homes for haringey public papers board of directors ... · tuesday 28 march 2017 meeting: 18:30 –...

Homes for Haringey

Public Papers

Board of Directors Meeting

Tuesday 28 March 2017 Meeting: 18:30 – 20:30

Conference Room 1 – 48 Station Road, Wood Green

Item Subject Presenter Status Page Time

1 Welcome and apologies Chair Public - 18.30 2 IIP Gold presentation Bruce McRae Public - 18.31

Standing Items

3 Declarations of interest Chair Public - 19.00 4 Minutes of the meeting held on 28

February 2017 Chair Public 1 19.01

5 Actions log Chair Public 12 19.03 6 Chair’s report (verbal) Chair Public - 19.10 7 Managing Director’s report Managing Director Public 21 19.15 8 Health and safety exception report Director of Asset

Management Public - 19.25

Decision Items

9 Budget 2017/18 Financial Controller Public 24 19.30 10 Performance management framework Head of Business

Improvement Public 28 19.45

Discussion Items

11 Performance report a) People focus (presentation) b) Exception report & KPI dashboard

Director of Corporate Affairs / Head of

Business Improvement

Public

31

19.50

12 Legal action update Head of Business Improvement

Confidential 37 20.15

13 Audit & Risk committee minutes Cllr Dave Beacham Confidential 39 20.20 14 Any other business Chair Confidential - 20.25

Board of Management Meeting Tuesday 28 March 2017

Conference Room 1, 1st Floor 48 Station Road, Wood Green, London, N22 7TY

Refreshments: 18.15pm Meeting: 18.30pm

Meeting: Board Meeting

Date: 6.30pm, 28 February 2016

Venue: Conference Room 1, 48 Station Road, Wood Green

Present: Tom McGregor (TM) – Chair, , Georgina Walters (GW), El-Farouk Cheik (EFC), David Beacham (DB), Jenny Coombs (JC), Yvette Davis (YD), Adzowa Kwabla-Oklikah (AKOk)

Officers in Attendance:

Andrew Billany (AB),Chris Liffen (CL), Dawn Kent-Payne (DKP), Harriet Rushton (HR) – Minutes, David Sherrington (DS); Astrid Kjellborg-Obst (AKO), Denise Gandy (DG), Puneet Rajput (PR)

Shareholder: Tracie Evans (TE)

Apologies: Anastasia Bloom (ABl); Joanna Christophides (JCh); Lorna Reith (LR);

Presenting: Lucy Worrell (LW); Chris Woods (CW)

Observing: n/a

Item Minutes Action 13/17 Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest

TM opened the meeting and welcomed CW and LW from Altair who would be presenting their Governance Review findings and answer any questions the board may have. Apologies were noted as above. There were no declarations of interest.

14/17 Altair presentation of governance review LW presented a summary of Altair’s report.

• The review was requested by London Borough of Haringey who desired independent assurance on the resilience of the governance processes of Homes for Haringey (HfH).

• The fact that the board is on a journey of improvement and this has been recognised.

• The Review focused on six main areas and Altair have put forward suggestions for the board to consider based on key trends and current developments within the housing sector: Reduction in board size and composition

Board size is reducing across the sector and there is a greater emphasis on skills based boards over constituency based. There is also an increase in top level officer representation on the board e.g. CEOs or Managing Directors.

1

Key governance documents Some areas to improve good practice and tighten compliance were identified and have been incorporated.

Board effectiveness The dynamics of the board are effective; there is good debate, supportive discussion and effective chairing. However, the agendas are long and there were quite a few verbal presentations at the meeting witnessed which the board should consider moving away from.

Relationships - Working together and interface with the Council The relationship between the board and the executive is clearly a positive one. Whilst the relationship between the executive and the council is a good one, there is room to strengthen the relationship between the board and the council.

Board processes The board could consider reducing meeting frequency to bi-monthly so as to allow more focused meetings, concentrating more on strategy and risk. This would require a tightening of agendas and could be supported by strategic discussions outside of the meeting. Regular committee chairs reports are also good practice and the board could consider implementing them. In addition, the board may wish to look at unifying the recruitment process across the three constituency groups.

Committee structure and portfolio arrangements A lean committee structure is currently in place but the board may wish to consider moving away from a portfolio structure as this can lead to silos of knowledge (working against the whole Board understanding a topic). A holistic approach could be considered with task and finish groups created to allow for deep dives into areas where greater board scrutiny is appropriate.

Board discussion focussed around the following:

• Confirmation that some of the straightforward suggestions have already been implemented.

• In relation to the reduction in board size, the board sought more information on the effectiveness of this practice as the current size is average for the sector. Altair explained that a smaller board enables all members to be involved in discussion and can correlate to efficiency and expediency; smaller boards tend to perform better.

• Altair made the board aware that if they reduced size they would have to carefully manage their agenda to ensure the most

2

effective use of time. • The board also requested more information on the

recommendation to unify the recruitment process across constituency types. This question is debated each time the resident elections are approaching. Altair explained that the resident elections have more of a general competency focus than a skills focus. The board should consider ensuring that there should be parity between independent and resident member appointment processes to ensure parity. The board acknowledged the point of balancing skills across all recruitment processes.

• The board enquired of methods of balancing a reduction inboard members with the political environment. CW suggested that if the requirement was to remain a constituency board rather than recruiting purely on skills, the way to ensure a high functioning board would be to seek candidates who are a constituency representative AND have the skills. The board expressed the position that having members with people and community skills and experience is necessary for any ALMO.

• The board thanked Altair for their work in producing this report; ithad given the board and the council confidence and helpful issues to discuss and take forward.

Altair left the meeting at 18.53.

15/17 Minutes of the Meeting 31 January 2017

The Minutes of the meeting held on 31 January were approved as

an accurate record.

16/17 Actions Log

The updates in the log were noted and no questions were raised.

17/17 Chairs Report

TM updated the board on his recent activity: • The changes discussed to the Articles had been agreed by the

shareholder and would be filed with Companies House shortly. • There had been discussions to finalise the Altair report, about the

content of a board away day and portfolio arrangements. The latter two would be progressed shortly.

• TM had met with DG regarding Housing Demand KPI’s.PR

18/17 MD Report

AB presented his report:

3

• At the recent Audit & Risk committee (ARC) meeting it wassuggested that the MD report contain top three risks or highlightsand lowlights and this will be implemented for the next report.

• In relation to a revised strategic plan, this was underway and theboard will be involved in the development process.

• AB asked the board to note the changes at the top structure levelat the council.

• There was positive news in new stock now being available toHomes for Haringey with the completion of Broadwater Lodge.This would save around £500,000 on hostel costs. The issue withwhat rent to charge, mentioned previously, was still beinginvestigated but would not affect Broadwater Lodge incomeunduly.

• In relation to the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV), thedecision would proceed through the council scrutiny processbefore final confirmation of appointment later in the year. It wasthe intention for HfH to work closely with the HDV.

• HfH had been awarded Top Employer status for the eighth yearrunning which was excellent news.

The board noted the report.

AB

19/17 Health and Safety Exception Report

DS presented the board with an update: • At the recent Audit meeting, the committee were informed of a

gas incident. The investigation has been completed which confirmed that it was not a gas explosion but a faulty cooker with a build up of gas. There was some property damage which was being addressed. The resident had not sustained any injuries and would be moved back into their property shortly.

• DS updated the board on the content of the Health and Safetyreport which was discussed at the Audit and Risk Committee. All policies had now been fully updated and the health and safety framework was in place. KPI data was being collected and reported and the focus was now on the final work which needed to be completed in the area of Temporary Accommodation.

• Health and Safety was recognised, following a query by AKOk, asan area which would continue to benefit from having a single portfolio lead from the Board, as well as the agreed oversight at every Board and Audit and Risk Committee. AKOk would be happy to resume regular contact, to supplement the regular reporting approach. CL confirmed this would be appreciated.

The board noted the report and agreed that AKOk would resume Health, Safety & Compliance portfolio duties.

4

20/17 Window Restrictors Proposal

CL presented the report: • The Windows Restrictor Programme arose from a fatality in 2008

and a subsequent coroner’s investigation. As a result, a thorough five year programme of checks was implemented. This had now concluded and an analysis of its effectiveness had been undertaken.

• The rate of replacement for window restrictors equated to 1.5% ofall windows inspected and 4.5% of properties visited. The analysis also showed that communal areas were one of the main risk areas. It was proposed that the proactive programme was not the most effective way to keep the restrictors in good repair and was also disproportionate to need and risk.

• In addition, the current programme was not cost effective, with theproposed alternative providing better repair outcomes as well as reducing the cost of visiting properties unnecessarily.

• The proposal was supported by performance managementanalysis, internal policy, and legal advice attached to the papers.

• It was suggested that the maintenance of window restrictors couldbe better managed in line with our existing processes for managing urgent repairs. Window restrictor repairs would be prioritised as urgent (24 hour priority) for Haringey Repairs Service (HRS) to repair or make safe. Estate Support Officers would also assist in identifying and raising the repairs and all staff would be asked to notify HRS if they noticed a defective window. The cyclical programme would remain for the high risk communal areas.

• There would also be an onus on residents to report defectivewindows and this would be supported by an ongoing targeted communications programme to inform and educate residents.

Board discussion: • The board were keen to ensure that the proposed changes would

actually manage the risk better and more cost effectively – if this had been in place before 2008 would the accident have been avoided? CL explained that the risk assessment of the current programme had illustrated a gap – a restrictor could be repaired then broken and would not be reviewed for another five years unless reported. The new process was more robust and effective at mitigating the risk of a broken restrictor, being focused on the need to identify and respond immediately. Residents would be regularly reminded and any report on a window restrictor treated as a priority. Whilst absolute assurance could not be given that this would not happen again, HfH were confident in light of legal advice that the risk would be better managed under the new proposal. CL would review the coroner’s report to ensure all

5

elements were addressed. • The board asked what key performance indicators would be

monitored to identify success or failure of the initiative. CL confirmed that repair performance would need to be monitored together with reporting rates and monitoring the interest in the educational video.

• The board asked if there were any identifiable trends e.g. totarget certain blocks? CL confirmed that the only trend was an increased risk in communal areas (about 20% of repairs were in communal areas). There was no particular block or archetype which was more at risk. Certain times of year would yield more risk (e.g. when it is getting warmer) but targeted communications programmes could be sent at those points of the year.

• The board asked about the value for money element. CLexplained that the current programme costs were £400,000 per annum and that these would rise to £900,000 per annum by the end of the next cycle. The current repair trend of 1.5% therefore indicated that this was not a cost effective programme. That being said, value for money was not the main driver for the proposal. There was a belief that the current programme did not adequately manage the risk and this was the main reason for the proposed change.

• The board asked about the impact on staff. CL stated that therewere currently three members allocated to this work. By focusing the cyclical programme purely for communal areas meant that the spend would be around £100,000 which was not enough to warrant three members of staff. The staff would therefore be up-skilled to be able to install windows as well. The impact on staff would therefore be low. As per the question GW raised by email, it was confirmed that Estate Services Officers would also be involved in identifying and reporting defects.

• The board asked if a phased out approach would be moreappropriate to lend support to more vulnerable residents. CL explained that a phased out approach was considered but would take almost five years with the volume of properties affected.

• The board emphasised the importance of being able todemonstrate how we are balancing the reduction and reasonably managing the risk. CL confirmed this would occur and that he was committed to making this a successful programme and reporting regularly on progress and effectiveness.

• The board emphasised the importance of thoroughcommunications, especially with minority groups, vulnerable residents and those who have no access to the internet. They requested regular monitoring of the programme via the health and safety reporting at ARC.

The board approved the new window restrictor maintenance

CL

DS

6

programme.

21/17 Performance report – Property & asset management focus

CL presented the key highlights of report: • The service had become more efficient and more streamlined.

Customer satisfaction with repairs, repairs completed right first time and satisfaction with capital works were current areas of focus for performance improvement.

• Repairs history was now linked with asset management and stockinvestment plans to enable smarter working. The asset management approach would become an active approach with learning from the repairs teams.

• A new IT system (Service Connects) for job and operativemanagement went live on 27 February. A pre-board session would be arranged to demonstrate this to the board.

• In relation to the capital programme, the aim was to movetowards a five year programme and budget which would allow flexibility of works projects, consultation with residents on proposals and about what is important to them, as well as proper projections and planning rather than the short-term annual plan that currently exists.

• Annual maintenance key performance indicators (KPIs) werebeing developed for inclusion in the performance management framework.

• There were plans to reduce the repairs budget by £500,000 forthe next two financial years via smarter working. Work was being undertaken by the surveying team to identify high usage and low usage areas and to see where the Operations team could assist in the low usage.

• Procurement practices were being reviewed to drive efficienciesand combine disparate programmes to ensure the best value for money from any one tender.

Board discussion focused on: • The board asked about current level of repairs work and the

validity of the data. CL stated that approximately 90% of the repairs jobs were live within the new system which was a great improvement on the last system.

• The board asked about plans for improving customer satisfactionwith general repairs. CL explained that historically satisfaction surveys took place just after a job was completed whilst the operative was still present, so had the potential for tenants to avoid giving negative scores in front of the person who had done the work. We are now using an external provider and reviewing the assessments for trend analysis and reasons for dissatisfaction. We were also in discussions with the provider about the market-

CL

7

place behaviours to see if we should be measuring satisfaction on a different scale, for example, to have a simpler ‘yes/no’ measure of whether someone was happy with the job or not. (The current system sometimes has a low score for someone who is satisfied with the job, because they have a wider concern about their home or neighbourhood).

• The board queried several RAG (Red/Amber/Green) statuses. CLexplained that these were coloured according to the KPI monitor for the year in which the results were produced. It was acknowledged this was confusing and would be reviewed for the new financial year.

• The board asked where approval for the Asset Management Plansat as it had been under discussion for a long time. DS confirming that the Council’s P5 group would be reviewing this shortly for hopeful sign-off. The budget position was still under review and once that was finalised the plan might need to be refreshed to reflect how best to manage the programme in light of the decision.

• The board asked about the position with the contractor, Echelon,who had reviewed the repairs service in 2012. CL confirmed that they had been invited back for benchmarking and this should be completed by April. Their report would provide suggestions for improvement, benchmark us against private and public competitors and provide assurance to the council as to our service offering.

• The board asked about the RIDDOR figure and whether thetarget for accidents should actually be zero. DS confirmed he would review the RIDDOR figure and that if there were zero accidents that could mean a lack of reporting which would be concerning. DS was also asked to review the Non RIDDOR performance figure of 30 incidents which seemed low compared to the previous year’s figure of 141.

• The board questioned the non-decent homes percentage andasked for clarification. DS explained that a review had just been completed. The figure included homes that were made decent at the start and have now come around in the cycle of decency to non decency. They were all factored into the new programme. CL informed the board that the HCA (Homes and Communities Agency) regulator had reviewed this area recently and reported positively, finding nothing to concern them in the ‘serious detriment’ test of residents living in these properties.

• In relation to the Property Improvement Plan and AssetManagement Plan, these were both large documents but could be shared with the board on request.

The board thanked CL for an informative and comprehensive report; confirming this area was one that required additional board focus in, for

DS

8

example, a portfolio type arrangement and would be added to the agenda for the away day discussions.

The chair confirmed that the performance focus for the next meeting would be on our performance as an employer, and the people we employ.


22/17 KPI Dashboard

AB presented the report: • The majority of KPIs were on track to be on target• The current priority for the Council’s monitoring team, and the

Executive Team, was on void re-let time. The number ofproperties becoming void had fluctuated considerably over theyear, making it problematic to programme works effectively. Thismeant that there were often large volumes of propertiesbecoming vacant together which presented logistical challengesin mobilising labour at relative short notice.

• AKO explained that there was a lot of work being done toimprove performance and that the average at the end of the yearshould be 27 days.

• The board asked what would resolve this problem, apart fromrecruiting additional staff, could work be done in situ? CLexplained that only limited work could be done in situ and that itusually took longer as work has to be done around the residentrather than working in an unoccupied property. There was a tradeoff between turn-around time and cost; driving one down had anopposite impact on the other.

• The board asked about financial related KPIs. PR explained thatfinancial performance was monitored through managementaccounts reports to the board. However, key financial indicatorscould be added to the board dashboard as well.

• TM requested a discussion on temporary accommodation arrearswith AKO outside of the meeting due to time constraints.


PR

AKO

23/17 Safeguarding Progress Briefing – privileged item removed from public display

24/17 Recent Media Stories Update – commercially confidential item removed from public display

25/17 AOB

9

• The chair would circulate proposals for portfolios to the board forcomment in advance of the away day.

• Suggested dates for an away day would be circulated to theboard to check availability.

Confidential Legal Update – removed from public display

TM

PR

Meeting closed – 20:41

Signed:

Date:

10

Action log

Date of meeting

Agenda item

Action Action owner

Target completion

date

Status and comments

10/05/2016 AOB 4 Report to come to board to flesh out the proposal that a co-opted member of RCP joins Audit and Risk Committee.

HR June 2016 Mar- 17 Apr-17

This is currently on hold pending the board’s review of board and committee composition.

27/09/2016 5 Arrange for LBH governance lead to present to full new board

PR/TE Nov-16 May-17 Sept-17

This will be arranged for autumn 2017

01/11/2016 0 AKO to update board at conclusion of 6 month contact centre improvement plan

AKO Mar-17 Complete

06/12/2016 5 It was agreed that further feedback would be sought and a revised risk register presented to the board for approval.

PR Feb-17 May - 17

The Audit and Risk committee approved a revised risk register on 21 February. This will be presented to the board in May.

06/12/2016 8 Safeguarding item AKO Jan-17 Mar-17 May-17

Confidential action removed

Summary of Decisions 28 February 2017

Agenda Item No. Decision

Minutes of the meeting 31 January 2017 15/17 Minutes were agreed as an accurate record

Window restrictor safety proposal 20/17 The proposed review programme for window restrictor safety was approved

11

Action log

Date of meeting

Agenda item

Action Action owner

Target completion

date

Status and comments





06/12/2016 12 Legal Update DKP Mar-17 Sept-17


31/01/2017 01/17 Governance Review PR Mar-17

31/01/2017 07/17 Initiate recruitment of board chair PR Feb-17 Complete – A recruitment panel is in place and a consultant has been appointed to support the process.

31/01/2017 08/17 Review satisfaction performance trajectory after results of leaseholder survey analysed

AKO Mar-17

31/01/2017 12/17 Arrange away day to discuss governance review paper and previous away day discussions.

PR Feb-17 This is in progress to be scheduled in April.


12

Action log

Date of meeting

Agenda item

Action Action owner

Target completion

date

Status and comments

28/02/2017 18/17 MD report to contain top three risks or highlights and lowlights

AB From Mar-17 onwards

Complete – this has been included in the current report and will be a regular feature.

28/02/2017 20/17 Window restrictor – original coroner’s report to be reviewed to ensure all recommendations were addressed

CL May-17

28/02/2017 20/17 Health and safety report to Audit to incorporate window restrictor programme monitoring

DS May-17

28/02/2017 21/17 Pre-board briefing to demonstrate new Property IT system

CL/PR May-17 This will be scheduled for the May meeting.

28/02/2017 21/17 Review Non RIDDOR figure for accuracy

DS Mar-17

28/02/2017 21/17 Inclusion of Property in new portfolio arrangements

PR Apr-17 To be discussed at the board away day in April.

28/02/2017 22/17 Key financial indicators to be added to the board dashboard

PR Mar-17 Complete – this has been added to the dashboard.

28/02/2017 22/17 TM requested a discussion on TA arrears

AKO ASAP Complete

28/02/2017 23/17 Performance focus for next meeting to be on people

PR Mar-17 Complete – presentations are scheduled for the meeting.

28/02/2017 23/17 Distribution of suggested portfolio arrangements to the board

TM ASAP Complete

28/02/2017 23/17 Provisional away day dates to be sent to the board.

PR ASAP Complete

13

Report for Board of Management

Title Managing Director’s Report

Agenda item 7

Report for Discussion

Classification Public

Report author Andrew Billany, Managing Director

Contact email [email protected]

Contact telephone 020 8489 4260

Portfolio / Board lead N/A

Development of New Homes and Regeneration in Haringey

1. As the proposals for the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV) progress,discussions are under way around how Homes for Haringey will play a part in itsregeneration and housing plans. A new ‘Officer’ Board has been set up by theCouncil to run alongside the HDV, offer advice to the Cabinet and Executiveleadership, and to help to make sure the plans deliver the best outcomes forHaringey (both for the Council and its residents). I have been asked to sit on thisBoard, so will gain a close insight into progress, as well as being able to commentand help shape the plans. It is planned that the Homes for Haringey Board willhave a chance to consider the broader and strategic HfH position at the plannedAway Day at the end of April.

2. Most immediately, we are involved in the way the details of the HDV are discussedwith residents, with an early focus on Northumberland Park. We also are keen toget into early discussions about the proposed phases of the development so thatwe can plan a programme of rehousing (‘decants’) and establish a strong case forthe type and amount of affordable housing to be made available to our clientgroups in the proposed plans. Financially, also, the impact on the Council’sHousing Revenue Account is something highly relevant to our operational andinvestment work, and we will involve the Board closely as this becomes clearer andas options arise.

3. Separate to the HDV, it has also been agreed by the Council that SanctuaryHousing Association will be developing new affordable homes (rented and sharedownership) on sites owned by the Council. These are mainly on ‘housing’ land,and include garage and infill sites on our estates. The sites are well suited forpermanent housing, so are not considered for our work to explore temporaryhousing use, such as modular homes. We will provide details of this as part of a

14

mailto:[email protected]

future briefing, but there have been recent questions to the Council asking why these sites have gone to Sanctuary, rather than to HfH. (This is largely because this type of development fits with the wider Sanctuary programme, they are set up to deliver this effectively, and we benefit from being able to let new homes to people from our register or from temporary accommodation).

15


Title 2017/18 Homes for Haringey Budget

Agenda item 9

Report for Decision


Report author Esther Campbell – Head of Finance




1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Board’s approval of the company budget for Homes for Haringey (HfH) for 2017/18.

2. Background

2.1 HfH has its own company budget, for which it receives a management fee from the Council.

2.2 The 2017/18 required savings for HfH (as agreed with the Council) are £1.295m, apportioned as follows:

• £1m Housing Revenue Account (HRA) savings. • £0.295k General Fund (GF) savings.

3. 2017/18 draft budget

3.1 The budget has been presented in Appendix 1; a summary of the savings and

adjustments can be found in the below table:

DIRECTORATE 2016/17 BUDGET

2017/18 SAVINGS ADJUSTMENTS

2017/18 BUDGET

CORPORATE AFFAIRS + LBH SLA 8,469,440 (£24,000) 609,960 9,055,400 HOUSING DEMAND 3,890,650 (£295,000) 383,610 3,979,260 OPERATIONS 11,974,740 (£426,000) (£149,060) 11,399,680 HRS 15,240,470 (£550,000) - 14,690,470 ASSET MANAGEMENT 39,450 - (£37,830) 1,620 CLIENT SERV & ANNUAL MAINT 682,620 - 4,633,930 5,316,550 GF MANAGEMENT FEE (£4,219,650) 295,000 (£383,610) (£4,308,260) HRA MANAGEMENT FEE (£36,077,720) 1,000,000 (£5,057,000) (£40,134,720) TOTAL - - - -

16


HRA Management Fee

3.2 The 2017/18 management fee has been reduced by the agreed £1m savings.

3.3 The Council have increased the management fee by £517k to account for increases in the SLA (Service Level Agreement) charges for Finance, HR, Customer Services and Right To Buy (the expenditure budgets have been increased accordingly).

3.4 The £4.5m Repairs and Maintenance budget, previously accounted for in the HRA Managed (Council) account, has been transferred to HfH.

GF Management Fee

3.5 The 2016/17 management fee represents 11 months of activity; the 2017/18 fee has been pro-rata’d to reflect the full 12 months.

3.6 In addition, the 2017/18 fee has been reduced by the agreed £295k savings.

Savings

3.7 The required savings, and where they will come from, have been applied to the relevant directorates as agreed by the Executive Leadership Team.

Cost Pressures

3.8 Cost pressures were identified during the budget setting process and have been offset by additional savings in order to achieve a balanced budget.

4. Considerations

4.1 Assumptions used: 4.1.1 Achievement of this budget is dependent on effective budget management

throughout the organisation. We are commencing budget monitoring training to both the Executive and Corporate Leadership teams in March, with a full roll-out to all budget holders from June onwards.

4.1.2 The employer’s pension contribution has been based on the current year rate of 24.9%; we are awaiting the final results of the Formal Pension Valuation which will indicate whether the current rate will increase, decrease or remain the same.

4.1.3 The recruitment budget has been based on: • 5% turnover • 600 staff • £2,500 average cost per recruited post

4.1.4 In addition, £47,500 has been added for recruitment arising from specific restructuring.

4.1.5 A 1% vacancy factor has been included, based on the underspend realised when posts are vacant between periods of recruitment.

17

4.2 Financial risks:

4.2.1 The budgets contain many demand-led services, where it is difficult to predict

the correct level of budget required due to external factors outside of our control, such as severe bad weather. We have used the best information available to derive an adequate level of budget for these areas.

4.2.2 There may be further pressures arising from Budget announcements or changes in government policies or regulations; these may present as cost pressures in year.

4.2.3 Some of the agreed savings rely on the delivery of restructures and planned improvements to systems. Any changes or delays could affect the delivery of these savings and would result in additional savings being required in-year. The Managing Director and Executive Team hold monthly budget meetings to identify ways to look ahead for further contingencies and efficiencies, and deal with in-year risks such as this. This has been an effective approach this year, where early savings have been achieved in a number of areas to allow us to make an operating surplus.

5. Recommendation

5.1 The board is recommended to: a) Approve the 2017/18 budget

Index of annexes:

1. Appendix 1 – HfH 2017/18 budget

18

Appendix 1 – HfH 2017/18 budget:

DIRECTORATE2016/17 BUDGET

MOVEMENT OF R&M

BUDGET FROM HRA TO HFH

ADDITIONAL BUDGET FOR INCREASED

SLAS

FULL YEAR BUDGET PRO-

RATA FOR HOUSING DEMAND

2017/18 SAVINGS

ALLOCATION OF 2017/18 SAVINGS ADJUSTMENTS

2017/18 BUDGET

VARIANCE FROM 2016/17

BUDGET TO 2017/18 BUDGET

CORPORATE AFFAIRS 8,469,440 - 517,000 - - (£24,000) 92,960 9,055,400 585,960HOUSING DEMAND 3,890,650 - - 383,610 - (£295,000) - 3,979,260 88,610OPERATIONS 11,974,740 - - - - (£426,000) (£149,060) 11,399,680 (£575,060)HRS 15,240,470 - - - - (£550,000) - 14,690,470 (£550,000)ASSET MANAGEMENT 39,450 - - - - - (£37,830) 1,620 (£37,830)CLIENT SERV & ANNUAL MAINT 682,620 4,540,000 - - - - 93,930 5,316,550 4,633,930GF MANAGEMENT FEE (£4,219,650) - - (£383,610) 295,000 - - (£4,308,260) (£88,610)HRA MANAGEMENT FEE (£36,077,720) (£4,540,000) (£517,000) - 1,000,000 - - (£40,134,720) (£4,057,000)TOTAL - - - - 1,295,000 (£1,295,000) - - -

19


Title Performance Management Framework

Agenda item 10

Report for Decision


Report author Dawn Kent-Payne, Head of Business Improvement




1. Introduction 1.1 This report presents the Council’s Performance Management Framework (PMF) for

annual review by the Board and approval for recommendation to the Council.

2. Background 2.1 The PMF was developed as part of the 2016 Management Agreement with senior staff

at both the Council and Homes for Haringey agreeing the range of indicators and the initial targets set for Year 1and 2 of the contract.

2.2 Targets were set with a view to achieving top performance across the suite of indicators in our peer group and it was agreed that these would be reviewed at the end of each year to ensure that targets are realistic and achievable.

2.3 A PMF helps to ensure that we focus on the right set of KPIs for our business and targets

reflect a degree of ambition (top quartile performer) and strike the right balance between being achievable and stretching. This is also a requirement of our contract with the council who approve the PMF. The Board has a key role in ensuring HfH performs according to the PMF through regular scrutiny of performance. The framework is set out at Appendix 1 for Board review.

3. Performance Management Framework 3.1 The current board KPI dashboard incorporates the PMF which helps the Board to

assess the degree to which we are meeting the performance requirements of our contract with the Council. The dashboard also incorporates other KPIs not in the PMF based on performance information that has been requested by the board from time to time. The PMF is therefore a subset of the board KPI dashboard. The PMF is reviewed and approved by the Council each year. The Board is asked to approve the PMF at Appendix 1 that will be recommended to the Council for approval.

20


3.2 An initial meeting has taken place between HfH Head of Business Improvement

and the Council’s Head of Housing Strategy and Commissioning to review the indicators and targets for 2017/18. The following targets are being considered for review to make them realistic and achievable:

• % of all repairs fixed first time • Former tenant arrears as a % of year start excluding write offs • Current tenant rent and service charge arrears as a % of rent due

excluding voids • Number of households in temporary accommodation

The following indicators are being considered for replacement:

• Current leasehold service charge arrears as a % of services charges due • % of voids relet in target

4. Recommendation 4.1 The board is recommended to approve the PMF, subject to the above changes

being agreed, for recommendation to the Council.

21

Appendix 1 – Performance Management Framework Ref KPI Description 2016/17

Target 2017/18

Target Benchmark

Group AS 08 Capital Programme: % of residents satisfied

with outcome of works 91% 93% X

% of capital projects completed in time 85% 90% X BV 72 % of urgent repairs completed within

Government time limits 99% 99% P 20

HMPI 100

% of all repairs first time fixed not including programmed works

90% 93.8% P 20

RP04a % of tenants satisfied with quality of repair 78% 78.74% P 20 Cost per property total responsive repairs

including overheads £603 £603 ALMO

Cost per property cyclical maintenance Service provision - includes overheads

£209 £209 ALMO

GS 01a % of properties with valid gas certificate - Council properties (GN,SH,HOS)

100% 100% P 20

GS 01c % of properties with valid gas certificate - PSLs (Landlord)

100% 100% X

BV 66a % of rent collected (including arrears and excluding water rates)

100.6% 100.7% P 20

IC04 Former Tenant Arrears collected as % of year start (cumulative) excluding write-offs

18% 25% P 20

OP 57 The proportion of rent collected for all Temporary Accommodation

98.75% 99% X

current tenant rent & service charge arrears as % of rent due excluding voids

5% 2.14% P 20

current leaseholder service charges arrears as % of service charges due

5% 2.14% X

ES 01 % of estates graded at A or B by Quality Assurance Officers Overall Grade

93% 94% X

BV 212 Average relet times (calendar days) 23 days 21 days P 20 BV 69 Rent loss from voids 0.69% 0.68% P 20 V024 % of voids relet in target time 80% 90% X Average cost of voids repair £4,000 £2,277 P 20 op67 "% of homeless preventions (people

presenting at risk of losing their home 35% 38% X

% of acceptances per 1000 people in the Borough

2.25% 2.10% X

Number of households in TA 2,800 2,500 X AS 08 Overall customer satisfaction rating HfH 77% 80% ALMO

22


Title Performance report (February 2017 KPIs)

Agenda item 11b

Report for Discussion


Report author Dawn Kent-Payne, Head of Business Improvement




1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with an overview of Homes for Haringey’s (HfH) progress against the key performance indicators identified in the Business Plan (Performance Management Framework).

2. Background

2.1 As per the approach previously agreed by Board; detailed monitoring of HfH’s performance against these key performance indicators (KPIs) is carried out by the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), with the summary report presented to Board. The summary of performance up to the end of February 2017 is attached as Appendix 1.

2.2 Performance targets have, in most cases, increased for 2016/17 and are much more challenging in order to move us towards top levels of performance.

3. Main Body 3.1 The main items to bring to the Board’s attention are the areas where we are

not currently meeting target. ELT have agreed to develop an ongoing improvement plan which Heads of Service inform with their plans on how they will address non achievement of targets.

Currently performance exceptions are as follows:

Housing management

OP 57 The proportion of rent collected for all temporary accommodation -

23


TA collection rate key activities to achieve target include:

• Carry out transfer of credits from Former Tenants Arrears accounts to current accounts to reduce current balances.

• Following on from revision of deferral procedure dealing with individual cases who have responded to contact.

• Continue to promote to all Temporary Accommodation households the Direct Debit messages (includes balance reminder and booklet about ways to pay).

• Continue to closely monitor cases with multiple resources open and ensure this is actioned every week – currently we have no such cases.

During the month of February we carried out the following recovery activities:

• Going forward, the Income Management officers will contact the new tenant within the first week of the tenancy being signed. We have now set up three strands of workflows to contact tenants during the first week (a) To promote payment culture, (b) To capture vulnerability and (c) To establish affordability. It will be undertaken on a tenure blind basis (TA or permanent Council housing).

• Since Feb 17, Income Management has issued 112 Notices to Quit in the sum of £86k

• Similarly the Income Recovery Team sent 192 final reminders for the sum of £267k.

• Since Feb 17, 96 account holders have made payment arrangements to clear total arrears of £119k.

• The Council’s Housing Benefit colleagues are currently prioritising their workload to review the suspended and cancelled HB claims.

• We have finalised the procedures in respect of deferrals, which is when we suspend their application for permanent rehousing until the rent account is cleared in full or a sustainable arrangement ids in place for a number of months. We monitor accounts on a regular basis.

• Following on from the recent benefit cap implications, we are still in the process of reviewing their accounts and applying Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) if the are actively seeking employment.

BV 212 and VO24 Average relet times (calendar days) HouseMark definition

(GN & SH only)/ % of voids relet in target time (23 days) (GN & SH only)

• The structure of the New Tenant Liaison Team with staff in post and new team will be established by Quarter 1 2017/18

• Workshops established for void improvements in Q1 17/18 • Work to increase the number of processes that are automated, including

automated process to approve offers in place by the end of March 17. • Business case for sign ups completed on mobile working devices completed by end

March 17.

24

• Changes made to Home Connections website to allow viewings booked and processed automatically by Q2 17/18.

Property Management

HPMI 100 % of all repairs first time fixed - (not including programmed works) and RP 04a –the percentage of tenants satisfied with quality of repair)

• Close monitoring of job description in new system for 6 weeks post go live – will ensure that there is early intervention to correctly record detail for reporting purposes

• Improvements to how the call centre deals with repairs logging being overseen by HfH staff member seconded to oversee improvements

• Ensure operatives are querying tenants extensively to determine correct job and not notifying the Admin Team of emergency/urgent jobs.

Housing demand

HY 8 – percentage of all homeless decisions made in 33 working days - The outturn was recorded at 81% for February taking into account that all applications made before 26.09.2016 have been resolved. Although this will not make the Year to date figure (43% - up 3% from January) achieve the target it is a good indicator of how much performance has improved since the restructure.

HY 156 Number of homeless households in temporary accommodation - February saw a slight increase of 9 households in temporary accommodation (TA).

In addition to the continued efforts to reduce the inflow and increase outflow, teams are also implementing the new TA placements policy to identify households who may be suitable for out of London TA placements, to reduce the cost of TA. Early indications are that these assessments are also resulting in some TA residents expressing an interest in moving into private rented sector accommodation out of London.

People

HR 01 Average number of working days lost due to sickness absence (rolling 12 month figure) - Sickness absence per employee in February reduced substantially to 9.4 days which is a decrease from last month. The figure has consistently remained stable or decreased over the last 6 months and it is anticipated that the downward trajectory will continue until the end of the financial year. A number of initiatives have been put in place to manage sickness absence across the organisation including HR Business Partners working closely with managers to provide in-depth absence information, and tailored support to manage sickness absence more robustly in order for us to reach our target of 6 days. From May 2017, HfH will be partnering with First Care – Absence Management

25

Solutions to use their expertise in managing and reducing sickness absence, mitigating risk in relation to sickness absence, improving employee wellbeing, and increasing overall productivity.

3. Considerations 3.1 Financial Implications – failure to achieve targets by the end of year will result in

some areas of the business not meeting budget targets which are set being dependant on income being recovered.

4. Recommendation 4.1 The board is recommended to:

a) Note the contents of the report and that February 2017 performance will have been considered in detail by ELT and the organisation.

b) Consider the main findings and implications for Homes for Haringey

26

Homes for Haringey

Board Scorecard

Year To Date February 2017 All Figures are based on Year To Date, i.e. 01 April 2016 to 28 February 2017

Ref Performance Indicator 16/17Target

GoodPerformance

YTDSEPT

YTDOCT

YTDNOV

YTDDEC

YTDJAN

YTDFEB

YTDMAR

Direction of Travel

P20 HouseMark Benchmarking

(Upper Quartile 2014/15)

Quartile our Performance falls

intoRef Housing Management

BV 66a % of rent collected (including arrears and excluding water rates)(GN & SH only) 100.60% Higher 101.48% 101.46% 101.32% 101.17% 100.98% 101.21% 100.39% Q1

IC 04 Former Tenant Arrears collected as % of year start (cumulative) excluding write-offs 18% Higher No data on HouseMark No data on HouseMark

Op 57 The proportion of rent collected for all temporary accommodation 98.75% Higher 96.54% 97.38% 97.75% 97.65% 98.26% 98.36% No Benchmark No Benchmark

ex BV66e

Current tenant rent & service charge arrears as % of rent due (excluding voids) (GN & SH only) 5.00% Lower 4.83% 4.75% 4.74% 4.84% 4.89% 4.68% 2.22% Q4

HO 03 Current leaseholder service charges arrears as % of service charges due 5.00% Lower -18.66% -55.59% -56.36% -182.20% -144.30% -97.00% No Benchmark No Benchmark

BV 212 Average relet times (calendar days) HouseMark definition (GN & SH only) 23 days Lower 26.1 25.2 26.4 26.8 27.2 27.6 20.8 M

BV 69 % of rent loss from voids(GN & SH only) 0.69% Lower 0.54% 0.53% 0.52% 0.51% 0.52% 0.53% 0.89% Q1

VO 24 % of voids relet in target time(23 days) (GN & SH only) 80% Higher 59% 62% 60% 60% 59% 58% No Benchmark No Benchmark

VO 28 Average cost of voids repairs (£)(GN & SH only) £4,000 Lower £3,315 £3,332 £3,359 £3,064 £3,259 £2,457 Q2

ES 01 % of estates graded at A or B by Quality Assurance Officers -Overall Grade 93.0% Higher 93.5% 93.6% 93.7% 93.7% 93.9% 94.2% No Benchmark No Benchmark

CSR 02d Project 2020: Provide support, employment training and advice 240 Higher 153 164 182 194 219 232 No Benchmark No Benchmark

CCC 01 % of call centre abandonments(all queues) Not Set Lower 14.1% 14.5% 15.2% 15.5% 15.7% No Benchmark No Benchmark

Ref

RP 10 % of All repairs completed by HRS within timescale(includes programmed works)

95% Higher 99.1% 99.1% 99.1% 99.2% 99.1% 99.1% No Benchmark No Benchmark

BV 72 % of urgent repairs completed within Government time limits 99% Higher 99.6% 99.6% 99.6% 99.6% 99.6% 99.6% No Benchmark No Benchmark

HMPI 100 % of all repairs first time fixed(not including programmed works) 90% Higher 83.2% 83.2% 83.3% 83.3% 83.4% 83.5% 92.40% Q4

RP 04a % of tenants satisfied with quality of repair(BMG) 78% Higher 77.3% 78.0% 77.0% 77.9% 76.7% 76.2% 79.6% Q2

HMPI F4Pi04 Cost per property total responsive repairs including overheads £750 Lower Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual £384.85 Not available yet

GS 01 % of properties with valid gas certificate -Council properties (GN, SH & HOS only) 100% Higher 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Q1

GS 01c % of properties with valid gas certificate - PSLs (Landlord) 100% Higher 98.85% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% No Benchmark No Benchmark

AS 07 % of capital projects completed in time 85% Higher Q1Nil Return

Q2Nil Return

Q367%

Q4 N/A No Benchmark No Benchmark

AS 08 Capital Programme: % of residents satisfied with outcome of works 91% Higher Q183%

Q286%

Q387%

Q4 No Benchmark No Benchmark

HMPI E5Pi04 Cost per property cyclical maintenance Service provision -includes overheads £240 Lower Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual £215.43 Not available yet

Ref

HY 8 % of all homeless decisions made in 33 working days 70% Higher 39% 40% 40% 41% 40% 43% No Benchmark No Benchmark

HY 4c Homeless acceptances per 1,000 people in the Borough 2.25 Lower Q10.67

Q21.29

Q31.99

Q4 No Benchmark No Benchmark

Op 67 % of homeless preventions(people presenting at risk of losing their home) 35% Higher Q1

23%Q2

36%Q3

39%Q4 No Benchmark No Benchmark

HY 156 Number of homeless households in temporary accommodation 2,800 Lower 3,214 3,220 3,204 3,201 3,182 3,191 No Benchmark No Benchmark

Ref

HR 01 Average number of working days lost due to sickness absence (rolling 12 month figure) 6 days Lower 12.1 11.8 10.7 11.2 12.1 9.4 No Benchmark No Benchmark

HMPI B1Pi03 Percentage of staff turnover 15% Higher Q13.3%

Q27.6%

Q312.9%

Q4 8.58% Q1

Ref

CE 01 Overall customer satisfaction rating HfH 77% Higher Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual 82.75% Q4

Ref

BD 01 % forecast spend v budget 100% Lower 98.00% No Benchmark No Benchmark

BudgetP1198%

Annual

Latest Performance &

RAG status

101.21%

Not available

98.36%

4.68%

-97.00%

Q367%

0.53%

58%

Not available

94.2%

232

99.1%

99.6%

83.5%

Annual

27.6

Property Management

43%

84.7%

78.1%

Not available yet

Housing Demand

100.00%

Q339%

3,191

Direction of Travel

15/16Outturn

99.27%

42.14%

98.49%

Not available

5.43%

76.2%

Number or % stayed the same - positive development

Number or % increased - negative development

Number or % decreased - negative development

Number or % stayed the same - negative development

Number or % increased - positive development

Number or % decreased - positive development

Q1 UpperQ2 Middle UpperM MedianQ3 Middle LowerQ4 Lower

LatestPerformance

BelowTarget

233

5.2%

99.3%

AboveTarget

Quartile Key

100.00%

100.00%

Nil Return

89.4%

NEW

28.3

NEW

54%

98.3%

12.0%

70%

2.34

31%

3,164

8.6

People

Satisfaction

9.4

100.00%

Q312.9%

Q387%

NEW

93.7%

Annual

Not available yet

NEW

Q31.99

Business Improvement Corporate Affairs Service

27

Performance Benchmarking Groups

P20 Benchmarking Group ALMO Benchmarking Group

Barnet Homes Ascham HomesBrent Housing Partnership Barnet HomesCBHA (Peabody) Brent Housing PartnershipCity of London City of LondonCitywest Homes Citywest HomesEastend Homes Enfield HomesEnfield Homes Hackney HomesHackney Homes Kensington & Chelsea TMOLambeth Living Lambeth LivingLB Barking & Dagenham Lewisham HomesLB Croydon LB Barking & DagenhamLB Harrow LB CroydonLB Havering LB HarrowLB Southwark LB HaveringPhoenix Community Housing Tower Hamlets HomesPoplar HARCARichmond Housing PartnershipTower Hamlets Homes

28

homes for haringey public papers board of directors ... · tuesday 28 march 2017 meeting: 18:30 –...

Documents