Homes for Haringey Non-Confidential Papers Board of ... · Non-Confidential Papers Board of Directors Meeting Tuesday 06 December 2016 18:30 – 20:30 Council Chambers, 1st Floor,

Homes for Haringey

Non-Confidential Papers

Board of Directors Meeting Tuesday 06 December 2016

18:30 – 20:30

Council Chambers, 1st Floor, Civic Centre

18:30 – 19:00 – Resident Scrutiny Panel Impact Assessment Report

18:30 – 19:00 – Resident Scrutiny Panel Impact Assessment Report

Duration Presenter Subject

Standing Items 18:30 Chair Welcome and apologies 1 P1

18:30 Resident Scrutiny Panel Impact assessment presentation

19:00 Chair Declarations of Interest

2 P9

19:01 Chair Minutes of the Board meeting held on 24 October and 01 November 2016 and matters arising

3 19:05 Chair Chair’s report (verbal) 4 19:10 Managing Director Managing Director’s report (to follow)

Formal approval or decision

5 P26

19:20 Company Secretary Revised risk management framework

Key Discussion Themes 6 P39

19:35 Director of Housing Demand

Performance report – Demand Focus

7 19:55 Company Secretary Next Steps following board away day – (verbal presentation)

8 20:10 Director of Operations CONFIDENTIAL - Safeguarding Report (verbal)

For noting 9 20.20 Director of Asset

Management CONFIDENTIAL Health and safety update (verbal)

10

20:25 Company Secretary CONFIDENTIAL Minutes from the Audit and Risk Committee held on 22 November 2016

Other 11 20.30 Chair AOB

CONFIDENTIAL Update on legal action (verbal) CONFIDENTIAL – Procurement Waiver Approval (to follow)

Board of Directors Meeting Tuesday 06 December 2016

18.30 – 20.30 pm

January 2017 Provisional Agenda

1. Chair’s report (verbal) 2. MD’s Report 3. Business plan 2017/18 objectives 4. Performance Report - discussion focus to be advised 5. Quarter 3 2016/17 management accounts and draft budget 2017/18 6. Window maintenance programme 7. Governance improvements from board away day November 2016 8. Health and safety update (verbal)

Report for Board of Directors Title Resident Scrutiny Panel – Annual Impact Assessment Report for Discussion and noting Authority for decision Board Officer to contact for more information Harriet Rushton, Governance and Risk Manager Executive Director Puneet Rajput, Corporate Affairs Director

1. INTRODUCTION AND TIMING

Homes for Haringey’s Resident Scrutiny Panel (RSP) report annually to the board onthe impact of their scrutiny activities.

2. BACKGROUND

Attached for review is a draft Impact Assessment Report from the RSP. Members ofthe RSP will be in attendance to present and would welcome questions and feedbackfrom the board.

3. CONSIDERATIONS

a. Risks the RSP forms part of the risk and assurance framework for Homes for Haringey.

b. Finance an impact assessment helps to assess value from the work of the panel

c. Customer/Resident impact none from this report

d. Communications (Internal and External) none from this report

e. Human Resources (HR) none from this report

f. Health and Safety none from this report

g. Equality and diversity impact none from this report

h. Resident Involvement none from this report

4. RECOMMENDATION

The board is recommended to review and note the Impact Assessment

Name Puneet Rajput Title Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary Date November 2016

1

Resident Scrutiny Panel Annual Impact Assessment report December 2016

1. IntroductionThis year has been another year of success and challenges for the Resident Scrutiny Panel (RSP). The RSP would like to thank Homes for Haringey (HFH) for their support and guidance during 2016 and supporting the work that has been varied and contributed to continuous service improvements that residents have experienced.

The beginning of 2016 was greeted with sadness when the current Chair Roger Bush decided to make some significant life changes and moved to live outside of the Borough and had to resign. Roger had been a great stabilizing influence due to his skills and commitment to the RSP since 2012 and as a co-opted member of the Risk and Audit Committee. This departure opened up an opportunity for the RSP to evaluate how it works and look to providing additional support to the Panel and its members.

Yvonne Denny the Chair has led the RSP during 2016 supported by her two vice Chairs Viv Sharma and Nelly Tackie. The RSP would like to thank their officers for their hard work and supporting individual members to take on new roles and build their personal skills and knowledge. An amendment was made to the RSP Terms of Reference following consultation with the RSP to appoint two vice chairs to not only provide additional support to the Chair but to ensure that succession planning and capacity building is made a key part of the operating process for the RSP.

The RSP were delighted that HFH was awarded a new 10 year management contract, and are excited to be part of the process for supporting service changes and making sure that the quality of services and customer experience continues to grow to meet expectations of the Council, Board, employees and residents. This is a challenging time due to reducing financial resources but also offers an opportunity to review and implement new innovative ways of working. The RSP perceive their role as being the independent ‘eyes and ears’ for HFH, and using their unique position to challenge, recommend and be the critical friend that is so important to making a difference as a valued partner. The support by the Managing Director, Governance team, Executive team and the Board and participating employees from the Council and HFH has been excellent and so appreciated.

Yvonne Denny Chair of the RSP says, “ This has been a challenging and rewarding year and we are grateful for all the support and

2

opportunities given to us to work with HFH to make things better for all tenants and leaseholders. The RSP has grown in members and individual contributions have increased and we look forward to an even better year in 2017. A big thanks to our mentor Oonah Lacey for her patience, time and teaching, which is so valued and appreciated. Bringing fun and helping us be a team is at times not easy but her skills and experience and passion for scrutiny and HFH is special to us all.”

2. Achievements in 2016We have had another successful year as a panel and we have achieved together with your support a significant number of achievements. These include:

• Two service reviews – Estate Services inspection process, andComplaints management

• Three ‘light touch reviews- responsive repairs, leaseholdservices, and customer services

• Nine mystery shopping exercises including, access to thebusiness, asset management, complaints, responsive repairs,service charges, estate inspections, and customer services

• Interviewing and appointment of 3 key employees• Recruited 5 new RSP members, current total 11 members (one

on sabbatical due to personal issues)• Appointed 5 new members to Friends of Scrutiny• Successfully handled a legal challenge• Two RSP members have used their training with the RSP to

develop new careers and undertake vocational training• Positively contributed to the ‘Housing Futures’ review• Held 4 Focus Groups with a total of 80 residents attending• Presented the ‘HFH Scrutiny Story’ at the CIOH conference• Positively supported and presented at the East Kent Housing

Tenants Conference ‘ best Practice to deliver Scrutiny’• Participated and presented at the City West Housing induction

event for new scrutiny members• Completed 8 training sessions including, estate inspections

(Peter Purdie), understanding complaints (Charlotte Currie),and RSP training in presentation skills, developing interviewquestions and facilitating interviews, creating surveys, chairingand meeting skills, preparing for your personal developmentappraisal and interview, and train the trainer,

• Complete review of Governance documentation including,Terms of Reference, Code of Conduct, person specification,recruitment process and Guidance Manual.

• Carried out review interviews with 46 employees from HFH andthe Council, Board members and Councilors

• Completed 2 surveys

3

• Contributed to 10 articles for Home Zone• Developed promotional material for the RSP with

Communications Team, banner, flyers, badges etc.• Provided over 60 recommendations, 95% accepted• 9 Scrutiny monitor meetings• 18 RSP meetings• 9 individual member support meeting• 2 RSP recruitment events – including competency recruitment

event, interviews and induction• Consulted on a number of HFH initiatives, Resident

Engagement Strategy, Resident Annual Report, Leaseholderservice Review

• Over 2000 hours of volunteering time given by RSP members• Member appraisals and personal development plans

completed• Promotion of RSP at 5 Community Events• Set up of a RSP email account• Updated RSP member blogs• Interview of the Managing Director for Home Zone• 20 working groups – to look at specific items in more detail e.g.

governance documentation, annual plan, project plans etc.• Attended 10 Estate inspections

3. Challenges and opportunitiesWe all learn from our experiences and strive to get better. Every challenge brings with it an opportunity to do things differently and make sure our volunteers feel supported, respected and valued. The challenges faced by the RSP has included:

• Keeping informed about service and employee changesfollowing re-structuring

• Departure of Catherine Hardy- Smith the Scrutiny Champion whohad built a fantastic relationship with the RSP, and providedvaluable and informative feedback on activities and serviceissues

• Loss of the Chair Roger Bush and co opted member of the Riskand Audit Committee

• Appointment of a replacement co-opted member followingchange in recruitment process which has resulted in no RSPrepresentation for 2016

• High level of turnover of Scrutiny administrative support• Legal challenge by ex RSP member that resulted in RSP work

being distracted and considerable stress to individual members• On-going challenge by the Haringey Leaseholders Association

and the need to maintain confidentiality for participants whichwas critical

4

• New RSP officers taking on roles and needing capacity buildingto work together and take on new roles and responsibilities

• Promotion and recruitment campaign for new members- failureto get recruitment information distributed and to reach out touninvolved residents

• Restructuring within HFH and keeping up to date with changes• Process for handling compliance of RSP members regards

membership• Developing a RSP team and offering team building opportunities

that are acceptable to all members• Keeping the work plan on track• Empowering others to take on tasks and ensuring there is support

by all• Meeting individual member needs and ensuring support is

offered to all and not just a few members• Making capacity building and succession planning integral to

the running and development of the RSP

The opportunities that have arisen include:• Closer working with the Customer Services Director and

Resident Engagement team to undertake additionalactivities to help support the new innovative ResidentEngagement Strategy

• Appointment of all RSP members as Scrutiny Monitorsallocated to specific service areas.

• Developing the ‘Friends of Scrutiny’ to participate withtraining and reality checking activities to support RSPreviews

• E- learning opportunities to broaden knowledge and skillsof RSP members

• Allocating new roles to new RSP members• Increase in leaseholder membership brings an improved

balance to ensure that leasehold issues are adequatelymonitored and considered as part of all RSP reviews

• Support by the leasehold service and residentengagement team to improve RSP recruitmentcampaign

• Increased work capacity of the RSP due to additionalmembers

• Opening up all RSP skills training to all residents• Build on closer working and support with director of

operations to scope reviews, compliance checking andmystery shopping scenario building

• Reviewing the role and working relationship with theResident Scrutiny Champion and understanding thegovernance requirements.

5

4. Personal development appraisal feedback and findingsEvery year all RSP members participate with a PersonalDevelopment review that involves:

• Completion of a questionnaire• Interview• Providing a personal plan for the next year

The Feedback has overall indicated that: • Training was increased in 2016 but there is a need to provide re-

fresher and new training for new members • Members have enjoyed the opportunity for sharing of roles and

activities amongst all members • Chair has found it a challenging year, due to impact of legal

challenge, taking on the role of Chair, working with individuals and personal issues that have affected her performance.

• Having 2 vice chairs has enabled the work load to be sharedand their skills have increased but learning is on-going to ensure smooth team working

• 80% of Panel members have got involved with new activitiessuch as interviews, focus groups and reality checking activities

• Legal challenge was disappointing and upsetting butappreciated the support from the Mentor and HFH

• Scrutiny monitors enjoyed their role and opportunities• Support from Customer Services Director, Operations Director

and Director Repairs specifically identified as being helpful andencouraging

• Appreciated opportunity to take part with consultations• Members value being on the RSP and feel that they are

respected and valued• Concern regarding time to process RSP expenses• Frustration with the taxi problems• Welcomed additional meetings so that the pace is less speedy

but allows for more discussion• Frustration at times with colleagues that do not complete tasks

on time• Enjoyed work and proud of achievements• Disappointed with RSP recruitment campaign outcome but last

one delivered excellent new members• Improved awareness of the work and role of the RSP• Confidentiality is always maintained regardless of external

pressures• Officers very willing to accept feedback and work with the RSP• Officers value the work we do• Want to see friends of scrutiny develop

6

• Have scrutiny targets

Performance Highlights Activity Excellent Very good Satisfactory Poor Quality of training

Yes

Support and advice

Yes

Learning opportunities

Yes

Role of mentor

Yes

Role of Scrutiny administration

Yes

Role of Scrutiny Champion

Yes

Working with HFH staff

Yes

The feedback indicates that where there is a change of employees there is a need to understand the role and expectations of the RSP and for RSP members to appreciate that sometimes when things are not perfect it is to outside failures that cannot be controlled. Overall performance is high and a credit to the work by everyone involved with delivering scrutiny.

5. What we plan to do in 2017This year we have had a meeting with the Managing Director and Scrutiny Champion to help shape our work plan for 2017. We want to play a key role in looking at services that have moved over to HFH, help raise the profile and success of HFH externally and internally and focus on value for money opportunities whilst sustaining the quality services being delivered. The work plan will be reviewed quarterly and under the work plan will sit individual detailed project plans. Flexibility is key and the RSP will welcome requests from the Board, Risk and Audit Committee, Executive Team and residents to ensure that a positive contribution is provided by the RSP.

As we move forward to looking at the New Year the RSP plan to: • Recruit an additional 5 members• Complete 3 service reviews• Bi- monthly mystery shopping

7

• Complete a customer experience survey of all leaseholders andtenants

• Allocate a minimum of 2 scrutiny monitors to each service area• Increase awareness through working with the Resident

Engagement team• Appoint a co-opted RSP member to the Risk and Audit

Committee• Take up e-learning opportunities• Capacity build all RSP members to participate with employee

recruitment as requested• Build a working relationship with the new HFH Board• Hold a team building event• Provide additional training in understanding equal opportunities

and disability• Widen role of RSP members to support capacity building• Support activities detailed in the Resident Engagement Strategy• Open up training to non- scrutiny panel members

6. Conclusion

The RSP is grateful to the support of HFH and welcomes feedback. We see 2017 as a great opportunity to continue our work in partnership with the Board and Executive team.

RSP members will deliver and make a difference and stability within the RSP is critical to achieving our goals and meeting your expectations.

8

Meeting: Board Meeting Date: 17.00 24 October 2016 Venue: Committee Room 1, Civic Centre, Wood Green Present: Tom McGregor (TM) - Chair, Philip Goodwin (PG), Lorna Reith

(LR), David Beacham (DB), Joanna Christophides (JCh), Jenny Coombs (JC),

Officers in Attendance: Andrew Billany (AB) Dawn Kent-Payne (DKP), Harriet Rushton (HR) – Minutes , Puneet Rajput (PR), Esther Campbell (EC), RobertGrey, PWC (RG)

Shareholder Tracie Evans (TE) Apologies: Georgina Walters (GW), Adzowa Kwabla-Oklikah (AKOk);

Anastasia Bloom (ABl) Distribution: Board Members

Item Minutes Action 1. Welcome and Apologies

Apologies as above.

2. Declarations of Interest

None

3. Annual Accounts Approval EC summarised the report.

• The format had changed year-on-year due to the inclusion of HfH’ssubsidiary – Move 51 – as well as changes in the Financial Reporting Standards, which govern the presentation of our accounts.

• At the end of the 2015/16 year, there was an operating surplus of £212k.• This surplus was offset by one-off redundancy costs and a holiday pay

accrual, resulting in a deficit of £577k. Adjustments were then made forpensions, which lead to an overall deficit was £2.8m.

• HfH have received a letter of representation from LBH which confirms thatthey will underwrite this deficit and continue to provide financial support toHfH and Move 51 for at least 12 months from the date the accounts aresigned.

• The accounts have been audited by PWC and no material misstatementswere discovered.

• They were recommended for approval by the Audit & Risk Committee inSeptember.

RG confirmed that PWC have fulfilled their obligations and reported to Audit and Risk Committee.

DB and JC confirmed that the Audit and Risk Committee was happy with the accounts.

9

Board approved the annual accounts 4. AOB

As interim Chair, TM led a brief discussion on the development plans for the board which have arisen from discussions with board members and the executive. The board focus over the coming months was touched upon. This will be developed and finalised at the upcoming away day with the whole board and ELT.

10

Meeting: Board Meeting Date: 7.00pm 01 November 2016 Venue: Conference Room 1, 1st floor, 48 Station Road Present: Tom McGregor (TM) – Chair, Joanna Christophides (JCh),

Adzowa Kwabla-Oklikah (AKOk); Anastasia Bloom (ABl), Georgina Walters (GW), Yvette Davis (YD), El-Farouk Cheik (EFC)

Member representative Tracie Evans (TE) Officers in Attendance: Andrew Billany (AB),Chris Liffen (CL), Dawn Kent-Payne (DKP),

Harriet Rushton (HR) – Minutes , Astrid Kjellborg-Obst (AKO), Denise Gandy (DG), Puneet Rajput (PR), Andy Briggs (ABr)

Apologies: Lorna Reith (LR), David Beacham (DB), Jenny Coombs (JC), David Sherrington (DS)

Distribution: Board Members

Item Minutes Action 0 TM explained that prior to the board meeting ABr, who is responsible for the contact

centre at the Council, would be making a brief presentation to the board. ABr was welcomed and he explained that he has been working closely with AKO to address the performance of the call centre and that he wanted to give reassurance to the board in terms of how he was moving things forward, what was working/not working and managing expectations. The conversation centred around:

• Putting the demands of the centre into perspective – the call centre has 13 different channels of which HfH is one. HfH calls make up about 30% of the load and have a proportionate amount of staff allocated to dealing with them.

• Issues faced – use of a different system for HfH calls; this is being addressed and from December, one system will be used for all calls

• Reducing demand for what is known as “avoidable contact” calls by improving service in other areas e.g. communication around repairs, digital channels, ensuring letters go out on time.

• Streamlining the channels and re-directing those resources to channels with heavier traffic

• Working with not just AKO but three other heads of service, and the Resident Scrutiny Panel (RSP) to improve the performance of the team.

• The Board sought clarity on the performance targets we have set ourselves e.g. what is top quartile for a contact centre? How will we know what we need to achieve by 2018 and if we get there? In addition, the targets for LBH and HfH calls are different – should they not be aligned? AKO explained our target was an industry standard three years ago, this will be revisited.

• ABr emphasised that performance cannot just be measured on quantity, there is a qualitative element that needs to be addressed – a little more time spent on the phone can prevent repeat calls for example.

• AKOk enquired of CL whether his directorate’s issues with the call centre had been resolved – CL confirmed that the service was much better and his staff were involved with the improvement plans.

• AKO offered to update the board at the conclusion of the six month turnaround plan

The conversation concluded and Andy was thanked for his time and useful update. ABr

AKO

11

left. 1 Welcome, apologies and DoI

TM began the formal session of the board and welcomed all to the meeting and apologies as above were noted. The new board members, YD and EFC were additionally welcomed to their first meeting. There were no declarations of Interest. In relation to the running order, TM confirmed that the paper on the committees at item 6 has been postponed in order to be included in discussion at the Away Day on 26 November 2016. Until that discussion is had, the current composition of the committees is continued.

2 Minutes of the meeting 27 September 2016

• No accuracy issues were reported. • It was requested that the action log be updated and maintained. • Thanks to Keith Jenkins were re-emphasised and board asked that KJ be sent a

copy of the non-confidential minutes from the last board to see their thanks Updates:

• The financial reporting around the elections is ready and will be distributed • The Move51 recommendation from the Board went to the Council Leadership

Team and was agreed • Appeals to the Board – discussions are ongoing with Unions to remove this

requirement due to the burden it places on GW as the main person hearing these. Board only hear dismissal appeals which tallies with LBH policy. YD and JCh stated they would also be interested in performing this responsibility.

• Short discussion on involving a third party to review the board – TE explained that there have been some issues with the way board worked and how they worked with ELT. LBH felt that facilitated support around making that better was appropriate and it would also provide LBH assurance that HfH had strong governance. This is meant to be a supportive action.

Minutes of the meeting 27 September 2016 were approved as an accurate record.

HR

3 Chairs Report (verbal item) TM explained that it was common practice for the Chair to produce a short report on activities undertaken in his role as Chair between meetings e.g. who he has met and why. TM used this session to update the board that he had been having a lot of conversations with AB, and PR, about working together, the direction of the board and the ALMO. TM feels there should be a stronger emphasis on both performance and the staff and this is where the focus will lie for a while.

4 MD Report (verbal item) AB said that this report came from calls at previous board meetings to have this type of report. The idea is that it would be an opportunity to update the board on both the internal and external landscape. The key aims are:

• Inform the board of the current focus and activities of the MD

12

• Help to formulate the board forward plan for the year and ensure the right and meaningful discussions are being had

• Address concerns of silos of knowledge on the board and make the board aware of all areas of the business, not just their portfolio

• Keep the board aware of the horizon changes AB sought input from the board about how they would like to see this information:

• Board welcomed the idea of the report and agreed that a written report to discuss would probably be the best format. This will be trialled and board will feedback if suitable for their needs.

5 Approval of Puneet Rajput as Company Secretary and retirement of Dawn Kent-Payne

TM extended his thanks to DKP for her assistance over the last few months, and welcomed PR to the role of Company Secretary. TE extended her thanks to DKP for her invaluable service. AKOk requested an updated organogram in light of all the changes which have occurred over the last few months Board approved the retirement of Dawn Kent-Payne as Company Secretary of Homes for Haringey Board approved the appointment of Puneet Rajput as Company Secretary of Homes for Haringey

PR

7 Performance Report TM provided some background and context – As an ALMO we have a level of performance responsibility to the Council. This paper is a full performance report so the board can review all the data. It is proposed that this is not the usual format and that each board meeting will focus specifically on one of three areas in turn – housing demand, property and housing management. DKP presenting the paper. Appendix 1 – the monthly reporting to the Council Appendix 2 – the reporting framework Appendix 3 – the board bulletin KPIs DKP requested feedback on what the board want to see and preferences for how that information is to be displayed. It is important they get the information that they need in a format that is accessible. For example, the KPIs provided in the board bulletin may no longer cover the relevant information as they were agreed some time ago. Discussion points:

• A greater focus on performance is welcomed Trends are identified and comparisons made with prior performance if KPIs not met to identify the cause and exception reporting is added in the term of narrative.

• Modelling and trajectory trending can be included if that would be useful.

13

• Budgetary tracking would be a useful inclusion – AKOk and DKP to discuss separately to clarify best way to see this

• It was agreed an overall dashboard would be a useful presentation in A3 • As the board’s role is predominately strategic, there was a general feeling that

board should not get deeply involved in the detail; that is for the executive team. • It was agreed that the board need to be happy with the information that is

provided to the Council and be able to trust the information in the reports. Any red flags in the reports will formulate the basis of discussions at board.

• TM re-emphasised that board would not usually get the full performance report as each meeting would look at a different section and allow questions to arise from the data. There would still be regular overall KPI performance reporting as there is currently.

TM ran through the report in the round to take any questions the board may have:

• Voids (general needs and sheltered are now 22 re-let and PSL are 12 days) – both improvements

• P7 re gas compliance in PSLs – question arose as to the drop from 100% - CL explained this was due to a policy that compliance was not confirmed until a certificate is received from the landlord. The new process is that if there is no certificate, HfH will go out and do the check as it is too important an area to wait.

• P9 – estate grading still an issue; AKO to pick up with GW separately to clarify • Demand spend level noted – TM requested an update on out-of-borough

relocation. DG confirmed that this has been agreed for TA and a consultation has occurred. A support package is being developed in this regard and it is likely the first moves will occur towards the end of November. Currently the focus is on the Home Counties and closer to Haringey to ensure processes and support are correct before moving further afield. Duty to re-house still lies with LBH unless the individual voluntarily gives up their claim. The next step is to assess whether we can move to discharge that duty once the move out of London has occurred, as we can for inside London.

• Also discussed, the Homelessness Act currently going through Parliament. This will broaden responsibility hugely but also places emphasis on homelessness prevention. This is a significant piece of legislation if it gets passed. An update is being prepared for LBH and will be distributed to the board.

Board agreed they were happy to proceed as suggested, with review to follow at a later date

AKO DG

9 Health and Safety Update CL updated the board on the current focus for the Head of Health and Safety:

• Working with Operations on improving inspections in ESO lodges, making sure inspected regularly.

• Working on KPIs for corporate activities that should be undertaken to mitigate risks that could lead to H&S.

AKOk asked if a fire officer has been recruited. CL said not but an agency Fire Risk Officer is in place. There will be a proposal regarding seconding and training staff from within the business to cover the role of Fire Risk Assessor. Board noted the update

14

10 Minutes from the Audit and Risk Committee held on 06 September 2016

Board noted the minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee held on 06 September 2016

11 Minutes from the Appointment and Remuneration Committee held on 27 September 2016 Board noted the minutes of the Appointment and Remuneration Committee held on 27 September 2016

12 AOB No AOB was discussed

13 Closed session of the Board No decisions were reached in the closed session. An action was noted for PR to provide informative notes on the discussion to the board.

PR

Meeting closed – 21:10

15

Action log

Date of meeting

Agenda item

Action Action owner

Action to be completed

Action completed and comment

25/02/2016 7 Execs to project customer increase in satisfaction and stretch target of 85%

Execs ASAP Demand don’t collect customer satisfaction information for the main service at the moment. We collect it for Hearthstone but satisfaction is already pretty high there. We plan to start to collect information linked to Transformation and will set a base line to allow this to be measured.

10/05/2016 12 / AOB

Our approach to providing assurance on standing items on an exceptions basis (Health and Safety / Safeguarding) to be agreed at the next portfolio review

ALL July 2016

10/05/2016 14 Staff appeals to Board – update on consultation – AB to report back via Board Bulletin

AB June 2016 Jan-17

This discussion is ongoing

Summary of Approvals/Delegations Agenda Item No. Approved/Delegated

Minutes from the meeting 06 September 2016

2 The board approved the minutes as a correct record

Approval of Puneet Rajput as Company Secretary and retirement of Dawn Kent-Payne

5 Board approved the retirement of Dawn Kent-Payne as Company Secretary of Homes for Haringey Board approved the appointment of Puneet Rajput as Company Secretary of Homes for Haringey

HLA Update 8 Board agreed that the proposed response can be sent to the HLA

16

Action log Date of meeting

Agenda item

Action Action owner



10/05/2016 AOB 3 AB to produce a report to Board to explain his possible new role as lead officer for the Priority 5 (Housing) priority.

AB June 2016

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 On hold currently; will be re-visited if this is still felt to be appropriate once committee composition confirmed

28/06/2016 7 Safeguarding report – AKO to provide update AKO As appropriate

Will come to Dec board

28/06/2016 7 + 3 Ensure whole board informed of instances of H&S issues, safeguarding issues, key work going on e.g. around voids and leaseholder satisfaction etc

AB and Exec

As appropriate

In place

28/06/2016 8 Communication to residents re “gifting” from suppliers

CL ASAP Complete

28/06/2016 4 Updated report and suggestions on Move51 CL 27/09/2016 Complete

28/06/2016 6 Overhaul of risk maps PR Nov Audit This will be discussed as part of the risk framework item at the board meeting 6th December

27/09/2016 4 Discussion with PWC re accounts implications DKP ASAP Complete

27/09/2016 4 AB to write report for LBH based on decision AB ASAP Complete

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

DKP/TE Nov-16 This item will be discussed at the Away Day on 26th November

17

Action log Date of meeting

Agenda item

Action Action owner



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

AKO June-17

01/11/2016 2 Send KJ copy of non-confidential board 27.09.16

HR ASAP Complete

01/11/2016 5 Dissemination of an updated organogram

PR? Dec-16 Complete and attached

01/11/2016 7 Discussions to occur between DKP and AKOk around reporting requirements

DKP ASAP Ongoing

Reporting will be subject to change until a format is fully agreed.

01/11/2016 7 Discussion to occur between GW and AKO re estate grading

AKO ASAP

01/11/2016 7 Distribution of Homelessness Act update going to LBH to board

DG TBC

01/11/2016 13 PR to provide discussion note to board members regarding closed session question

PR 18/11/16 Completed

18

Andrew Bilany

Managing Director

Puneet Rajput

Director of Corporate

Affairs and Company

Secretary

Denise Gandy

Director of Housing

Demand

Chris Liffen

Executive Director of

Property

Astrid Kjellberg-Obst


Operations

Mahi Evangelou

PA to Managing

Director

David Sherrington

Director of Asset

Management and

Deputy Director of

Property

Executive Leadership Team

TOP STRUCTURE NOVEMBER 2016

19

Agenda Item 0.2.1


Operations

Astrid Kjellberg-Obst

Head of Tenancy Services

Jasper South

Head of Estates and

Neighbourhood Services

Peter Purdie

Head of Income Management

Nesan Thevanesan

Executive Assistant

Dassa Nicolaides

Operations Directorate Structure - Top Tier – November 2016

Communities and Customer

Relationship Director

Chinyere Ugwu

20


Property

Chris Liffen

Head of HRS

Operations

Paul Young

Property Directorate Structure - Top Tier – November 2016

Executive Assistant

Angela Lallaram

Director of Asset

Management and

Deputy Director of

Property

David Sherrington

Head of Surveying

Services

Graeme Budge

Head of Mechanical

& Engineering

Services

Gowan Turnbull

21

Director of Asset

Management and

Deputy Director of

Property

David Sherrington

Executive Assistant

Angela Lallaram

Head of Health, Safety

and Compliance

Dominic Johnson

Head of Major Works

Anthony Wiggins

Asset Management Directorate Structure – Asset Mgt Top Tier – November 2016

Policy and Strategy

Manager

Jacinta Walters

Commercial and

Contracts Manager

Niall Tallis

22

Director of Housing

Demand

Denise Gandy

Service Manager:

Housing Needs

Beverley Faulkner

Housing Demand Structure - Top Tier – November 2016

Service Manager:

Hearthstone

Abigail Brennan

Service Manager:

Occupancy

Management

Vacant

Service Manager:

Housing Supply

Victor Igbins

Service

Development

Manager

Cleo Andronikou

23

Head of

Communications

Sophie Hoskins

Director of Corporate

Affairs

Puneet Rajput

Head of Business

Improvement

Dawn Kent-Payne

Head of

Procurement

Denislava Ivanova

Head of IT

Pete Davey

Corporate Affairs Directorate Structure - Top Tier – November 2016

Governance & Risk

Manager

Harriet Rushton

Finance Controller

Esther Campbell

24

Managing Director

Andrew Billany

Executive Assistant

Mahi Evangelou

Head of Business

Development

Rebecca Begej

Managing Directors - Top Tier – November 2016

25

Report for Board of Directors Title Revised Risk Management Framework Report for Discussion and decision Risk map link Good governance Authority for decision Board Officer to contact for more information Puneet Rajput, Director Corporate Affairs and

Company Secretary Executive Director Puneet Rajput, Director Corporate Affairs and

Company Secretary

Key Action

• The board is asked to review the risk management and assurance framework that ispresented for approval.

• The board is asked to consider whether there are other risks that should becaptured on the risk register.

• The board is asked to consider the appropriateness of the various sources ofassurance identified against each risk.

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper presents a draft risk management framework for review and approval bythe board.

2. BACKGROUND

Homes for Haringey (HfH), like most organisations, operates in a turbulentenvironment which can impact our ability to achieve our goals and in extreme cases,our ability to survive as an organisation.

One of the essential functions of the board is to ensure that an effective riskmanagement and internal controls assurance framework is in place that helps tosafeguard assets and deliver outcomes for residents.

It is, however, also important to appreciate that risk management should not be seenas a purely preventative measure to discourage the organisation from undertakingcertain actions. New opportunities can sometimes arise for organisations to exploitand this may be the case, for example, following the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement.The key factor is that the board’s appetite for risk should be balanced by its appetitefor good control.

The board and the Audit & Risk Committee have previously expressed a need torefine and improve the current risk management framework. This paper, therefore,presents a new framework based on best practice within the social housing sector.

26

3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The UK Corporate Governance Code states that the board is responsible for“determining the nature and extent of the significant risks it is willing to take inachieving its strategic objectives...and should maintain sound risk management andinternal control systems”.

In social housing these obligations for board members are primarily to residents,staff, communities, regulators, local authorities, funders and suppliers. The NationalHousing Federation (NHF) code of governance, to which HfH has signed up to,states that the board must establish a formal and transparent arrangement forconsidering how the organisation ensures financial viability, maintains a soundsystem of internal controls, manages risk and maintains an appropriate relationshipwith external auditors.

The role and responsibility of board members, therefore, involves:

a) Setting the direction – this is usually encapsulated in a risk management strategyor policy which includes a risk appetite / tolerance statement and embodied bythe tone from the top. The executive has delegated authority for delivering on thisdirection and all employees are responsible for behaving according to the riskculture and policies set by the organisation.

b) Providing challenge on risks and the risk management process – the boardshould provide constructive challenge to the key risks the executive identify (andthe ones they don’t), the effectiveness of the mitigation plans for further actionand the contingency arrangements in case the risks materialise. This includes therisks presented in the risk register and those presented (explicitly or not) in allsignificant proposals to the board for approval.

c) Gaining assurance – board members should use the internal controls assuranceframework to challenge the risk management process and seek appropriateassurances that risks are being controlled as effectively as possible. There aredifferent sources of assurance available including, for example, management,internal audit, external audit, resident scrutiny and the council. A key function ofthe board is to decide which are the most appropriate sources of assurance forthe management of each risk.

d) Communicating to stakeholders – the board’s governance responsibility includesensuring appropriate and timely information about the organisation’s financialposition and risk management is communicated to stakeholders such as thecouncil, residents and the wider community. The main channel for this is theannual report and financial statements.

The table below summarises the key roles and responsibilities within the risk management process.

27

Level Role

Board Set the direction; provide constructive challenge; gain assurance; communicate to stakeholders.

Audit Committee Provide assurance to the board on the effectiveness of the system of internal controls; agree the programme of internal audits and any other investigations; seek assurance on the effectiveness of controls from the most appropriate sources; review current risk exposures and a target level that these can be reduced to; challenge the cost of mitigation against the potential impact; act as a ‘critical friend’ to the executive; help establish a positive tone and culture of risk management.

Executive Embed risk management throughout the organisation; implement board approved policy / strategy; set a positive tone and culture from the top; ensure information provided to the board / committee has sufficient detail to enable debate and informed decision making; ensure key strategic, project and business risks are owned, correctly evaluated and appropriately controlled; contingency plans are in place and periodically tested.

Managers and employees

Behave and adhere to the policies and culture set by the organisation; identify, assess, manage and report risks; report up the hierarchy new / emerging risks.

4. RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

A risk management framework is the term used to describe a collection of differentrisk management components that in combination help improve business certainty,protect organisation assets and support the achievement of goals. They include:

a) Risk policy or strategy – HfH currently has a Risk Strategy which will be updated toreflect the framework that is currently being considered.

b) Risk management roles and responsibilities – as above

c) Risk management process – how to identify, assess, manage and report risk in aconsistent manner.

d) Risk management tools – developed to help provide an accurate and consistentassessment of risk and controls assurance. These include a risk register, risk mapand assurance map.

A draft risk register and assurance map, based on quarter three 2016/17, accompany this report. They have been put together by the executive. The key changes that have been made are set out below.

28

a) A move away from departmental risk registers to a single register that identifiesstrategic, corporate, health and safety, housing management, housing demandand property related risks.

b) The introduction of scoring criteria to evaluate gross and net probability, impactand total severity.

c) The introduction of a target level of risk to indicate how much further a risk canbe reduced to (if any) through further strengthening of controls / introduction ofnew controls. This should also help to reflect the board’s agreed level of risktolerance.

d) The monetary quantification of impact based on the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) Savings target for HfH (2017/18: £1M).

e) The introduction of an assurance map that identifies the different sources ofassurance that can be relied upon for the management of each risk and anevaluation of the overall effectiveness of the controls from those sources.

The risk register currently presents all risks together with their gross and net scores. The board and the Audit & Risk committee may have a view on only wishing to see risks above a certain score and delegating those below a threshold to the executive to manage.

The board may wish to challenge the evaluation (gross, net and target) of risks and prioritise ones for further action. Audit Committee oversight and scrutiny will help to assess the direction of travel of risks and the aggregate risk position of the organisation.

The register and assurance map will be reviewed on a quarterly basis by the executive and the Audit & Risk Committee.

5. RECOMMENDATION

The board is recommended to approve adoption of the risk register and assurancemap into the risk management framework for HfH.

Name Puneet Rajput Title Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary Date 25 November 2016

29

Key for Risk Register and Assurance Map

Risk Ref DescriptionST Strategic risks relating to business plan and Council Score Description Chance of OccurenceCO Corporate related risks 1 Remote 0% - 10%HS Health and safety related risks 2 Possible 10% - 50%HM Housing management related risks 3 Probable 50% - 80%HD Housing demand related risks 4 Likely > 80%PM Property and maintenance related risks

Sound systems of control in place Score Description Monetary Impact Some improvement required 1 Manageable < £50k Improvements required 2 Moderate £50k - £100k Systems of control are weak 3 Serious £100k - £200k

4 Critical > £200k Can be relied on as a source of assurance

Based on MTFS HRA Co. Savings target of £1m1 0% - 5% < £50k2 5% - 10% £50k - £100k3 10% - 20% £100k - £200k4 >20% > £200k

Probability Criteria

Impact CriteriaControl Ratings

30

Homes for Haringey Risk Register Q3 2016/17

Ref Description Risk Owner Gross Prob.

Gross Impact

Gross Severity

Description of Controls Control Rating

Net Prob. Net Impact

Net Severity

Target Prob.

Target Impact

Target Severity

Further Actions

ST1 Potential damage resulting from continuing HLA action Head of Business Improvement

4 2 8 Legal defence 2 2 4 1 2 2

MediationST2 Lack of alignment between HfH's business plan and LBH

strategic objectives resulting in LBH intervention and loss of confidence.

Managing Director

2 4 8 Board monitoring and oversight of delivery

2 3 6 1 2 2 Regular reporting to the board on progress with delivering the business plan

Close working with LBH e.g. P5 board

Regular meetings with "opposite numbers" to monitor performance and maintain relationships

Performance management systems and processesHfH transformation programme

ST3 Weak relationship between the board and LBH leadership resulting in loss of LBH confidence and intervention.

Chair 4 2 8 Role of the Chair 2 2 4 1 2 2 Introduce regular liaison between HfH Chair & MD with LBH leadership

LBH COO attendance at board meetingsStrong MD / ELT relationship with LBH

Opportunities for board / LBH leadership interaction

Board to give consideration to the merits of strategic interaction with LBH leadership

CO1 Weak governance by the board resulting in weak scrutiny, poor decision making and loss of confidence from LBH on HfH's ability to deliver.

Chair 2 4 8 Strong MD / ELT relationship with LBH 2 2 4 1 1 1

Governance team supporting the boardBoard appraisal Develop a more robust appraisal

processRobust governance policies and standing orders

Update policies / standing orders following the board's review of governance

CO2 Failure to manage budgets effectively and realise target efficiency savings.

Director of Corporate Affairs

3 4 12 Board and ELT monitoring and oversight

2 4 8 2 2 4

Value for money framework Robust framework to be introduced for 17/18

Budgetary control and financial management

Quality of information to be improved with greater board & ELT oversight and scrutiny. Internal audit recommendations to be implemented.

CO3 failure to effectively recover from an IT disaster resulting in lost productivity, poor customer service and reputational damage.

Head of Housing IT

2 2 4 Business continuity plans 2 1 2 1 1 1 DR rehearsal to be scheduled to test BCP by Q1 17/18

Strategic

Corporate

31


Gross Impact

Gross Severity



Net Severity

Target Prob.

Target Impact

Target Severity

Further Actions

Cloud based systems Ohms system to be migrated to new server by Q4 17/17

Emergency back up processesCO4 Poor people management skills resulting in average

performance, wasted productivity, unnecessary cost and poor talent development.

Head of HR 2 4 8 HR & OD strategy 2 3 6 1 2 2

IIP Gold accreditationManagerment training and developmentPerformance managementCompetency framework

CO5 Failure of staff to follow policies and procedures resulting in serious injury, loss of life, reputational damage / serious detriment.

Head of HR 3 4 12 Up to date and robust policies and procedures

2 2 4 1 2 2

Training programmeManagement oversight

CO6 Poor procurement practices resulting in more costly engagement of supply chain and possible breach of regulations and potential fines.

Head of Procurement

3 4 12 Procurement contract regulations 3 3 9 2 2 4

LBH & HfH regulationsCorporate procurement support

CO7 Breach of data protection resulting in sanction from the ICO and possible reputational damage.

Director of Corporate Affairs

4 2 8 Data protection awareness training for staff

3 2 6 2 2 4

Data protection policy and procedure

IT systems and controls

HS1 Serious injury or death of an employee as a result of a failure of duty by HfH.

Head of Health & Safety

2 4 8 Legal Register 1 3 3 1 2 2

Health & Safety PolicySafety Systems in place including supporting Policies and Procedures which are regularly reviewed/updated

Health & Safety Training Programme

Health & safety compliance function

Site Safety Inspections carried out by team leaders/managers and H&S monthly across main services (HRS & Estate Services)Safety First Talks carried out by team leaders/managers monthlyMonitoring Framework - Staff facing Compliance Key Performance Indicators which are reported quarterly to ELT/Audit and Risk Committee

HS2 Serious injury or death of a resident/tenant/third party as a result of a failure of duty by HfH to manage property compliance


2 4 8 Property Compliance Project 1 4 4 1 2 2 There are a number of areas around data and measuring performance that need to be reconciled

Health & safety compliance function

Health and Safety

32


Gross Impact

Gross Severity



Net Severity

Target Prob.

Target Impact

Target Severity

Further Actions

Fire PolicyAsbestos PolicyLift PolicyAdaptation PolicyElectrical PolicyWater Hygiene (L8) PolicyMonitoring Framework - Property Compliance Key Performance Indicators which are reported quarterly to ELT/Audit and Risk Committee

There are a number of areas around data and measuring performance that need to be reconciled

HS3 Serious injury or death of a resident/tenant/third party as a result of a failure of duty by HfH to manage purpose built blocks of flats

TBA 2 4 8 Estate Service Inspection Programme including fire, repair and tenancy enforcement issues.

2 3 6 1 2 2 Central monitoring/visability of completed checklists with the assignment of actions to be formalised

Fire Risk Assessment programme - annual programme for properties over 6 storiesFire Risk Assessment programme - 3 yearly programme for properties below 6 storiesTenancy Enforcement Central monitoring/visability of

completed tenancy actions to be formalised

HS4 Serious injury or death of a resident/tenant/third party as a result of a failure of duty by HfH to manage sheltered accommodation/hostels

TBA 2 4 8 Inspections completed by Scheme Manager

2 3 6 1 2 2 Central monitoring/visability of completed checklists with the assignment of actions to be formalised

Annual Fire Risk Assessment ProgrammeTenancy Enforcement Central monitoring/visability of

completed tenancy actions to be formalised

HS5 Serious injury or death of a resident/tenant/third party as a result of a failure of duty by HfH to manage street properties

TBA 2 4 8 Currently no inspection process (no caretaking service)

2 4 8 1 2 2

5 yearly Fire Risk Assessment programme

Frequency of fire risk assessments to be reviewed

HM1 Weak income management resulting in substantially unrecoverable debt.

Head of Income Management

3 4 12 Transformation programme and restructure

2 4 8 1 4 4

Board and ELT performance focus Introduction of regular performance reporting to board and ELT

IT tools and systems that aid proactive income management

HM2 Customer fraud (e.g. Illegal subletting) leading to loss of revenue / assets and reputational damage.

Head of Tenancy Services

2 3 6 Systems and processes to perform checks

2 2 4 1 1 1 Introduction of IT workflows to support detection and action

Closing working with Fraud Team and other parties as appropriate

HM3 Poor / out of date care plans resulting in a failure to safeguard vulnerable residents.

Support Services Manager

3 4 12 Safeguarding policies and procedures 2 2 4 1 1 1 Clearance of action logs on sharepoint and improve visibility for monitoring

Mandatory safeguarding training

Housing Management

33


Gross Impact

Gross Severity



Net Severity

Target Prob.

Target Impact

Target Severity

Further Actions

Up to date good quality support plans

Regular audits from statutory safeguarding boardsWorkstream 2 review of supported housing service

HM4 Existing leaseholder perception of a poor service resulting in a failure to achieve a key LBH objective.

4 2 8 Internal estate services staff checking processes

3 2 6 2 2 4

Service charge advance consultation with selected leaseholders

HRS IT systems that provide detailed repairs related service charge information

Completion of planned improvements to HRS IT system

HM5 A failure to adequately prepare residents for the impact of welfare reform leading to poor tenancy sustainment and detrimental financial impact on both LBH and HfH.

4 4 16 Proactive support service to help people out of benefit dependency

2 4 8 2 4 8

Multi agency approach to helping residents gain employmentResources (IT and staff) dedicated to helping upskill residents

HM6 Untidy / poorly maintained estates impacting lettability and creating a negative perception of council housing.

2 2 4 Estate inspection processes 2 2 4 2 2 4

Use of mobile technology to share and act on information

HD1 Failure to effectively manage LBH's statutory homelessness duty resulting in a rise in homelessness and non fulfilment of HfH obligations.

Director of Demand

4 4 16 Transformation programme and restructure

3 4 12 2 4 8

Resources and focus on prevention activityJoint working via P5 board

HD2 Excessive reliance on Temporary Accommodation resulting in substantial financial pressure on LBH.

Director of Demand

4 4 16 Greater use of LBH owned stock e.g. Conversion of Broadwater Lodge and LBH decant properties

3 4 12 2 4 8

Implementation of LBH policy to move people out of LondonDivert people to private rented accommodationReduction in reliance on private landlords

HD3 Unforseen and significant increase in homelessness leading to further pressure on demand for TA and LBH finance.

Director of Demand

4 4 16 Monitoring role and analysis of trends to help direct focus and attention

3 4 12 3 4 12 Preparation required for impact of Homelessness Reduction Bill

Resources and focus on prevention activity

HD4 Negative perception from moving people out of London to meet housing needs resulting in damage to HfH/LBH reputation and political unrest.

Director of Demand

4 3 12 Learning from experience of others. 3 3 9 2 2 4

LBH support for this approachProactive communications and PR

Housing Demand

34


Gross Impact

Gross Severity



Net Severity

Target Prob.

Target Impact

Target Severity

Further Actions

Fit for purpose approach that targets the right people, properties and ensures follow up services are responsive

HD5 Implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Bill which will broaden our responsibility to a much wider range of people putting further pressure on resources and finance.

4 4 16 Training staff and being prepared with resources in advance of implementation

4 3 12 4 3 12

Resources and focus on prevention activityMaintaining a watching brief and raising awareness with LBH

PM1 Claims against HfH from contractors resulting in financial loss / contract overspend.

Director of Asset Management

4 4 16 Robust contract management practices

3 3 9 2 3 6

InsuranceContract contingencies

PM2 Insufficient budget provision to meet property compliance related responsibilities.


4 4 16 Compliance programme in place 2 2 4 2 2 4

0 Negotiation / re-prioritisation of budget provision by LBH / HfH

PM3 Delays / lengthy timescale / lack of clarity for determining capital works programmes (1-30 year) impacting ability to mobilise resources and deliver and poorer standard assets.


4 4 16 Regular meetings with LBH to identify and agree budgets

3 3 9 3 3 9

Stock investment plan and asset management strategy

PM4 Contractor insolvency impacting ability to repair and maintain homes and possible financial loss.

Executive Director of Property

2 3 6 Regular contractor review meetings 2 2 4 1 1 1

Use of retention and performance bondsInsurance

PM5 Non compliance with regulatory or legal obligations in relation to e.g. gas, fire, asbestos, legionella resulting in risk to health and safety, reputational damage and fines.


3 4 12 Health and safety advisor 2 4 8 1 2 2

Compliance frameworkPolicies and procedures

PM6 Fraudulent activity resulting in a loss of assets and reputational damage.

Head of Repairs Service

3 3 9 DBS checks for key staff 2 2 4 2 1 2

Separation of dutiesPolicies, procedures and systemsInternal audit function

Property and Maintenance

35

Rag Rating Overall substantial assurance Overall adequate assurance Overall limited assurance Overall weak assurance

Polic

ies a

nd p

roce

dure

s

Job

role

s and

resp

onsib

ilitie

s

Trai

ning

and

dev

elop

men

t

Cust

omer

feed

back

, in

clud

ing

com

plai

nts

Busin

ess s

yste

ms

Risk

man

agem

ent

fram

ewor

k

Com

plia

nce

func

tions

Perf

orm

ance

man

agam

ent,

KPIs

, dat

a qu

ality

ass

uran

ce

Budg

etin

g an

d fin

anci

al

man

agem

ent

Cont

inuo

us im

prov

emen

t /

tran

sfor

mat

ion

prog

ram

me

Busin

ess p

lan

/ del

iver

y pl

ans

Supp

ortin

g st

rate

gies

Gove

rnan

ce st

ruct

ures

and

pr

oces

ses

Man

agem

ent s

elf

asse

ssm

ent

Inte

rnal

aud

it

Resid

ent s

crut

iny

Exte

rnal

aud

it

Exte

rnal

acc

redi

tatio

ns

Exte

rnal

oth

er (e

.g. L

awye

rs,

LBH)

Rag Rating

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Strategic risks:ST1 Reputational damage and decline in customer

satisfaction resulting from continuing HLA action.

ST2 Lack of alignment between HfH's business plan and LBH strategic objectives resulting in LBH intervention and loss of confidence.

ST3 Weak relationship between the board and LBH leadership resulting in loss of LBH confidence and intervention.

Corporate risks:CO1 Weak governance by the board resulting in weak

scrutiny, poor decision making and loss of confidence from LBH on HfH's ability to deliver.

CO2 Failure to manage budgets effectively and realise target efficiency savings.

CO3 failure to effectively recover from an IT disaster resulting in lost productivity, poor customer service and reputational damage.

CO4 Poor people management skills resulting in average performance, wasted productivity, unnecessary cost and poor talent development.

CO5 Failure of staff to follow policies and procedures resulting in serious injury, loss of life, reputational damage / serious detriment.

CO6 Poor procurement practices resulting in more costly engagement of supply chain and possible breach of regulations and possible fines.

CO7 Breach of data protection resulting in sanction from the ICO and possible reputational damage.

Health & safety risks:HS1 Serious injury or death of an employee as a result of a

failure of duty by HfH.

HS2 Serious injury or death of a resident/tenant/third party as a result of a failure of duty by HfH to manage property compliance

Homes for Haringey Assurance Map Q3 2016/171st Line - Operational Management

Day to day management of risks and application of controls

2nd Line - Corporate OversightSystems and processes to enable risk and compliance to be managed in 1st line. Conducts

monitoring to judge effectiveness

Sources of Assurance3rd Line - External Assurance

Independent challenge

36


Polic

ies a

nd p

roce

dure

s

Job

role

s and

resp

onsib

ilitie

s

Trai

ning

and

dev

elop

men

t

Cust

omer

feed

back

, in

clud

ing

com

plai

nts

Busin

ess s

yste

ms

Ris k

man

agem

ent

fram

ewor

k

Com

plia

nce

func

tions

Perf

o rm

ance

man

agam

ent,

KPIs

, dat

a qu

ality

ass

uran

ce

Budg

etin

g an

d fin

anci

al

man

agem

ent

Cont

inuo

us im

prov

emen

t /

tran

sfor

mat

ion

prog

ram

me

Busin

ess p

lan

/ del

iver

y pl

ans

Supp

ortin

g st

rate

gies

Gov e

rnan

ce st

ruct

ures

and

pr

oces

ses

Man

agem

ent s

elf

asse

ssm

ent

Inte

rnal

aud

it

Resi d

ent s

crut

iny

Exte

rnal

aud

it

Exte

rnal

acc

redi

tatio

ns

Exte

rnal

oth

er (e

.g. L

awye

rs,

LBH)

Rag Rating

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5







HS3 Serious injury or death of a resident/tenant/third party as a result of a failure of duty by HfH to manage purpose built blocks of flats

HS4 Serious injury or death of a resident/tenant/third party as a result of a failure of duty by HfH to manage sheltered accommodation/hostels

HS5 Serious injury or death of a resident/tenant/third party as a result of a failure of duty by HfH to manage street properties

Housing management risks:HM1 Weak income management resulting in substantially

unrecoverable debt.

HM2 Customer fraud (e.g. Illegal subletting) leading to loss of revenue / assets and reputational damage.

HM3 Poor / out of date care plans resulting in a failure to safeguard vulnerable residents.

HM4 Existing leaseholder perception of a poor service resulting in a failure to achieve a key LBH objective.

HM5 A failure to adequately prepare residents for the impact of welfare reform leading to poor tenancy sustainment and detrimental financial impact on both LBH and HfH.

HM6 Untidy / poorly maintained estates impacting lettability and creating a negative perception of council housing.

Housing demand risks:HD1 Failure to effectively manage LBH's statutory

homelessness duty resulting in a rise in homelessness and non fulfilment of HfH obligations.

HD2 Excessive reliance on Temporary Accommodation resulting in substantial financial pressure on LBH.

HD3 Unforseen and significant increase in homelessness leading to further pressure on demand for TA and LBH finance.

37


Polic

ies a

nd p

roce

dure

s

Job

role

s and

resp

onsib

ilitie

s

Trai

ning

and

dev

elop

men

t

Cust

omer

feed

back

, in

clud

ing

com

plai

nts

Busin

ess s

yste

ms

Ris k

man

agem

ent

fram

ewor

k

Com

plia

nce

func

tions

Perf

o rm

ance

man

agam

ent,

KPIs

, dat

a qu

ality

ass

uran

ce

Budg

etin

g an

d fin

anci

al

man

agem

ent

Cont

inuo

us im

prov

emen

t /

tran

sfor

mat

ion

prog

ram

me

Busin

ess p

lan

/ del

iver

y pl

ans

Supp

ortin

g st

rate

gies

Gov e

rnan

ce st

ruct

ures

and

pr

oces

ses

Man

agem

ent s

elf

asse

ssm

ent

Inte

rnal

aud

it

Resi d

ent s

crut

iny

Exte

rnal

aud

it

Exte

rnal

acc

redi

tatio

ns

Exte

rnal

oth

er (e

.g. L

awye

rs,

LBH)

Rag Rating

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5







HD4 Negative publicity from moving people out of London to meet housing needs resulting in damage to HfH/LBH reputation and political unrest.

HD5 Implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Bill which will broaden our responsibility to a much wider range of people putting further pressure on resources and finance.

Property & maintenance risks:PM 1 Claims against HfH from contractors resulting in

financial loss / contract overspend.

PM 2 Insufficient budget provision to meet property compliance related responsibilities.

PM 3 Delays / lengthy timescale / lack of clarity for determining capital works programmes (1-30 year) impacting ability to mobilise resources and deliver and poorer standard assets.

PM 4 Contractor insolvency impacting ability to repair and maintain homes and possible financial loss.

PM 5 Non compliance with regulatory or legal obligations in relation to e.g. gas, fire, asbestos, legionella resulting in risk to health and safety, reputational damage and fines.

PM 6 Fraudulent activity resulting in a loss of assets and reputational damage.

38

Report for Homes for Haringey Board Title Performance Management reporting Report for Information Business plan link Top performing organisation Risk map link Core board risk one - Lack of alignment between HfHs

Business Plan and LBHs strategic objectives; and failure to deliver on these objectives

Authority for decision Report is for Information Officer to contact for more information

Dawn Kent-Payne

Executive Director Puneet Rajput

INTRODUCTION

1.1 As discussed at the Board meeting on 01 November 2016 routine monthly performance reporting will be a standing item on all board agendas.

2 Current performance overview

2.1 This report contains the key performance areas identified in Performance Management Agreement as reported to both the Council and the Board for the period October 2016.

2.2 As agreed a more in depth review of Housing Demand performance will be discussed at the Board meeting.

3 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 The Board is asked to note this report.

3.2 The Board is asked to consider if this format fulfils all requirements.

Risks

4.1 Non achievement of aims will have implications for the quality of services provided to our residents, impacts on the Homes for Haringey Business Plan aims and Haringey’s Corporate Aims. Active monitoring of performance internally should help mitigate these risks.

Finance

5.1 The costs of achieving our targets could cause an overspend on budgets if additional unfunded resources are required to meet demanding targets. There are a number of dependencies on third parties where this would apply.

Communications (internal and external)

HfH is developing improved communications to our staff around performance. We are tailoring performance information for each operational area to be displayed in work areas to ensure focus is on improvement and achieving targets.

Human Resources (HR)

No direct issues.

39

Health and Safety

No direct health & safety issues

Resident Involvement

N/A

Name: Dawn Kent-Payne Title: Head of Business Improvement Date: 24 November 2016

40

Homelessness –

demand and supply

Board Meeting

6 December 2016.

© 2012 Homes for Haringey Ltd

www.homesforharingey.org41

Role of Homes for Haringey

Managing demand and meeting prevention and homelessness related

targets

Making best use of existing stock

Delivering agreed supply initiatives

Identifying new opportunities to address demand and develop supply

Putting forward ideas and proposals to the Council

Influencing the strategy and policy direction through involvement and

formal responses to consultation

www.homesforharingey.org42

Background

Preventing homelessness and reducing the number of

households living in TA are key priorities for the Council and HfH

Key performance indicators for the Directorate reflect this

Summary position:

– Preventions are up

– Acceptances staying fairly even but..

– Number of households in TA is increasing

– Lack of housing supply

– Cost of TA is increasing

Significant TA budget pressure

Council governance through Priority 5 meetings – Strategic, Operational and a Finance sub group

www.homesforharingey.org 43

Demand performance indicators

www.homesforharingey.org

Ref

Homelessness &

Temporary

Accommodation

16/17

Target Aug Sept Oct

Month

RAG

Mont

h

DOT

Q1 Q2 Qtr

DOT YTD

YTD

RAG

HY 8 % of all homeless decisions made in 33 working days

70% 37% 40% 40% 40% 38% 40%

Op 67

% of homeless preventions (people presenting at risk of losing their home)

35% Quarterly Indicator 23% 45% 36%

HY 4a Number of homeless acceptances

546 Quarterly Indicator 178 175 353

HY 4b Number of homeless preventions

600 Quarterly Indicator 111 298 409

HY 4

Prevent homelessness (ratio of homelessness preventions to acceptances)

1.1 Quarterly Indicator 0.62 1.70 1.16

HY 156

Number of homeless households in temporary accommodation

2,800 3,216 3,214 3,220 3,197 3,214 3,220

Op 54

% of social housing lets to applicants in temporary accommodation

70% 78.1% 59.3% 76.5% 79.3% 73.9% 76.5%

44

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Applied

Preventions

Accepted

TA inflow: preventions have increased, but applications and

acceptances remain where they were in 2012/13

5

Applications down from 900 to 848, with a peak in

2013/14 of 1106

Acceptances at 603 in 2016/17, down

from 2013/14 peak of 762, but still

higher than 2011/12 figure of 573

Preventions have increased 50% since

2012/13 from 513 to 756

2013/14 was first year of Welfare Reform

2011/12 64%

2012/13 64%

2013/14 69%

2014/15 70%

2015/16 71%

% applications accepted

45

HFH prevention activity is focused on landlord

negotiation/legal challenge and acquiring ASTs but the

‘success’ rate of these activities varies


Landlord/legal activities to prevent PRS evictions

make up 40% of ‘remain’ preventions

The supply of Supported

Accom and Social

Housing is inelastic

HFH focus on increasing

supply of ASTs

Prevent by remain

in existing accom

Prevent by

alternative accom

While the average ‘fail’ rate for preventative activity was 10%,

there were some activities than were more effective than others:

Prevention Fund Home Finder (26 cases) 4% failed

Access Private Using Own Resources (56 cases) 4% failed

Accepted supported housing (209 cases) 5% failed

Accepted AST (459 cases) 8% failed

Defended possession proceedings (105 cases) 19% failed

Landlord negotiations (221 cases) 19% failed

Remained/Returned Family/Parent (64 cases) 23% failed

With recent legal changes around eviction notices, landlord/legal

activities are increasingly ‘easy wins’. However they are the least effective

- often just ‘delaying’ an eviction rather than tackling the root causes of

the risk of homelessness.

The high failure rate for helping people remain with parents / family is

concerning given that a 1/3rd of people presented have been ‘evicted’

from parents/family.

It is encouraging that activities that involved people finding

accommodation in the PRS had lower ‘fail’ rates as these activities are

central to HFH’s preventative strategy.

46


Net inflow has fallen to 3 following the August high of 16 – with

a low level of inflow (51) and a lower level of outflow (48)

47

Total in TA: Haringey has one of the highest cohorts in TA

in London, but its growth has been restrained relative to the

London trend and CIPFA statistical neighbours

8

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Haringey

Brent

Ealing

Waltham Forest

Lambeth

Lewisham

Southwark

London

Secondary Y axis for

London figures

Most statistical neighbours have reflected

the London trend – except Ealing which

has experienced particularly sharp

increases

Haringey’s increase has been ‘flatter’ than

the London trend and our statistical

neighbours (except Brent)

48


If the service did not do any additional improvement activity

it is projected that there would 3,466 households in TA by

March 2017

Today

2,600

2,700

2,800

2,900

3,000

3,100

3,200

3,300

3,400

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Au

g-1

5

Sep

-15

Oct

-15

No

v-1

5

De

c-1

5

Jan

-16

Feb

-16

Mar

-16

Ap

r-1

6

May

-16

Jun

-16

Jul-

16

Au

g-1

6

Sep

-16

Oct

-16

No

v-1

6

De

c-1

6

Jan

-17

Feb

-17

Mar

-17

Ho

use

ho

lds

in T

A

Month

Number of households in temporary accommodation

Target

Actual

Projected

Good performance is low

The projection is based on the following assumptions: •Activities within the plan start on time and estimated impacts of each are realised.

•2016/17 will see 17 fewer social lets available per month – up from 15 in 2015/16

•The same proportion of social lets allocated to TA and non-TA households will stay the same as 2015/16.

Intervention Impact 1 Agree and implement an approach

to procure the required number of ASTs

Target is 250 ASTS, 83 more ASTs than 15/16 = 7 fewer hhlds pm

2 Secure support fund to increase capacity of Homelessness Prevention Fund

4 fewer hhlds pm from November

3 Expedite Part7 decision making and improve per 1,000 performance

8 fewer hhlds pm from Sept

4 Support BME organs to contribute to homelessness prevention goals

3.7 fewer hhlds pm from November

49

Market conditions: costs are being driven up by difficulties in

maintaining the supply of (income generating) PSLs and the

increasing reliance on (nightly rated) Annexes

10

Bubble size = overall cost per month

Horizontal axis = number of units

Vertical axis = unit cost (income) per month

Annex = nightly rated properties

PSL = Private Sector Lease

SMPSL = Supplier Managed PSL

Not featured = hostels (Northumberland Park House)

Housing Benefit reforms have limited the ability

of LA’s to procure PSLs as landlords can secure

higher returns from letting their properties on the

open market to non-Housing Benefit claimants.

Landlords are demanding more, reducing the

income we get from PSLs after subsidy.

B&B (50 units) £33,852

PSL

(1,000 units)

- £166,582

SMPSL

(120

units)

- £11,216

Annex

(1,402 units)

£278,250

- £400

- £200

£0

£200

£400

£600

£800

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Q2 2015/16

Cost

Income

B&B (50 units)

£39,585

PSL

(918 units)

- £109,060

SMPSL

(101

units) - £7,926

Annex

(1,625 units)

£347,146

- £400

- £200

£0

£200

£400

£600

£800

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Q2 2016/17

Income

Cost

In the last 12 months the number of

Annexes has increased from 1,402 to

1,625, and the cost per unit has

increased from £198 to £214 (£70k

more a month).

In the same period PSLs

have decreased from

1,000 to 918 and the

per unit income has

decreased from £167

to £119. PSL’s now

bring in £67k less a

month.

50

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2016/17 Forecast

2017/18 Forecast

2018/19 Forecast

2019/20Forecast

2020/21Forecast

2021/22Forecast

Out of London Supply

Annexes

Private Sector Leasing

Housing Association Leasing

Acquisition Programme

Modular Build & Demountables

Own Stock including Self-contained units (hostels)

Empty Estate Renewal Properties

Bed & Breakfast

Privately Owned Emergency Hostels

Emergency Hostels Unfunded

Emergency Hostels Funded

The MTFS forecasts stabilising TA costs based on reducing TA

numbers to c.2,300 and replacing Annexes with Out of

London, estate decants, acquisitions and modular build

11

Out of London supply is expected to reach 50 units by year

end and rise to 400 units by 2019/20

The strategy is to maintain a

stock of 1,030 PSLs

Acquisitions new units by 2020/21 and Modular Build

is expected to generate 125 new units by 2021/22.

Estates decants will play an important role in certain

years

The reduction in TA numbers is based

on 300 ASTs being secured a year –

180 for prevention and 120 for Move

On. 180 were secured in 2015/16,

and we are on track to reach 250 in

2016/17

Year Net expenditure

2016/17 £6,475,524

2017/18 £6,738,308

2018/19 £6,165,714

2019/20 £6,888,082

2020/21 £6,140,269

2021/22 £5,832,028

51

To achieve this a number of demand management

and supply initiatives need to come together

Demand management – at the front door

– Review of current prevention activity

– Joint working with Early Help

Homelessness Reduction Bill

– Bid to be a prevention trailblazer

Move on for existing TA residents

– Move on Plans

– Private renting – Find your own

– Homefinder UK

Other initiatives

– Embedded Chief Immigration Officer pilot

– Shelter pilot


Shift in supply – temporary accommodation

Shared facility hostels as 1st stage accommodation

– Broadwater Lodge opens on 17 January

– Whitehall St, additional units at Russell Road, Cranwood

– Identification of other Council owned and commercial units

– Target of 200 units of accommodation

Out of London TA

– TA Placements Policy agreed at Cabinet in October

– Implementation Plan

– Target of 50 moves by end of March, increasing to 400

Use of regeneration decants (Love Lane currently)

Use of 1 bed permanent stock

Revised private sector lease offer

Modular build


Shift in supply – private rent and permanent

Private sector/AST supply

– Target of 250 for 2016/17 (176 achieved in 2015/16), increasing to 300 in

2017/18

– Revised incentives and ‘top ups’ when still better value than TA

– Acquisitions

– Opportunities through housing development vehicle and regeneration

Permanent supply

– Ensuring best use of existing stock

Fraud initiatives, under occupation work, consider ‘move on’ incentive schemes?

– Allocations Policy – out to consultation

Priority for TA residents v prevention

– New social housing stock

New build programme, development vehicle, regeneration


GLOSSARY OF COMMON TERMS USED IN HOUSING DEMAND

ACRONYM TERM EXPLANATION

HOMELESSNESS Homeless application This is the term used to describe the statutory assessment of an applicant under the

homelessness legislation.

The application is essentially an assessment of 5 criteria to determine:

• Whether the applicant is eligible for assistance (linked to immigration status)• Whether the applicant is homelessness (or threatened with homelessness in 28 days)• Whether the applicant falls into a priority need category• Whether the applicant is unintentionally homeless• Whether the applicant has a local connection

If the Council has ‘reason to believe’ that the applicant meets the tests, the duty to provide temporary accommodation is met and will be provided while we make further investigations. If, following investigation, the Council confirms that the applicant passes all of the tests a full housing duty is accepted.

Homeless acceptance/full Where an applicant satisfies all five of the criteria as above, a homeless acceptance (or full

55

housing duty housing duty) will be accepted. The applicant will continue to be accommodated pending the duty being discharged.

IH Intentional Homelessness An applicant can have done or failed to do something that has led to their homelessness and they will be considered to be ‘intentionally homeless’. Examples of this could be where the applicant has failed to pay their rent/mortgage despite having sufficient funds to do so, or has been evicted for anti-social behaviour. If an applicant is determined to be intentionally homeless they will only be given a limited duty.

Limited Duty A limited duty is the result of receiving an intentionally homeless decision. The applicant is usually provided with 28 days in temporary accommodation in order for them to make their own alternative housing arrangements. Where there are children in the household, a referral is made to Children’s Social Care.

S198 referral

Local Connection Referral (s198)

When an applicant makes a homelessness application, the issue of local connection is investigated. Applicants need to be able to prove that they have lived in borough for 6 out of the last 12 months or 3 out of the last 5 years, or have a blood relative who has lived in the borough for at least five years, or that they have permanent employment in the borough.* If an applicant meets all other criteria but does not have a local connection, they will be referred to a local authority where they hold such a connection.

*Applicants fleeing domestic abuse are exempted from local connection requirements.

Homelessness review There is a statutory right to challenge any negative decision made on a homelessness application. This is known as a s202 review. The request for a review must be made within 21 days of receipt of the decision. The Council has contracted this function to an external company ‘Housing Reviews Ltd’ as this means that the review is truly independent from the service.

56

Homelessness Appeal If an applicant has pursued a homelessness review and this is unsuccessful, they have the right to appeal the review decision via County Court, but only on a point of law. This is known as a s204 Appeal and application to Court must be made within 21 days of the review decision.

DoD Discharge of duty When the Council investigate a homeless application and accept that they owe the applicant a homelessness duty, they have to provide temporary accommodation until they discharge that homelessness duty.

A homelessness duty can be discharged by making a suitable offer of permanent social housing or a private sector property for a minimum of 1 year. Before 9 November 2012 the Council could only discharge their duty into the private sector if the applicant agreed – since that date we can discharge into the private sector by compulsion as long as the offer is suitable.

If the applicant refuses a reasonable offer the duty is discharged and no further duty is owed. If they are living in temporary accommodation, they will be issued with notice to leave.

Homeless prevention A case is counted as a successful housing prevention if action is taken to avoid homelessness for a household who is threatened with homelessness in 28 days.

This could be an action that allows the households to remain in their home (for example, helping someone to clear their rent arrears and negotiating with the landlord for them to stay) or action that allows someone to move into alternative accommodation rather than making a homeless application (for example, finding someone an alternative private sector let or arranging for them to move into supported housing).

In order to be counted as a prevention we need to be able to show that the solution that has been found is sustainable for at least 6 months. .

57

TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION TA Temporary

Accommodation This is an all encompassing term for all forms of temporary accommodation. Households are placed into temporary accommodation when the Council owes a household a duty under the homelessness legislation.

IA Interim Accommodation This term relates to temporary accommodation provided whilst a homelessness application is being investigated. The suitability of the accommodation can only be challenged via Judicial Review as there is no right to an internal review in relation to interim accommodation. Interim accommodation is sometimes referred to as s188 accommodation. Refusal of interim accommodation means that the Council does not have to offer any further accommodation whilst the case continues to be investigated.

Suitability Review Applicants offered temporary accommodation can request a review of its ‘suitability’. A suitability review can be requested at any point the applicant is in temporary accommodation where they can demonstrate that a change in circumstances, i.e, medical condition or family composition, has led to the property becoming unsuitable.

EA Emergency Accommodation

This term is used to describe the nightly lets or nightly paid units. The units are managed by the supplier.

Annex Annexes This is also used to describe the nightly paid, self contained units.

PSL Private Sector Leasing This is where the Council takes a lease from a private landlord for a specific time scale, during which the Council is responsible for the management and maintenance of the property. At the end of the lease the Council is responsible for dilapidations when the property is handed back. The Council manages the units, collects the rent and pays rent to the landlord.

SMPSL Supplier Managed Private Sector Leasing

This is similar to the above except that the Suppliers (Agents) manage the properties and the tenancy on behalf of the Council. The Agents carries out repairs, hand-backs and dilapidations.

58

HALS Housing Association Leasing Scheme

In this scheme the Housing Association leases a property from a private landlord. The Council has a nomination agreement with the Association for the duration of the lease and we nominate homeless households who need TA. The Associations collect rents, pay landlords, deal with hand-backs and settle dilapidation claims.

B&B Bed and Breakfast This term is used to either describe temporary accommodation with shared facilities or a true hotel booking. Hotel use is rare but is occasionally used for 1 night if there is no TA available and is used by the out of hours service.

PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR HMO House in multiple

occupation A building that is let to persons occupying as more than one household. This includes:

• Buildings that consist of bedsit rooms where at least some facilities are shared. • Buildings converted into self contained flats that don’t comply with Building Regs and

are less than two thirds owner occupied. • Hostels • Shared houses

AST Assured Shorthold Tenancy This is the standard private tenancy agreement that is issued by private landlords. The minimum term is 6 months.

Homefinder Haringey’s private sector lettings scheme. Assured shorthold tenancies (with a minimum term of 2 years) are secured from private landlords who are paid an incentive (average of £3,000 per let). The properties are used either to prevent homelessness or as a discharge of our homelessness duty. ‘Find your own’ Homefinder is a variation of the scheme that allows households to find their own accommodation rather than us finding it for them.

59

HOUSING REGISTER AND LETTINGS Housing register The Council maintain a housing register, which applicants can join by applying on-line. Support

is available for people who need help with this. .Applicants need to re-register annually.

Housing band Priority is awarded on the register using bands –bands A to C.

Band A are the cases with the highest priority (including under occupying households, urgent management transfers, urgent medical moves and quota arrangements). Households who are accepted as homeless and living in temporary accommodation are in band B. Almost all of the offers go to households in band A or B.

If 2 households with the same band bid priority goes to the one who has been in that band for longest (known as their effective date)

Home Connections Home Connections is the Council’s choice based lettings scheme. Available properties are advertised weekly and applicants bid through the Home Connections system.

AB Auto bidding Auto bidding only applies to households living in temporary accommodation at a point when they could have bid successfully for permanent social housing but have not done so. The idea behind autobidding is that an applicant cannot choose to remain in temporary accommodation indefinitely when they could have moved into permanent housing. Applicants are interviewed and autobidding is explained and then they are given a further period to bid. If they are not successful during that period then autobidding is activated and the system places a bid for the next suitable property and that property becomes their permanent offer.

60

Homes for Haringey

Board Scorecard

Year To Date October 2016 All Figures are based on Year To Date, i.e. 01 April 2016 to 31 October 2016

Ref Performance Indicator 16/17Target

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% 100.39% Q1

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

Op 57 The proportion of rent collected for all temporary accommodation 98.75% No Benchmark No Benchmark

ex BV66e

Current tenant rent & service charge arrears as % of rent due (excluding voids) (GN & SH only) 5.00% 2.22% Q4

HO 03 Current leaseholder service charges arrears as % of service charges due 5.00% No Benchmark No Benchmark

BV 212 Average relet times (calendar days) HouseMark definition (GN & SH only) 23 days 20.8 M

BV 69 % of rent loss from voids(GN & SH only) 0.69% 0.89% Q1

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

VO 28 Average cost of voids repairs(£) (GN & SH only) £4,000 £2,457 Q2

ES 01 % of estates graded at A or B by Quality Assurance Officers -Overall Grade 93.0% No Benchmark No Benchmark

CSR 02d Project 2020: Provide support, employment training and advice 240 No Benchmark No Benchmark

CCC 01 % of call centre abandonments(all queues) Not Set No Benchmark No Benchmark

Ref

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

95% No Benchmark No Benchmark

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

HMPI 100 % of all repairs first time fixed(not including programmed works) 90% 92.40% Q4

RP 04a % of tenants satisfied with quality of repair(BMG) 78% 79.6% Q2

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

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

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

AS 07 % of capital projects completed in time 85% N/A No Benchmark No Benchmark

AS 08 Capital Programme: % of residents satisfied with outcome of works 91% No Benchmark No Benchmark

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

Ref

HY 8 % of all homeless decisions made in 33 working days 70% No Benchmark No Benchmark

HY 4c Homeless acceptances per 1,000 people in the Borough 2.25 No Benchmark No Benchmark

Op 67 % of homeless preventions(people presenting at risk of losing their home) 35% No Benchmark No Benchmark

HY 156 Number of homeless households in temporary accommodation 2,800 No Benchmark No Benchmark

Ref

HR 01 Average number of working days lost due to sickness absence (rolling 12 month figure) 6 days No Benchmark No Benchmark

HMPI B1Pi03 Percentage of staff turnover Not Set 8.58% Q1

Ref

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

Number or % stayed the same - positive development

Number or % increased - negative development

Number or % decreased - negative development

Number or % stayed the same - negative development

Annual

Latest Performance &

RAG status

101.46%

Q25.31%

97.38%

4.53%

-55.59%

25.2

Property Management

Housing Demand

100.00%

Q2Nil Return

0.53%

62%

£3,332

93.6%

164

14.5%

99.1%

99.6%

78.0%

83.2%

Annual

100.00%

Q27.6%

Q286%

Annual

Satisfaction

40%

Q21.29Q2

36%

3,220

11.8

People

NEW

93.7%

Direction of Travel

15/16Outturn

99.27%

42.14%

98.49%

5.43%

Number or % increased - positive development

Number or % decreased - positive development

NEW

233

5.2%

99.3%

84.7%

78.1%

Not available yet

Q1 UpperQ2 Middle UpperM MedianQ3 Middle LowerQ4 Lower

Quartile Key

100.00%

100.00%

Nil Return

89.4%

NEW

28.3

NEW

54%

12.0%

70%

BelowTarget

AboveTarget

LatestPerformance

2.34

31%

3,164

8.6

Not available yet

Business Improvement Corporate Affairs Service

61

Documents

Homes for Haringey Non-Confidential Papers Board of ... · Non-Confidential Papers Board of Directors Meeting Tuesday 06 December 2016 18:30 – 20:30 Council Chambers, 1st Floor,