Agenda item

Rod Smith – Head of Housing & Tenancy Management, and Marion Finney – Regulation and Engagement Manager, addressed the Committee to provide information to aid the Committee’s review. External witness in attendance were Mr Alan Clark - clerk to the Leasehold Association, Mrs Ros Jorge - Tenant representative, and Ms Natalie Lindsay - Tenant representative.

Officers outlined the results of a sample survey of 100 tenants and leaseholders. Of those surveyed, 77% were tenants, with 23% leaseholders; and had covered a wide variety of age, location and length of engagement with the Council. The questions asked mirrored those included in the STAR survey, which would survey circa 50% of the entire 13k customer base. The survey was confirmed as currently underway,  and was expected to result in a return of 10%. The STAR survey, owing to its larger audience, would provide a greater level of detail from which further analysis could be undertaken, with a view to informing future strategy.

Feedback from the sample survey highlighted that the majority of respondents were broadly satisfied with the way in which Hillingdon was communicating with them. However, the data suggested there was room for improvement in all areas, and especially regarding how the service was liaising with residents prior to decisions being made, with officers suggesting that the service should prioritise ‘consulting’ with residents, rather than simply ‘informing’ them.

Some of the barriers preventing residents from becoming more involved in housing and other community activities within their local areas included a lack of time, disability or health, and a lack of awareness of how to become more involved. Overall, officers considered that the number of respondents who were willing to engage with the Council was positive.

Information was also provided by the external witnesses in attendance.

Mrs Jorge, a resident of Sutcliffe House, had been active in the community and with the Council through such bodies as the Better Neighbourhood team, Townfield Community Committee, among others, and who had undertaken a street/estate champion role.

Mr Clark, the clerk to the Leaseholders Association, was actively engaging with the Council on behalf of the Association’s 3k members.

Mrs Lindsay, a resident of Avondale Drive, had previously engaged with the Council through training initiatives to improve job prospects, as well as acting as secretary for her estate committee.

Feedback from the residents regarding their estates was that the estates were often in a state of disrepair or untidiness, with lifts often unusable or grounds suffering from a lack of maintenance. In addition, antisocial behaviour, including drug abuse, harassment, rough sleeping or entry by non-residents, was common. Additionally, it was felt that there was a lack of community sports and leisure activities provided, particularly for women and young people, which if in place, could foster stronger community ties, and promote mental and physical health.

In such instances, the witnesses would endeavour to contact the Council to report the issues on behalf of their community. However, where previously it had been easier to reach a specific officer directly, who would listen and understand the problem before acting to resolve it, contacting the Council now was often through the call centre, which then routed the resident to a department. Responses from those departments was often insufficient or delayed, with a lack of urgency to resolve issues and a lack of subsequent progress updates. In some instances, issues were not resolved at all. Mr Clark did highlight that, through his role as clerk, he maintained a list of Council officer contacts that he could reach directly, without having to go through the call centre.

It was suggested that a lack of officer numbers, and therefore officer time, could

be responsible for these difficulties, together with the Council’s reduction of meetings of bodies such as local housing forums, senate meetings, etc. It was suggested that the provision of a contact list to reach specific officers could go some way to addressing residents’ difficulties when contacting the Council. 

Feedback was that residents felt undervalued by the Council, and not listened to, and that more should be done to engage and empower residents through two-way communication and community involvement. Additionally, the Council needed to be seen to demonstrate firm, timely action where necessary, for example the addressing of antisocial behaviour, as resident perception was that not enough was being done to resolve such issues.

Officers advised that often, the Council would carry out a statutory consultation prior to decisions being made/acted upon, which was the legal minimum required. It was accepted that more could be done to provide a true collaborative approach to engagement, focussing on the priorities for tenants and leaseholders.

Officers advised that the feedback received would be used to inform the new engagement strategy, which, Members were reminded, was at a very early stage of formation. Officers suggested that the recommendations to Cabinet resulting from this review could include recognising the value of good quality engagement, together with the instruction to create and maintain of a range of engagement options which promoted and valued resident involvement and feedback through actions residents were comfortable with. In addition, it was recognised that Council resources should be aligned to the resolution of matters that were of importance to tenants and leaseholders.

The Committee thanked residents and officers for the information provided.