Agenda item

To review the Cabinet decision taken on 18 June as a result of the matter having been Called-in.

Cllr Edward Smith was welcomed as the Call-In lead and highlighted the following:

·         The reasons for the Call-in are in the agenda papers.

·         As background, attempts have been made over the years to engage with tenants and leaseholders in housing matters with a view to improve service matters on their estates with the current arrangements focusing on Customer Voice (CV).

·         Members of the Customer Voice used to attend the Housing Board which was a formally constituted body with membership also including the Cabinet Member for Social Housing, the Opposition Lead for Housing and senior council staff.

·         The strategy will go out for a 6-week consultation period. Some of the reasons made in the Cal in have been taken into account in the responses but not all of them.

·         The response to reason 1 sets up the general principles emerging from the initial discussions. However, he felt that they do not constitute a full analysis of issues facing resident engagement in Enfield nor do they provide details on how matters might be better arranged in future.

·         The response to reason 2 on the Housing Advisory Group (HAG) refers to the fact that the meetings were always held in private. However, he felt that the meetings were effective and cross party and independent membership of the group has been changed without sufficient explanation in the report. Noted that the membership was open to review as part of the consultation process, wants to be reassured that the consultation will fully address this matter.

·         The proposed 11 new committees are unwieldy and unrealistic. The response does not address this issue just refers to the broad principles on resident engagement set out in the White Paper. The response does admit that the new structure might lack transparency and the means of holding politicians and officers to account.

·         More details proposals were required on reason 4 in the final consultation document to show reporting and lines of accountability.

·         Reason 5 the response does not address the concerns from the members of Customer Voice and felt that the new membership of HAG will not provide effective challenge to the council.

·         In summary reassurance was being sought that all the points raised will be taken on board and dealt with in the consultation document.

The Chair thanked Cllr Smith and asked the Cabinet Member for Social Housing Cllr Gina Needs and officers to respond.

·         The Cabinet Member provided reassurance that the resident voice will come forward. The points that have been raised will be in the consultation, this is part of the consultation stage which it is important to move to. It is really important to get to the consultation stage to get the views of the residents.

·         The change to the membership of the HAG happened prior to the strategy. The council is seeking a broader set of opinions. If residents feel that there are too many groups, then this will be taken on board. The views are needed from the consultation first, but she is happy to discuss what comes up from the consultation.

·         The Director of Housing and Regeneration advised that the new arrangements aim to embrace and bring on board all residents from the housing market and reflect the change in the broadening role in providing support to people with their housing needs. To look at the whole issues around housing as well as specific issues related to tenure. It is important that all voices are included.

The Chair invited questions and comments from Members, relevant to the call-in reasons:

·         In response to a query on whether other councils are implementing similar strategies and how successful these have been? Officers advised that every authority is looking at their own structures on resident engagement following the Social Housing White Paper. Enfield does work with other boroughs on what is working and will continue to liaise.

·         On point 1 on the reasons for call in just under 6,000 people were invited to respond, 60 people took part in focus groups. Is this the numbers expected to form a document going forward Officers confirmed that the council wanted to do a full consultation with all residents, so this was just an initial focus group to frame ideas to put out to the wider group. These numbers were as expected and included a range of residents including those from the CV, HAG, Repairs Stakeholders Group, Tenants and Residents Associations and in Temporary accommodation.

·         On point 2 cannot see a response on; no roles for opposition, change downgrading status and reduced ability to provide independent advice. Officers advised in terms of accountability all residents both individually or as part of groups are able to write to the Chair of the Housing Scrutiny Panel with any issues, concerns or comments. The Cabinet Member is also open to feedback. This has been communicated to residents. Many of the issues that the residents may wish to raise can be easily resolved by officers. If the issues are not resolved or there is a policy or financial impact there is a formal route. The membership of whatever structures there will be going forward are subject to consultation. The Cabinet Member has confirmed the question will be asked on member involvement in this groups as part of the consultation.

·         On point 2 on the new committees the first paragraph ends whilst offering minimal commitment with a clear improvement output- what does this mean? Members were advised that not all residents want formality. It is important that residents have choices and that the council wants to adopt a variety of methods for residents to engage. An example was provided of a method where issues-based meeting would take place with a focus group and following these meetings would try to encourage residents to form a tenant’s association. However often once the issue is resolved residents do not want to take this step.

·         How does this strategy compare to past resident engagement strategies? Members were advised that the extended reach of cover that the new engagement strategy offers is the main difference. A variety of styles are used to allow involvement. The pandemic has bought about the wide use of MS Teams this has seen many more people engaging from many different backgrounds, groups, cultures and ages. There will also be a need for face to face, but online will also continue. More channels allow more people to take part.

·         Lots of residents who live in the housing stock fall into the hard to reach groups, is 6 weeks long enough to get input from these groups, is there a danger that different groups want different things. Will direct assistance be given to residents where needed to get a greater volume of feedback. Members were advised that face to face will be needed for example for those without the internet or where English is not their first language, vulnerable or elderly. Councillors and officers should know who may struggle. The consultation is about involving as many people and getting as many views as possible. Felt that 6 weeks should be long enough but could be extended if needed.

·         Recruitment of panels- what would this process look like, what is make up of appointment panels to ensure that critical friend approach is retained. How can we get underrepresented groups involved? Members were advised that this is a good time to reach out there is a range of community activities planned over the summer period and surgeries that could also be used to get views. An example was given of working with Somalian women. Where non-English speaking groups will need to ensure consultation with their advocates and community organisations who work closely with them. Recruitment for CV and HAG already have an agreed recruitment process. The process used must be transparent and clear and is dependent on the nature of the group.

Councillor Smith in summing up thanked the committee for the time allowed for the debate. The initial analysis provided by focus groups was too short and too broad. The consultation document should be revised to make it explicit what the issues are and set out in plain English. Still concerned at the membership of HAG felt that this is a crucial part of overall framework and that there are issues on who the membership should be. Residents cannot make a decision if it is not clear. The consultation should be clear on accountability and structures.

Overview & Scrutiny considered the reasons for the call-in and the responses provided.

Councillors Aksanoglu, Anyanwu, Demirel, Guzel and Levy voted in favour of the above decision and Councillors David-Sanders and Hockney voted against. The original Cabinet decision was therefore agreed.