as officers considered that these could be misleading. Nonetheless, achieving a return to this Council’s 2% figure appeared possible in light of the rates reported by others.

After an in-depth discussion on the matter there was unanimous RESOLUTION to continue the enquiry of this matter through organised but informal remote meetings of the Committee’s Members and appropriate officers/the Portfolio Holder, as there were a number of items that it had not been possible to conclude at this formal meeting as identified above.    The outcome of the informal remote meetings would be presented to the next/a future meeting of the Committee.