Agenda item

NBeresford presented the report, noting that it combines performance data for the Housing service portfolio and newly added Safe Communities portfolio that incorporates community safety. The report was taken as read, and it was noted that the revised KPIs are included in the pack. This is a reduced suite of KPIs and these remain in development. It was also noted that some KPIs are newly collected and there is therefore an absence of trend and historical data, which will therefore develop over time. The report highlights challenges and interventions in relation to key service challenges across the portfolio.

NBeresford requested that if any members have specific areas of service performance that they require further detail on then they should raise these to the team or during the meeting to allow them to review their approach to performance reporting to scrutiny as they move into the planning cycle.

Cllr Adeleke asked how many rough sleepers there currently are in town. NBeresford noted that there is an entrenched cohort of up to 6 in the borough, though this fluctuates when street counts are undertaken. There are 6 known individuals that regularly rough sleep in the borough that the Council engages with and the numbers will depend on their access to severe weather services and engagement with current interventions.

Cllr Adeleke referred to page 7 of the report and asked what the current level of complaints that the department receives are and how their interaction with residents is. MPinnell stated that he did not have the exact level of complaints and that there is a customer service team in place that consists of a senior surveyor, resident liaison officer and two multi-trade operatives. On receipt of a complaint, it goes to the DBC appliance site, and a DBC member of staff will visit, with an RLO if appropriate. If the complaint can be easily fixed, the multi-trade officer will respond and fix the issue, otherwise the resident will be appointed a point of contact at DBC to manage the complaint. The process is much improved and is entirely managed through DBC and complaints have significantly reduced. MPinnell noted that they have not received any late complaints and are all being responded to within policy guidelines and timescales.

Cllr Barry-Mears commented on the rough sleepers report on the gov.uk website and suggested that the estimate for Dacorum is 8. Cllr Barry-Mears asked how often the figure is updated. NBeresford confirmed that the highlight reporting comes from DBC and is an estimated figure. Spotlight audits are undertaken as well as bi-monthly street counts in collaboration with the Community Safety Partnership and the Dacorum Street Outreach team. Once the estimate is submitted, a validation has to be provided on the number of rough sleepers identified on a given night, and that 6 is the validated number that was submitted. NBeresford advised that they work with significantly more individuals than the reported 8 and that intervention work is ongoing with as many as 35 single homeless individuals who may be at risk of rough sleepers. These individuals have an assigned caseworker and have a personalised housing plan, and they also actively engage with the outreach team. NBeresford confirmed that more detailed information could be provided and explained that the Community Safety Partnership and Homeless Forum work through a targeted intervention and meet monthly to discuss individuals known to the services.

Cllr Mahmood referred to page 6 of the report and asked if there has been in an increase in anti-social behaviour and how this is being tackled over recent years. NBeresford advised that figures have remained fairly steady, though they see seasonal trends, such as an increase in noise and other nuisance behaviour during summer months. The review of anti-social behaviour is being taken from a case management perspective and relates to the Housing Transformation Improvement Plan, and the review is being undertaken across the whole housing service portfolio as well as specific areas of activity. There is currently a differential approach depending on whether you are a DBC tenant or resident of the borough, and the intention is to review the mapping process of the service delivery and move to a preferred position where there is a one-service approach that is more consistent in tackling ASB for all residents.

Cllr Mahmood commented on the cost of living crisis and asked if the approach is being led by the voluntary sector or DBC and what the feedback has been so far. OJackson noted that it is a joint effort between DBC and the voluntary sector and that they are working closely with Community Action Dacorum to highlight opportunities to speak to residents and tenants about their concerns. OJackson confirmed that they are due to release a schedule of events across the borough to reach areas where there has been less engagement and that this is an opportunity to build on existing events as well as lead and coordinate on their own to talk with the local community. There is a lot of data on those who are struggling and that they want to focus on those who sit outside of these groups to ensure they are also supported and signposted to relevant agencies.

Cllr Mahmood asked if issues are first brought to DBC or voluntary organisations. OJackson stated that the aim is to develop their approach and that they are linking up with organisations to ensure there is a golden thread between the local authority and voluntary sector. The aim is to have a consistent message and be aware of what support is available from each organisation.

Cllr Banks commented that the cost of living signposts on the DBC website is a good port of call for residents and that a direction will soon be issued to link all voluntary, charitable and DBC contributions to help people manage the crisis.

The Chair noted that they were not using bed and breakfasts before Covid and that £11,000 was spent on this in December 2022 and asked if the figure regarding those in temporary accommodation refers to bed and breakfast or the blocks specifically built for temporary accommodation. NBeresford confirmed that they had not heavily utilised bed and breakfast prior to Covid, and as of today there are currently 2 households in bed and breakfast accommodation. NBeresford advised that it is not ideal to utilise bed and breakfast accommodation and they are working hard to ensure this is kept to a minimum. When there are recommendations from a community perspective and ensuring that an individual is placed in a certain locality or type of accommodation then bed and breakfasts may be the most appropriate. NBeresford added that it also can help ensure the physical safety of an individual if they do not have appropriate temporary accommodation, such as being fully accessible, and that they may need to provide bed and breakfast accommodation for a short period of time.

NBeresford confirmed that they do not have any families in temporary accommodation for an extended period of time and families will typically be moved within a 24-hour period. On the figure regarding households in temporary accommodation, NBeresford advised that this relates to the total number of households in temporary accommodation and will include bed and breakfasts and units.

The Chair referred to page 9 of the report and the number of estate inspections completed. The Chair asked if this refers to the new policy of ensuring that the Council regularly inspects its stock and if they would see all 8,600 homes within an 18-month period. OJackson confirmed that this is correct and that there is a schedule of estate inspections. Estates are visited on an agreed frequency with those that have had historic issues being visited on a monthly basis and others less so. All areas of the borough are captured as part of the estate inspection schedule. NBeresford advised that this would not relate to the number of new tenant visits that are undertaken and that estate inspections are in addition to other visits undertaken across the stock.

The Chair referred to page 13 of the report and suggested that some numbers are quite high around high-risk domestic abuse and ASB cases. The Chair asked what is driving this increase in cases. NBeresford stated that she would need to provide additional data on these areas. On the number of domestic abuse cases heard, NBeresford advised that it did not seem unusually high and they are assessed on a dash risk assessment above a 14 threshold, the accumulative assessment that is undertaken by officers. NBeresford advised that the number of cases may relate to cases discussed over a whole quarter rather than just one MARAC meeting and that she would clarify this.

On ASB cases, NBeresford advised that this is the number of cases where they will have undertaken interventions and confirmed that they relate to community safety ASB cases, not housing cases, and doesn't highlight any ongoing monitoring of these cases that may be taking place.

The Committee noted the report.