Agenda item

6.1

The Committee received a report of the Challenge for Change (C4C) Tenant Scrutiny Group, which provided a progress update on the recommendations made by the Group in its report on Vacant Property Services, which had been presented to the Committee in July 2015.

6.2

In attendance for this item were Jason Siddall (Repairs and Maintenance Manager), Suzanne Allen (Head of Citywide Neighbourhood Services), Tina Gilbert (Assistant Manager, Communities) and Linda Moxon and Max Richardson (C4C representatives). 

6.3

Jason Siddall and Suzanne Allen took the Committee through the report, which was presented in the form of a table providing an update on progress in relation to each of the recommendations. 

6.4

Members made various comments and asked a number of questions, to which responses were provided as follows:-

·                The Council used a turnaround time, covering the period of a property becoming vacant to the new tenant moving in, of 55 days.  This period took everything into consideration, including any major works.  However, the overriding aim was to re-let properties as soon as possible.

·                Properties were repaired to a minimum standard which was published, and in some cases a decoration allowance may be offered.  In all cases properties should be fit for let, but it should be recognised that people had different aspirations, particularly in relation to decor. 

·                Any replaced locks were of the anti-snap type. 

·                Whilst there was no minimum handback standard, it was expected that properties would be in a reasonable condition.  Attempts were always made to try and conduct an inspection prior to handback and officers would work with tenants to resolve any issues.  It was also possible to recharge outgoing tenants.

·                The 55 day turnaround period was well understood and was felt to be an open and honest time estimate.

·                Environmental issues such as litter and the condition of gardens were important in the less popular areas of the City.

·                Pictures of properties on the Council website only showed the outside, but consideration was being given to also showing internal images.

·                In relation to tenant modifications, anything advantageous to a new tenant would be retained, such as a new kitchen or bathroom.  Tenants would initially need permission to modify the property and in some cases compensation may be payable.

·                Properties which had been adapted for disabled tenants would be advertised as such and it was expected that such properties would be in more demand due to the ageing population.  Purpose-built accommodation was now being built for disabled tenants.

·                Whilst there was always a minimum lettable standard, some properties in high demand locations would only be brought up to a health and safety standard.  In less popular areas, the standard may be tailored to make the property more attractive and this could be done on an estate or street level.

·                It was possible to address situations where vulnerable individuals did not have adequate furniture through the use of charities, grants and furnished tenancies.

·                Officers worked with tenants in relation to the removal of rubbish from gardens and the introduction of Housing+ would ensure a more tailored approach in this regard.

·                Carpets would only be included in the let as an exception.

·                Officers decided on the different cleaning standards which would apply to individual properties.

·                There was provision for identifying sensitive lets, for instance in the case of vulnerable individuals who may be given advice to contact other agencies and in extreme circumstances bids may be bypassed where it was felt that a particular property or area was unsuitable for the prospective tenant.

·                People were asked for their reasons for refusal of a property one week after their decision, to allow a period of reflection and consequently obtain more genuine responses.  Officers tried to be realistic in terms of tenants’ future opportunities and it was recognised that some had higher expectations.

6.5

The C4C representatives commented that they would have been put off by the defects in some of the properties they had inspected as part of their C4C work and expressed concern at the length of time that properties were left vacant, with the consequent loss of rent. 

6.6

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       thanks those attending for their contribution to the meeting, particularly the Challenge for Change representatives;

(b)       notes the contents of the report, comments made and responses to questions; and

(c)        requests that a copy of the minimum letting standards be sent to the Policy and Improvement Officer for circulation to Committee Members.