Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alison Hansford and Steve Murfitt.

To confirm the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group – Select Move meeting held on 18 July 2013 (enclosed)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group – Select Move meeting held on 18 July 2013 be confirmed as a correct record.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

There were no declarations of any interests.

At the last meeting, the Group requested a variety of additional information.

The Chair has recently met with officers and it was agreed that a statistical breakdown of Chorley Select Move Applicants and Lettings by protected characteristics would be presented at this meeting.

Officers will deliver a presentation on the information and Members will receive a paper copy that will be tabled at the meeting.

A statistical breakdown of those people registered on the Select Move lettings scheme was provided the Group with information relating to the following characteristics:

·      Ethnic origin of household

·      Faith of main applicant

·      Sexuality of main applicant

·      Gender of Main and Sole Applicant

·      Rural Households

·      Ages of Oldest Joint Applicant by Household size

·      Member of the Household Pregnant

·      Member of Household has Disability

Information was also provided on who has been on Select Move the longest. Members noted with interest that 274 (18%) applicants had been on the list for over two years, and that 111 of that number were in the Over 55 group.

Further analysis of this information revealed a variety of differing reasons as to why applicants could be registered for over two years revealed the following:

·      a higher proportion of one bed need 59% to compared to 54% in general

·      a higher proportion of Band E applicants, 47% compared to £42% in general

·      Lower number of bids per year with 8.8 compared to 11.4 in general

Even though, these reasons all contributed, the difference weren’t considered highly significant.

Looking at the 20 applicants registered the longest, 12 were banded E, 6 banded D and 2 banded B (banding had changed recently and one in process of being housed)

It was also identified that three of these applicants had never placed a bid. However Members were informed that just over one third of the whole of the register 34.4% have never placed a bid.

Some applicants showed a repeated pattern of bidding and then turning an allocated property down.

The majority 9/10 oldest registered applicants were managed by New Progress Housing Association.

Other reasons included refusing properties, street specific, bidding on new builds mainly, bidding on properties with more beds than needed and sheltered when not needed. Rent arrears had been a barrier on one occasion as a payment plan with the current Registered Provider had not been kept up. Again the reasons differed but they were mainly due to a lack of bids on appropriate properties.

It was explained that all the applicants were contacted every year to see if they wanted to remain on the list. If they expressed a wish to remain on they did, even if they had placed no bids. Members wondered if the renewal policy needed to be reviewed and be more robust.

The Group were very concerned about those people who chose to stay on the list for a number of years, but were not bidding. It was explained that anecdotal evidence suggested a number of differing reasons that included applicants been extremely selective about the type or area of property they wished to locate too.

Whilst undertaking this exercise the following main issues were highlighted as potential areas of concern that needed to be looked into further.

There was an under-representation of rural households on Select Move. A Rural Housing Needs Survey carried out in 2011 had already identified a lack of rural housing supply and the Council were trying  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.SM.8

Officers will provide feedback from a previous survey undertaken by customers of Select Move that will allow the Group to evaluate those findings and suggest suitable ways of consulting for this review.

The partnership had agreed to undertake a customer survey satisfaction in July 2012 to understand what customers felt about the service and to inform future developments. The timing of the survey was 16 months after Chorley had joined the scheme.

The survey was a postal one with prepaid envelopes included with the questionnaire, along with a letter explaining the purpose of the survey and offering assistance for those who may have required help in completing it of needed the form to be provide in an alternative format. Approximately 1200 surveys were posted out in Chorley, with only 102 being returned. This suggests an approximate return rate of 8.5%.

The questions asked were about the processes of the Select Move System, whether the applicant felt that they had enough information at different stages and use of the system.

Overall dissatisfaction with Select Move was at 20.9%, which Members considered to be a high minority figure and was potentially supporting the fact as to why some applicants did not bid often if at all. However this needed to be compared against a low percentage return, there was a feeling that people satisfied with the system may not necessarily respond.

It was AGREED that any future survey needed to capture responses from those applicants that had completed the process and had actually taken up a let on the system.

There was an option to request feedback from applicants at renewal stage as this was something that needed to be returned in order to stay on the scheme. An incentive of a prize draw was also considered as a way of gaining a high response.

A number of comments had been made on the previous survey that had been difficult to quantify and members asked if these could be evaluated see if any patterns could be identified as to why applicants were dissatisfied with the service and in what way.

The Group AGREED to an online survey to be distributed to all applicants on the waiting list and those that had been recently let. Officers would look at offering other alternatives to those people who did not have access to online facilities.

The Group will formulate a set of questions that will be asked of the Registered Providers at the next meeting.

The Group started to formulate a set of questions that would be asked of the Registered Providers that were to be invited to the next meeting.

Using the suggestions of the Members and in consultation with officers, it was AGREED that an appropriate set of questions would be identified and circulated to the Group for approval.