Homes in Sedgemoor BOARD – 29 March 2022
AGENDA ITEM NO: 3
Homes in Sedgemoor Board
The purpose of Board meetings is to make decisions, to set and evaluate strategy, to review the company’s performance and to direct its affairs
Minutes of Board Meeting held on Tuesday 25 January 2022 via Teams at 1.30pm
Board Members
Cllr Janet Keen
Cllr Kathy Pearce
Cllr Lance Duddridge
Jenny Vernon (Chair)
Marie Hide
Paul Hackett
SMT
Ben Lane, Director of Finance and Performance
Claire Tough, Director of Neighbourhoods
Julia Paling, Head of HR and Corporate Services
Naomi Macey, Director of Asset Management & Safety
Pauline Kelly, Executive Assistant (minutes)
Peter Hatch, Chief Executive
Guests
1. Teresa Harvey, Assistant Director, SDC
2. Jackie Grannell, Tpas and current independent Chair of STAC
3. Ann Hooper, STAC member
4. Karen Wilce, STAC member
5. Rob Jones, Revenue & Service Charge Accountant (Item 10)
6. Rachel Palmer, Customer Focus Manager (Item 8 & Confidential Item 26)
7. Alan Turner, Health & Safety Advisor (Items 14 & 15)
8. Katy Barry, Investment and Retrofit Lead (Item 20)
NO. BOARD ITEM
1. Welcome guests and note apologies
JV welcomed Board members, attendees, and guests to the meeting.
Apologies were given on behalf of Paul Stephenson.
2. Declaration of Interest
There were no further declarations other than those previously recorded on Board Members’ Declaration of Interests Forms.
3. Draft Minutes recorded on 30 November 2021
Board agreed the minutes recorded on 30 November 2021 are a true record.
RESOLVED
• Board NOTED the minutes.
4. Matters Arising from the Board recorded on 30 November 2021
Members noted the matters arising from the Board meeting held on 30 November 2021.
ACTION
PMH to report back at the March Board meeting regarding easier solutions to securely send confidential Board papers to members.
JK/CT to discuss alternative location options for tenant afternoon tea and cake meetings.
RESOLVED
• Board NOTED the matters arising.
5. Chief Executive’s Update Report
Members noted the Chief Executive’s report.
RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the update.
6. Chair of Audit and Risk Committee Update (verbal)
Following the ARC meeting held on 23 November and subsequent update at the November Board meeting, JV confirmed there were no further updates for members at this time. The next ARC is planned for 22 February. RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the verbal update.
7. Sedgemoor Tenants’ Assurance Committee Update
JG gave a brief overview and the following highlights noted.
• Chairing role for JG was always on an interim basis.
• The committee are still finding their feet, and no-one has put themselves forward for the chairing position
Suggestion that perhaps an independent chair with a background in housing would be suitable for this unpaid post.
This could then lead the committee forward while also preparing them for LGR.
• Board members happy to offer advice/information for prospective STAC chairs and if required, CT to instruct members to investigate opportunities within their sector for possible candidates. RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the contents of this report.
8. Complaints and Customer Feedback Policy (Annual)
RP gave a brief overview and the following highlights were noted.
• Policy review and update to be carried out every three years, with an information review carried out annually.
• Performance monitoring will change from quarterly to monthly reporting by the Customer Focus Manager to SMT/LT.
• Working with colleagues to ensure complaints are first dealt with by the service lead rather than immediately pushed up to the CFM.
• Initial complaints to be logged on the CRM system by the colleague receiving the complaint and not via the Customer Services team.
• Complaints timescale to increase from three to six months which is in line with Housing Ombudsman guidance.
• Stage 2 panel chair to be a member of SMT and not the Customer Focus Manager. The SMT member will also be responsible for sending the final response to the complainant.
• Complainant now has the opportunity to attend the panel meeting or speak direct to the SMT chair to add further information for consideration.
• Stage 2 response time to increase from 10 to 20 working days to allow additional time for more complex cases, annual leave and information gathering. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman guidance.
PH asked about resource issues and colleagues having the capacity to increase the change for reporting from quarterly to monthly. RP confirmed she pulls this information together informally on a monthly basis, so the work is already being carried out. RESOLVED.
Board APPROVED the proposed changes as listed below.
Policy Review
i.
i. The current policy allows for a formal annual review, but we
ii. propose for this to be an informal practice going forward, with
iii. full review and update every 3 years.
Initial complaints
i. Performance monitoring to change from quarterly to monthly reporting by CFM to SMT/LT.
ii. Initial complaint to be logged on CRM system by any colleague receiving that complaint – currently all done via CST.
iii. Consideration for accepting complaints timescale increased from 3 to 6 months – this is in line with HO guidance.
Stage 2 complaints
i. SMT panel member to act as Chair and send final response to complainant – currently states CFM.
ii. Complainant given opportunity to speak to SMT Chair of panel, provide additional information for consideration or attend panel meeting – this is a new addition to policy and process.
iii. Response target time to be increased from 10 to 20 working days to allow additional days for more complex cases.
9. Governance Framework
BL gave a brief overview to members, who noted and approved the proposals.
RESOLVED.
a. Update on Governance Framework Review
The Board NOTED the contents of this report and APPROVED the proposed timetable for the review of the Governance Framework.
b. Role Profile for STAC Chair
Board APPROVED the proposed role profile for the Chair of Sedgemoor Tenants Assurance Committee (STAC) attached at Appendix A.
10. Draft Budget – 2022/23
BL gave a brief overview to members and the following highlights were noted.
• BL confirmed SMT are looking to identify and confirm, as a group, the options to close the gap in line with our corporate strategy.
• BL will bring a summary to the March Board meeting which will show a list of possibilities to see how far we can go.
• SMT are also looking to see what else can be identified which will make the 2023/24 budget more achievable.
• JV felt it sensible to have a forward eye on the 2023/24 budget, as energy prices will only increase along with other basic items.
KP asked if green tariffs have been considered before agreeing the new energy contract BL confirmed he was not on the panel when options where being considered however, he will find out and update Board. BL stated that some providers were not willing to offer anything and our choices were very limited, however from a financial point of view the option chosen is favourable.
• PH commented that we are currently feeling the financial pressures with inflation rising and he would like SMT to look at savings figure to exceed £150k as sometimes situations come along and impact budgets without prior knowledge. PH asked, where possible, cost cutting options to be recurring savings rather than a one-off fix otherwise we will continuously have to find new ways to save money.
JV confirmed this will be explored in ARC meetings, as this is a major risk to us as an organisation.
• BL confirmed the Finance team are working with budget holders to help soak up some of the increases.
• PH requested for percentage information to be added to show how costs are increasing.
ACTION
BL will bring a summary to the March Board meeting showing identified cost cutting options. BL to investigate if green tariffs had been considered for the new energy contract. BL to included percentage information to the report to show how costs are increasing.
RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the content of the report
• Board APPROVED the approach to finalising the budget at the Board meeting on the 29 March 2022.
11. Five Year Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) – 2022-2027
BL gave a brief overview to members and the following highlights were noted.
• The MTFP is approved by Board on an annual basis.
• Members to note that the inflation allowance SDC are making on the Management Agreement of 2% will not cover the potential increases we may see.
• The MTFP does not give options or solutions, it does at this stage enable SMT to start planning with Board to ensure we can manage through a normal routine budget and any challenges that may arise.
• BL confirmed the next steps for 2022/23 are how we will tackle the challenges for 2023/24 and for SMT to bring this back to Board for consideration.
• JK expressed her unease of having a five-year plan due to the uncertainty of LGR. She felt our ambitions may be misinterpreted and customers feel we are making promises we cannot keep. JK requested that we know what we can finish/handover and what cannot be finished/withdrawn.
A direct question from JK to PMH, asking that he ask the transitions team for an early statement regarding housing be circulated to customers from new council as soon as is possible.
PMH replied that the LGR message from central command is clear – from vesting day in April 2023 all teams will be looking across the authority to ensure all is ‘safe and legal’ There will most likely be no discussions on housing until after that point. PMH confirmed there is a huge amount of work to be done, HiS are providing a good service and we will continue to run our services to the best of our abilities.
TH agreed with PMH. Housing is not top priority and HiS will continue with business as usual after vesting day. All services are running well, and delivery is excellent. LD commented that he is always made aware that services are operating well.
JK reiterated housing may not be the high priority for central command but for customers it is, especially how it will be managed in the future.
JV commented that communication will be key as we move through this process. TH confirmed communication is high on our priority list for the LGR project.
MH was in agreement with JK that housing is a priority and noted that although there is nothing Board or SMT can do about the agenda, we can make it clear to tenants that we are working with our counterparts to ensure the service continues with the great work ethic we are currently showing.
• PH asked BL to look at the figures on pages 5 and 6 as he felt there may be some discrepancies.
• JV informed BL that if more time with ARC is required, he need just set up a meeting ACTION
BL to look at the figures on pages 5 and 6 to see if there are any discrepancies.
RESOLVED.
Board APPROVED the refreshed Five-Year Medium Term Financial Plan – 2022 – 2027.
12. Assessment of Operation Environment (PESTEL and SWOT)
Following an update from BL, the following highlights were noted.
• JV commented on the strong content within this thorough piece of work, noting the changes need to work.
• ARC will keep an eye on the PESTEL and SWOT.
• Members to bring any items that worry them to Board meetings or ARC committee members.
RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the assessment of the current operational environment and following discussion on whether the assessment is a fair reflection of the operational environment facing Homes in Sedgemoor in the next 12 to 24 months and APPROVED the refreshed PESTEL and SWOT analysis.
13. Future Board Meetings - Proposals
PMH gave a brief update to members and the following were noted.
• JV asked if Paul Stephenson was happy with the proposed dates and PMH confirmed that he was.
• Members all approved the dates, with JV noting that not every member will be able to make every event.
• An additional Spotlight Session to be added to the list, as reported by CT, which will take place on 10 February looking at Re-engineering Engagement with customers. This session will be run by Anna O’Halloran from TPAS.
RESOLVED.
• Board APPROVED the proposed dates.
14. Health and Safety Policy Review and Statement of Intent (Annual)
Following a brief update from AT, the following highlights were noted.
• Policy content remains the same, with the policy renewal date now realigned to fit within the calendar year, running 1 January to 31 December. This is now also in line with the Board six monthly update.
• Going forward and following on from the Grenfell Inquiry, some additional resources may be needed to manage the increasing demands on compliance. PMH is working with NM on this.
AT made comment that Antony Chisnall has been a great acquisition to the team who are all working extremely hard and have taken the organisation to a good compliance place.
JV asked NM to pass on congratulations from the Board to the team. RESOLVED.
• Board APPROVED the 2022 Policy and Statement of Intent and endorsed the 2022 Health and Safety Framework.
15a.
Health and Safety Performance Review (six monthly)
No questions were raised, and members noted the report. JV commented how reassuring it was to see that future challenges are also be reported. RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the review.
15b.
Compliance Report – December 2021
Members are extremely happy with the incredible work being done, noting that the new report format made reviewing much easier. RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the review.
16.
Management Accounts – December 2021
BL gave a brief update to members and the following were noted.
• Budget saving challenge of 2022/23 however the underlying budget is sound.
• PH asked if the Waking Watch costs could be offset against the capital programme BL confirmed that unfortunately we cannot charge this cost to the capital programme. Once the works have been completed and both the properties and tenants are safe, the Waking Watch will be removed.
JV asked if there was a timeline for this. NM confirmed the work is almost complete and will hopefully be finished in February.
• MH asked if we qualified for funds to cover the Waking Watch costs after the Grenfell Inquiry. NM confirmed the qualification for this continuously moves however we are constantly looking at this option. The Government has announced that it intends to make developers pay for these kinds of remedial works.
NM confirmed she and BL are already looking at ways to take the pressure off the ongoing Waking Watch budget. RESOLVED.
Board NOTED the Management Accounts for the nine months ended 31 December 2021 (Mth 9) and the key variances identified in the body of the report
17. Core Corporate Performance Indicators – December 2021
BL gave a brief update for members and the following points were noted.
• JV noted that all the pressures we are under and everything we are doing, there has been a downward shift in performance in some areas.
BL confirmed that customer satisfaction had dropped, however the whole sector are experiencing similar issues. BL feels the value we get from the sector wide benchmarking from Housemark is invaluable, some targets remain challenging and not just affected by Covid-19. This will be a challenge with the financial challenges ahead. JV agreed for ARC to keep a watchful eye on this.
• In relation to the Regulator of Social Housing’s (RSH) proposed draft Tenant Satisfaction Measures recently sent out, MH asked CT is there anything in them that we are missing or have to do
CT confirmed this time last year we did an exercise with SDC on the review of the Management Agreement, matching and comparing initial proposals for TSMs. Adjustments were made to ensure we were covering all likely requests from the regulator
CT advised members that the RSH has published a consultation exercise on the proposed TSMs and we are engaging with stakeholders to gather views. There is the opportunity for members to put their responses in and report back to the regulator to ensure it is meaningful to tenants. This was sent to members a few days ago.. All our responses will be collated and summarised in our response to the regulator. RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the performance for month nine (April to December) of 2021/22.
18. HouseMark – Annual Cost and Performance Comparison Analysis 2020/2021Highlights
Following an update from BL, the following highlights noted
• JV asked members if they felt this was a good way to see how we perform against others in the sector
PMH thoughts are it is an effective tool for showing high level cost and quality performance, we our performance has improved in several areas since last reported. Some areas required further investigation and SMT will do this.
JV suggested this could be something for STAC to keep an eye on.
JG and CT to take this forward for the next STAC meeting.
• JV also suggested looking at service areas in future years.
CT informed members that she was proposing to have an additional Board Spotlight session on 10 February between 3-5pm, looking at our customer engagement strategy and this will be facilitated by TPAS.
There will also be separate sessions for staff, STAC, involved and non-involved customers, with CT then looking to bring a report back to May Board.
JV welcomed STAC to join the Board Spotlight on 10 February.
• KP commented that HouseMark highlights are so high level it is difficult to see what it means in individual communities. KP suggested it needs to be useful for staff and Board members.
BL confirmed it is a way of looking at the service however this summary does not provide analysis to see costs in different patches BL to check if there is another level of analysis that can delve into more detail, especially geographically.
JV suggested that KP contact BL if further information is needed. ACTION
CT to look at the take up of STAC members joining the Board Spotlight looking at Reengineering Customer Engagements on 10 February.
Once all the customer engagement strategy sessions have taken place, CT to bring the report back to May Board.
BL to investigate if there is another level of the Housemark report that will identify the analysis for individual communities. RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the contents of this report.
19. Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) Update
PMH gave a very brief update to members, who noted the following.
• JV thanked MH for being the Board Champion for LGR.
• Following JV’s question with regard to working together with SDC and SWT, PMH confirmed all groups/directors were working collaboratively and that outside of joint meetings individual leads are building productive relationships by working together and sharing information.
• Work on the action plan will start w/c Monday 31 January. RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the contents of this report.
20.
Decarbonisation Strategy Update
NM gave a very brief update to members, with the following noted.
• JV commented on the progress made since the last update and was pleased to see the talk about business objectives.
• JV did query the wording of ‘Customer Management’ and what this meant.
CT confirmed it was not the management of customers, it was the management of customer perception, their expectations on what we can/cannot do as we work through the process.
JV suggested we could look to use different wording to ensure there is no misinterpretation. Board requested that this is changed to Customer Perception Management.
ACTION
KB to update the strategy reference from Customer Management to Customer Perception Management. RESOLVED.
• Board NOTED the Decarbonisation Strategy progress update 21a. AOB – February Spotlight Session
PMH confirmed that James Barrah, Somerset West and Taunton, and Dave Baxter, SDC would be presenting at the Spotlight session on 15 February – information noted below.
10am Overview of SWT Housing Directorate – James Barrah 11am Overview of Strategic Housing across Somerset – Dave Baxter 21b. AOB – NFA ALMO Conference
PMH confirmed Paul Stephenson and Marie Hide are attending the conference on behalf of the Board on 28 April.
Ann Hooper and Karen Wilce are the STAC members also attending. 21c. AOB – Re-engineering Engagement Challenge Workshop
As discussed, CT confirmed an additional Spotlight session has been proposed to discuss the above topic, being held on 10 February at 3pm. This will be a virtual meeting facilitated by Anna O’Halloran from TPAS.
Date of next meeting: Tuesday 29 March 2022 at 1.30pm.