strategic housing and planning committee

Strategic Housing and Planning Committee 19 September 2019 KRiSP Voids Review Report Report by the Director, Growth Relevant Portfolio Holder: Portfolio Holder for Housing (Councillor Emily Davey)

Purpose To present to Members the recommendations in the KRiSP Voids review report and the housing management response. To seek approval for the housing management response and proposed action plan. Recommendations To Resolve that - 1. the housing management response to the KRiSP storage review report recommendations

(set out in Annex 2) be approved; and

2. the action plan (set out in Annex 3) be approved in order to take forward the recommendations.

Benefits to the Community: KRiSP provides independent resident scrutiny of the Council’s housing service. The observations and recommendations detailed in this voids review report seek to improve performance, value for money and customer journey in the voids process. Key Points

A. Attached at Annex 1 to this report is the Kingston Resident Scrutiny Panel (KRiSP) report into the management of voids and reletting process in RBK owned residential properties. The scope of the report includes voids policy, performance management and process and voids in sheltered housing.

B. The report sets out a number of findings and contains 9 recommendations..

C. Findings included: ● there is room for improvement in the Council’s approach to dealing with voids

where tenants are deceased or have moved into residential care ● a lack of robust performance management in some areas ● inconsistency in the adherence to policy and procedure by staff across

different service areas ● unclear information provided to residents regarding the recharge process ● a need for greater flexibility to improve resident experience ● the need for a review into the suitability of some sheltered housing provision.

The panel also commended the Council for having comprehensive procedures and a draft voids policy in place - to be finalised after publication of the KRiSP report.

D. Attached at Annexes 2 and 3 respectively are the Housing Managers’ response to the recommendations and a proposed action plan to take them forward.

E. All recommendations were accepted (note recommendation 7 - the use of key safes for contractors - was already in place).

F. The Council has also noted the wider findings of this comprehensive report and intends to further explore a number of these (notably findings 5, 7, 9,16 and 21 as set out in Annexes 1 and 2) as part of the wider housing service improvement plans.

G. Committee members are requested to approve the management response and the proposed actions to address the recommendations. Members are also asked to note that timescales for delivery will be agreed as part of a wider service improvement programme which is being developed

Context

1. As part of the Council’s commitment to co-regulation, the Kingston Resident Scrutiny Panel (KRiSP) was set up in 2013 to investigate RBK Housing Service delivery, against RBK’s own housing standards and industry best practice, making recommendations for improvements that will benefit residents and the Council. The voids review is the panel’s 8th investigation.

2. The investigation was undertaken by 8 KRiSP panel members over a period of 6 months from November 2018 to May 2019.

3. The Panel agreed to work to the following three objectives with respect to both

general needs and sheltered accommodation: ● to consider timescales involved in voids ● to consider the costs involved in voids ● to review the customer experience in the voids process

4. The review included the following tasks: ● desktop review ● staff interviews ● interviews with other Councils for benchmarking and identification of good

practice ● a case study ● resident engagement in the form of an electronic and postal survey and

telephone calls with residents and their families who were interested in providing direct feedback to the panel

5. Following completion of the review report, housing management officers met with the KRiSP Chair and review lead to discuss the management response. The action plan to address the recommendations was developed in consultation with panel members.

Additional learning

6. The report noted some difficulties accessing information and assistance from some staff and concluded that a lack of cooperation in some areas had weakened and hindered the investigation and subsequent report.

7. The Council would like to note that they did not feel the report was weak in any way and has served as a sound evidence base for voids service improvement. The housing management team has taken the Panel’s comments very seriously and has undertaken the following actions in response:

● Met with the KRiSP chair and vice chair to discuss their concerns

● Invited KRiSP to landlord and community housing service full team meetings to talk to staff about the nature and purpose of the work

● Organised training for housing service managers on resident engagement including resident scrutiny delivered by the KRiSP mentor. This will be rolled out to all front line staff

● Progressed the additional learning points as part of the Housing Service Improvement Plans

Proposals

8. Members are asked to approve the Housing Management response (attached at Annex 2 to this report) to the KRiSP review recommendations and approve the Action Plan to respond to those recommendations (attached at Annex 3 to this report)

Consultations 9. An electronic survey was sent out to a pre-selected cohort of tenants / relatives

who had ended / started tenancies in the 6mth period preceding the review period (July - Dec 2018). Where there was no email contact on record, hard copies were mailed out to tenants. Of the 75 residents identified as meeting this criteria, 53 forms were successfully delivered.

10. The response rate to this survey was lower than for previous KRiSP surveys at only 13%. This may be due to the smaller targeted cohort of residents surveyed for this review and some residents having moved on or not updating their email contact details.

11. A summary of some of the key responses is outlined below. ● 40% of tenants found the voids process easy ● 20% found it difficult ● 40% found it neither easy nor difficult ● 20% of tenants felt the recharges applied were unfair ● Other comments included reference to a long wait time from property

acceptance to move-in date (varied from 1 to 70 days in the responses), poor communication from some staff and very helpful and excellent communication from others.

12. Despite the low response rate to the survey, it did generate some interest from tenants / tenant relatives who wished to discuss their experiences with the KRiSP panel. Three follow-up telephone conversations were consequently had which gave useful additional information on the resident perspective to feed into the review.

13. The Panel used a case study to give further insight into the customer journey. Timescale 14. The Housing Landlord Services team has worked collaboratively with the KRiSP

panel to develop an action plan. 15. The action plan will be further considered as part of a wider service improvement

plan. During this work timescales for individual actions will be agreed. Thereafter, 6 monthly RAG rated progress reports will be provided to the KRiSP panel.

Resource Implications 16. The resources required to deliver the actions within the plan are currently contained

within existing HRA budgets.

17. Void and relet times represent a loss of potential rental income for the HRA. Any reduction in the length of time properties are void will result in a reduced loss. Currently void losses are running at 2.0% of rental income against a budget of 1.49%.

Legal Implications 18. As work is progressed legal advice will be sought regarding the specific

recommendations in the report. 19. Any additions / alterations to the voids policy regarding probate or intestacy

(referenced in recommendation 1) must have due regard to the statutory provision and the Council’s Tenancy Conditions.

Risk Assessment 20. None arising from the specific recommendations of this report.

Equalities Impact Assessment 21. An EQIA is not required at this stage as there is no change to existing policy.

Subject to approval of the committee, recommendations contained within the KRiSP report will be taken forward by the Voids Project Group. Any subsequent policy changes recommended will be subject to an EQIA prior to approval and implementation.

Health Implications 22. None arising from the specific recommendations of this report.

Environmental, Air Quality and Road Network Implications 23. None arising from the specific recommendations of this report

Background papers are held by the author of the report: Kelly Shirley, Policy, Service development and Partnerships Officer, [email protected] Tel: 020 8437 5040:

1. Annex 1 KRiSP Voids Review Report 2. Annex 2 Housing management response 3. Annex 3 Action plan 4. Desktop review 5. Notes from interviews with staff x 6 6. Information from other councils:

a. Extract from Hounslow Housing Strategy b. LB Sutton Allocations Policy c. Croydon Voids Internal Audit Report d. Interview with LB Croydon

7. Summary of resident survey responses

Annex 1

Voids Investigation

May 2019

CONTENTS

Full Report

Introduction

Executive Summary

Methodology

Recommendations

Findings

Learning

Conclusions

Appendices

Appendix A:

Appendix B: *

Appendix C: *

Appendix D: *

Appendix E: *

Appendix F: *

*These appendices are available upon request from Kelly Shirley, Policy, Service Development and Partnerships Officer, RBK Council.

INTRODUCTION The Kingston Residents Scrutiny Panel, KRiSP is an autonomous Panel of council tenants and leaseholders set up by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Council in conjunction with the Kingston Federation of Residents. The role of KRiSP is to investigate and review the Council’s housing services and to propose improvements that will be of benefit to all residents. KRiSP is central to the Council’s ‘Resident Involvement Framework’ and has a commitment to co-regulation. It was formed in October 2013 and is currently composed of 8 tenants and leaseholders.

The role of KRiSP is to carry out service investigations and report on them to the Council. This is KRiSP’s ninth investigation and the area of voids was chosen.

The KRiSP Investigation Panel comprised Raewyn Hammond, David Miller, Geof Yates, David West, Jackie Paddon, Mohammed Ali, Gill Willson and Sian Smith. The Panel was supported by Kelly Shirley from the Council along with mentoring support from Phil Morgan. The KRiSP Investigation Panel would like to thank all the members of staff and residents who gave up their time freely to support this investigation.

●●●

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Firstly it must be acknowledged that this has been the most difficult investigation that KRiSP has attempted to date. While understanding that Housing Staff are under intense pressure to perform their daily tasks due to cuts within staffing and budgets it has become apparent that some, although by no means all, have found it difficult to provide us with the access and assistance required to enable us to conduct a meaningful appraisal. Of particular concern to KRiSP has been our inability to gain access to any Property Inspections and a suggestion that unlike previous investigations where staff volunteered items that related to the subject being covered we have only been given documents which we have specifically requested. KRiSP were extremely pleased to see that work was already underway on a proposed Policy Document and we appreciate it being delayed to await the delivery of this report. This approach compares most favourably with that of some other councils that we looked at who did not appear to have any formalised documentation relating to Voids. Overall there is some way to go in ensuring that there is a clear customer focus in the voids process. We found a rigidity on letters, notice period and handing in of keys which were unhelpful and have proposed that these be reviewed. There was an instance of a tenant waiting 70 days for their property to become available. There were two examples of new tenants living in properties which they reported as being in a poor state. Given the recent Dispatches programme on Channel 4 this represents a reputational risk to the Council. Whilst welcoming the introduction of recharges we felt that there should be an appeals process in place, and that progress on both income and the proportion of properties being returned in a satisfactory state should be monitored. There is clearly a growing issue for Sheltered Housing where there are shared facilities which no longer meet the expectations of prospective sheltered tenants. This needs reviewing with the possible introduction of an Options Appraisal. Finally there is an opportunity to introduce an inspection at the point of notification. This would allow early assessment of the condition of the state of the property for reletting and early notification of recharges that may be due.

.

METHODOLOGY

The Panel agreed the following three objectives:

1. To consider timescales involved in voids 2. To consider costs involved in voids 3. To review the customer experience in the voids process

This review covers both General needs and Sheltered Accommodation The Panel carried out the following tasks: Desk Top Review which considered the following documents

● Draft Voids Policy ● Draft Voids Process ● Annual Void Report 2017/18 ● Internal Void Performance Reports April to September 2018 ● Housemark report (on comparisons with other landlords) ● Introductory Tenancy Agreement and Secure Tenancy Agreement ● Letters to residents

o Tenancy Termination due to death o Tenancy Termination for other reasons o Access required for inspection o Rechargeable items

● Core Lettings Log ● Housing Allocations Scheme 2017 ● The AIIC Guide to Understanding Fair Wear and Tear ● Gov. UK Tenancy Agreement – A Guide for Landlords ● Landlord Law Blog ● Regulated Tenancies (published by the Government) ● Copy of a Private Landlords Void Management Visit Report ● Copy of a Private Landlord Check Out Report

Staff Interviews:

● Stewart Toop – Lead contact, giving KRiSP members a presentation on Voids and exchange of emails re PIN numbers.

● Andrew Donaldson - Group Manager, Housing Repairs and Maintenance ● Anthonia Shodiya - RSO (Resident Services Officer) ● Dominic Di Chiara – Repairs and Maintenance, Maintenance Surveyor ● Jacquie Goddard – Allocations Team Leader ● Kate Bowers - RSO ● Lorraine Shaile - Lead Officer, Sheltered Housing

Information from other Councils

● LB Croydon Voids Internal Audit Report ● Extract from Hounslow Housing Strategy

● LB Sutton Allocations Policy ● Interview with LB Croydon

Resident engagement:

● Survey with a limited number of respondents (some of which were also covered below)

● Resident feedback and copies of emails ● Case Study ● Phone call with one new tenant and one family member of a new tenancy

●●●

RECOMMENDATIONS

Below is the complete list of recommendations which have been made following the Panel’s investigation. The reasons for these recommendations and findings behind these are detailed in the Findings section of this report. Findings

Reference

Area Recommendation Co-production

1 - 3 Policy

1. That the agreed recommendations from this report form part of the revised policy and process. This should include a tenant-friendly version of the process and coverage of probate and intestacy.

The revised policy and process could be co-produced with tenants and staff

4 – 7

10, 11

Performance

2. That RB Kingston consider expanding their regular meeting of all staff involved in voids to consider performance, feedback, recharges performance and improvement issues, including those raised during the 6 week tenancy check.

Use tenant feedback to identify areas for improvement

8 - 12 Process

3. That RB Kingston consider an inspection at the time of notification. This could use a standard form to support staff in identifying issues.

11 Process

4. That RB Kingston consider providing a document that clearly sets out example recharges and consider a dispute resolution route.

Route could be co-produced with residents

13 Process 5. That RB Kingston consider early release for tenants from the 4 week

notice period subject to the property being assessed as satisfactory in the inspection at time of notification and a new tenant being available.

14 Process

6. That RB Kingston consider flexible return date and location for key return for example the option of returning keys to Guildhall 2.

15 Process 7. That RB Kingston consider the use of keysafes for holding keys for use by contractors on void properties.

17 Process 8. That RB Kingston review the current letters to ensure they are sympathetic as well as functional

Letters could be co-produced with residents

18 - 20 Sheltered Housing

9. That RB Kingston conducts an Option Appraisal for all schemes with shared facilities to consider options (including conversion, redevelopment and do nothing).

Option Appraisal should be co-produced with residents

FINDINGS Policy

1. There are comprehensive policy and processes in place. They are currently in draft

form awaiting this report. KRISP welcome the approach that has been taken.

2. Currently there is no coverage of either probate or intestacy, both of which could result in significant delays and possible distress to relatives.

3. Even during the investigation leading to the report KRiSP members had differing

levels of understanding of the voids process. This was shared by residents. Performance (General Needs)

4. Process and KPIs are monitored in real time by line managers and Performance Monitoring Officer. Other Councils also have weekly voids meetings to review progress with a wider remit.

5. It was unclear who has overall responsibility for a particular void property. KRISP

notes that there used to be a dedicated voids team, and that there is some staff support for a dedicated team.

6. General Needs voids performance improved in 2017/18 and is meeting target of 23

days turnaround in some months, but not all. The target of 23 days is consistent with other Councils of a similar size. Major Works voids performance for 2017 is variable with results above target of 62 days in May (73 days), July (104 days) and September (100 days).

7. There was a staff proposal for a three-day turnaround for voids.

Process

8. There are currently two PINs issued for some voids. This allows the Council to progress advertising voids whilst tenants are going through their notice period and line up new tenants at the end of the notice period.

9. An inspection should take place at the end of the notice period to allow an

assessment to be made on the level of recharges.

10.However for some new tenants there have been issues both with the time taken to complete major works on a property, which has been let to them before the extent of the works has been inspected and ascertained. One resident waited 70 days for their new home. Two others reported a series of profound issues including mould, dangerous patio and footpath, blocked drain, rusted radiators, broken shower seat and loose tiles in bathroom. It was unclear if these had been identified through the 6-week tenancy check, or if that check had taken place.

11.The Council has recently introduced a Recharges Policy. It was said only 10% of

properties are returned in a satisfactory condition with £108K lost annually. The

recharges policy aims to recoup these costs where possible. KRISP have seen no monitoring reports for the effectiveness of the new Policy either in terms of income or improved condition of returned properties. It is also unclear whether there is a route for resolving disputes on recharges.

12.There are examples of private sector void management visits and check out

reports.

13.Currently there is a four-week notice period for tenants terminating their tenancy. There are examples from other Councils and the private rented sector of mutual agreement to an earlier termination. However this would be dependent on the property being in a satisfactory state on notification.

14.Tenants terminating their tenancy have to return their keys to the Tadlow office,

which is less accessible than Guildhall 2.

15.LB Croydon’s approach starts with handing in keys, with locks changed within 24 hours and keys left in a key safe which contractors can use.

16.There was a proposal from staff for virtual tours of voids. This would require either

agreement from residents during the proposed inspection at time of notification or when the property was void.

17.The current letters are functional but somewhat curt.

Sheltered Housing

18.The average number of days for Sheltered Housing voids turnaround was poor during 2017/18. Performance was 62 days in May, 49 days in June, 44 days in July, 37 days in August, 35 days in September and 231 days in October.

19.The longest void time to date is 239 days. One flat in Sobraon House was

advertised 24 times before the first eligible nomination was received. Another flat at Dowler Court was advertised 26 times. There are sustained issues at schemes such as Charles Sumner House with one delay of 231 days.

20.Feedback from staff is consistent that shared facilities are no longer what most

prospective sheltered tenants want and that alternative uses should be considered. Some schemes appear to be allowing non-sheltered residents into flats.

21.There was also feedback about the Housing Options process being on-line and this

being a barrier to some potential sheltered residents.

22.Staff also fed back about the costs involved (currently not specified) in conversion and reconversion of sheltered housing bathrooms. One option suggested by a member of staff would be that a wet room is installed as standard with an optional easily removable bath. This could significantly reduce costs whilst supporting choice around whether to have a bath without major works.

Contractor

23.There was good feedback about the relationship with Axis, echoed by the interview with LB Croydon.

LEARNING KRISP, when reflecting on the investigation, felt there was a lack of cooperation from some areas of the housing department. Previously, on the Storage report, KRISP had raised the issue around the reluctance of some staff to be interviewed. The Council have committed to providing logistical support for KRISP in the Terms of Reference. RB Kingston has an excellent record in supporting KRISP. We would like to see that support continue in line with current and future regulatory expectations. KRISP also notes the difficulties in obtaining survey responses. Only five responses were received. KRISP understands that the total cohort for the survey was only 75. However it is unclear how many surveys were distributed. KRISP were unable to view recently vacated and to let properties. That hindered the investigation and subsequent report. KRISP will seek a meeting with the Director of Housing to resolve these concerns. The Council will want to note that the Social Housing Green Paper, issued following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, identified the prospect of there being a “greater ability for the Regulator to scrutinise the performance and arrangements for local authority landlords” like RB Kingston.

CONCLUSIONS The first conclusion relating to Kingston Residents Scrutiny Panel’s investigation into how Kingston Housing manages its Void stock is that this report is possibly the weakest one that KRISP has so far delivered to the Council. There should be no confusion regarding the Recommendations that have arisen from this investigation, they are all relevant and as usual fact based, the problem is the limited access and information provided that has restricted the scope of our report. Among the issues that we have experienced are a lack of access to any Voids Inspections, despite declaring our willingness to attend at very short notice if informed; Having to rely upon Council Officers to distribute our survey, so as to protect confidentiality, only to discover that some surveys were not sent out until after our initial Report Writing Meeting;The discovery, half way through the process, that officers are using two separate Property Inspection Numbers. After the investigation was concluded we became aware of an example set of charges used internally by Officers working out the re-charges for a current void. KRiSP members felt that if this document was brought up to date and used on a regular basis it could prove to be a useful tool for Officers involved in the Void process.

With one noticeable exception we were unable to inspect any other housing authorities Voids Process which would lead us to conclude that Kingston maybe leading the field in their approach to this subject although the lack of empathy in attitudes and correspondence may be offsetting this. In conclusion, the Voids Process appears very much a “work in progress” and if it could be streamlined and simplified to reduce the number of Void days the benefits to RBK should be financially measurable and tenants would benefit as well.

Annex 2 Management Response: KRiSP Voids Review May 2019

Review Objective:

KRiSP carried out a review of the RBK voids process. The panel had the following three objectives:

1. To consider timescales involved in voids 2. To consider the costs involved in voids 3. To review the customer experience in the voids process

Review Outcome:

KRiSP made nine recommendations for service improvement focusing on policy, process and communication with residents.

General comments:

Housing Management would like to express their appreciation to KRiSP for this report, which has involved a comprehensive desktop review, performance and process analysis and customer journey mapping.

Detailed response to recommendations:

Recommendation 1

That the agreed recommendations from this report form part of the revised policy and process. This should include a tenant-friendly version of the process and coverage of probate and intestacy.

The revised policy and process could be co-produced with tenants and staff

Management response:

● We welcome the recommendations contained within the report and they will be used to inform the final policy document

● We will review the process of dealing with the tenancies of deceased tenants and their families and include reference to this in the policy

● Rather than producing a separate version of the policy for tenants, we would welcome KRiSP’s input in updating the existing policy to ensure it is a transparent, clear document which can be referred to by both staff and residents

We accept this recommendation.

Recommendation 2

That RB Kingston consider expanding their regular meeting of all staff involved in voids to consider performance, feedback, recharges performance and improvement issues, including those raised during the 6 week tenancy check.

Use tenant feedback to identify areas for improvement


● We currently hold a weekly voids meeting dealing with operational issues and a quarterly strategic level Voids Project Group

● We will review the project group’s remit, attendance and frequency ● We will include discussion of recharge performance and analysis of the monthly

voids performance report We accept this recommendation.

Recommendation 3

That RB Kingston consider an inspection at the time of notice to quit to the Council. This could use a standard form to support staff in identifying issues.


● Our voids process already stipulates that a pre-void inspection is carried out within 3 days of receiving notice to quit. This enables us to scope required repairs and advise the tenant of any rechargeable repairs they are responsible for

● We accept that this process is not always followed and targets are not consistently met

● We will undertake an audit of pre-void inspection performance and take steps to improve our performance in this area

● This will be monitored at the Voids Project Group We accept this recommendation.

Recommendation 4

That RB Kingston consider providing a document that clearly sets out example recharges and consider a dispute resolution route.

Route could be co-produced with residents


● We will review the list of common rechargeable repairs which are currently included in our tenancy termination letters

● Information on how to dispute the recharges will be added to the letters ● We will create a document, accessible by all tenants, listing rechargeable repairs,

although this will only give example costs as actual costs vary from property to property.


Recommendation 5

That RB Kingston consider early release for tenants from the 4 week notice period subject to the property being assessed as satisfactory in the inspection at time of notification and a new tenant being available.


● We will give further consideration to this recommendation which could bring about welcome benefits to both RBK and tenants

● However we will need to seek legal advice on any change of policy in relation to the common-law requirement for a 28 day notice period

● RBK already has an early tenancy release process in place (subject to requirements) for properties where the tenant is deceased


Recommendation 6

That RB Kingston consider flexible return date and location for key return for example the option of returning keys to Guildhall 2.


● Tenants can already hand in keys prior to their tenancy end date if they wish but are currently charged rent for the full 28 day notice period

● The option of tenants returning keys to Guildhall 2 will be explored further with consideration given to logistics, timing and security and seeking legal advice


Recommendation 7

That RB Kingston consider the use of key safes for holding keys for use by contractors on void properties.


● Key safes have been used routinely for some time now ● Where this is not practical properties are suited instead with a temporary lock in

place during the void period. This process is already in place

Recommendation 8

That RB Kingston review the current letters to ensure they are sympathetic as well as functional

Letters could be co-produced with residents


● We will undertake a review of the resident letter templates in consultation with residents

● We would welcome input from KRiSP panel members with suggestions as to how the letters might be improved

We accept this recommendation

Recommendation 9

That RB Kingston conducts an Option Appraisal for all schemes with shared facilities to consider options (including conversion, redevelopment and do nothing).

Option Appraisal should be co-produced with residents

Management response: ● We are aware of the current issues with shared facilities schemes and are

considering how this might be addressed ● We will carry out an options appraisal as part of this programme of work

We accept this recommendation

Additional learning

In addition to the above recommendations RBK housing service will also be considering some of the other findings highlighted in the report for further actions as part of a wider review of the housing service.

Notably:

Finding 5: It was unclear who has overall responsibility for a particular void property. KRISP notes that there used to be a dedicated voids team, and that there is some staff support for a dedicated team.

Finding 7: There was a staff proposal for a three-day turnaround for voids.

Finding 16: There was a proposal from staff for virtual tours of voids. This would require either agreement from residents during the proposed inspection at time of notification or when the property was void.

Finding 21: There was also feedback about the Housing Options process being on-line and this being a barrier to some potential sheltered residents.

Annex 3 Action Plan

Recommendation Action no

Agreed Action Lead

Delegated to

1 That the agreed recommendations from this report form part of the revised policy and process. This should include a tenant-friendly version of the process and coverage of probate and intestacy.

1.1 Drafts voids policy to reviewed to ensure all recommendations from the report are taken into consideration

Andrew Donaldson / Stewart Toop Stewart Toop

1.2 Review process of dealing with the tenancies of deceased tenants and their families and include in the policy Fidelis Linehan TBC

1.3 Consult with KRiSP panel / residents to ensure document is clear, transparent and accessible to both staff and residents Kelly Shirley Kelly Shirley

1.4 Publish final policy on RBK website


2 That RB Kingston consider expanding their regular meeting of all staff involved in voids to consider performance, feedback, recharges performance and improvement issues, including those raised during the 6 week tenancy check.

2.1 Review the voids project group’s remit, attendance and frequency


2.2 Discussion of recharge performance and analysis of the monthly voids performance report to be included in voids project group


3 That RB Kingston consider an inspection at the time of notice to quit to the Council. This could use a

3.1 Undertake an audit of pre-void inspection performance

Andrew Donaldson / Fidelis Linehan

standard form to support staff in identifying issues.

3.2 Put together a plan to improve performance in this area to be monitored at Voids project group

Andrew Donaldson / Fidelis Linehan

4 That RB Kingston consider providing a document that clearly sets out example recharges and consider a dispute resolution route.

4.1 Review the list of common rechargeable repairs which are currently included in our tenancy termination letters Rob Bush

Dominic de Chiara

4.2 Add Information on how to dispute the recharges to the letters Rob Bush

Dominic de Chiara

4.3 Create and publish a document, accessible by all tenants, listing example rechargeable repairs costs Rob Bush

Dominic de Chiara

5 That RB Kingston consider early release for tenants from the 4 week notice period subject to the property being assessed as satisfactory in the inspection at time of notification and a new tenant being available

5.1 Seek legal advice on any change of policy in relation to the common-law requirement for a 28 day notice period and cooling off periods for tenants

Fidelis Linehan Stewart Toop

6 That RB Kingston consider flexible return date and location for key return for example the option of returning keys to Guildhall 2.

6.1 Explore the option of tenants returning keys to Guildhall 2 considering logistics, timing and security

Fidelis Linehan TBC

7 That RB Kingston consider the use of key safes for holding keys for use by contractors on void properties.

No actions required - recommendations already in place

8 That RB Kingston review the current letters to ensure they are sympathetic as well as functional

8.1 Review the resident letter templates in consultation with residents to ensure they are sympathetic to specific circumstances

Nina Burich TBC

9 That RB Kingston conducts an Option Appraisal for all schemes with shared facilities to consider options (including conversion, redevelopment and do nothing)

9.1 Carry out an options appraisal of all schemes with shared facilities as part of the wider housing services programme of work

Louise Rawsthorne TBC

strategic housing and planning committee

Documents