Minutes of Residents’ Panel meetings on
Tuesday 24th & Wednesday 25th January 2012 at 10am
At Mea House, Newcastle
& The Crown & Mitre Hotel, Carlisle
1. Attendees and apologies (Please see Appendix 1)
The IEO asked members if they had any objections to photos being taken of the
meeting in progress and no one did. In the North West, she also explained that the
Chair was currently undertaking a course with the Chartered Institute of Housing and
that she would be filming him for part of the meeting so that film could be used
towards his studies.
In the North East, there was a discussion because so few Panel members had
turned up. The IEO rang the Panel members who had said they would be attending
and found that some had forgotten and some had been expecting transport to be
arranged despite not having requested it on their reply slips. The IEO apologised and
said that she would in future ring all NE attendees near the time to confirm that they
did not need transport and to remind them of the date.
2. Minutes of last meeting
The Chair and vice chair opened the meeting and thanked everyone for attending. In
the North West, the Chair welcomed and introduced three newcomers to the meeting
and asked them to read and sign the Code of Conduct to enable them to participate
fully in the meeting, which they did.
The Panel then went through the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 25 th &
26th October 2011.
The Chair stated that the minutes were a reasonably accurate account of what had
taken place at the meeting.
Regarding the results of the virtual panel survey, the Chair noted that it was a shame
that so few residents had responded to this. The IEO said that a low response rate to
online surveys was quite normal and the online Panel is not yet very big. Chris Allen
suggested sending out an email to all residents Two Castles had email addresses for
to increase the membership of the virtual Panel. She also enquired if the online
‘virtual Panel’ had been formally established and The IEO replied that it was. The
Chair said that there was a Residents’ Panel that met at meetings and a virtual Panel
that commented on the same topics remotely and Chris Allen said that they should
be brought together.
The Chair said that some people like to respond at the meeting and express a view
for the benefit of staff and management whereas others prefer to take time to give a
more considered and measured response. The IEO said that when members were
asked to look at lengthy document this is usually done away from the meeting in
1
order to have more time to reflect. George Cornish said that items to be consulted on
should be sent out to members with the agenda so that they hade enough time to
consider their response. The IEO said that as far as possible given timescales, this is
done already, but that she would ask Panel members to say which of today’s topics
could have been circulated in advance at the end of the meeting.
The dates of this year’s Panel meetings were decided and are as follows:
 Tuesday 17th April, Hexham Racecourse (full Panel)
 Wednesday 18th July, venue TBC (NE Panel)
 Thursday 26th July, venue TBC (NW Panel)
 Wednesday 24th October, venue TBC (NW Panel)
 Thursday 25th October, venue TBC (NE Panel).
Panel members discussed where future regional meetings should be held, with North
East members in favour of going to sheltered schemes or community centres in
areas where we have a lot of homes and inviting local residents by letter. The North
West Panel members preferred to go on tour to central Cumbrian locations such as
Kendal, Penrith and Whitehaven.
Upon his enquiring about the thank you event for the Panel, the IEO informed
George Cornish that she would be raising the matter later in the meeting. Mr Cornish
added that he would be speaking to Stephanie Murphy, Chief Executive, to ask if the
Resident Regional Customer Services Committee (RCSC) Members could give Judy
Prest, of the NW RCSC, a bouquet of flowers in appreciation for her work in
mentoring members of the group and if the gift would need to be declared.
With regard to item 7, a proposed scheme to motivate young people and assist them
with training and employment was thought to be a good idea and Ann Carr said that
she had mentioned the idea at a recent Board meeting, which had been received
well and Board Members would be looking at it further.
In matters arising, Mrs Carr asked if the IEO would be organising some in house
training for residents. The IEO replied that she will send a questionnaire to the Panel
which will ask whether members are willing to share knowledge and skills with
others, as there was unlikely to be provision within the budget for the coming year to
pay for in house training. She added that the results of the last customer profile
survey showed that a low proportion of our residents were unemployed. Therefore, it
would be difficult to have a budget request for resident training accepted.
The Panel satisfaction survey was sent to Panel members in mid February and this
addresses the question of where meetings should be held.
3. Committee members’ overview of last meetings
In the North East (NE), the IEO explained that the reason these minutes were being
reported to the Panel was to enable better communication between the RCSCs and
the Panel. All agreed that this would be a good idea.
2
Clare Galland, Involvement & Equality Officer (IEO), went through these in the North
East and George Cornish, Regional Customer Services Committee (RCSC)
Member, did so in the North West (NW).
Mr Cornish reported the following from Committee:





Under matters arising, item 5.1, in terms of the Residents’ Panel, there had
been constructive dialogue
Under item 5.3, regarding the review of the Choice Based Lettings system in
Cumbria, he described the various stages that a prospective tenant goes
through in order to get a property and said that there would be a review of
Choice Based Lettings in February
The Housing Services Director (HSD) is to compile a report on anti-social
behaviour. The IEO pointed out here that compared to some associations,
Two Castles does not receive a large number of complaints on this matter.
He outlined the Association’s need to find alternative office premises for staff
from the Kendal office as the current lease on the building in Angel Lane will
soon expire. Suitable accommodation is proving difficult to obtain and shared
office space is also being looked at, along with flexible working/working from
home. Members were concerned that this would mean a loss of personal
interaction with customers and some asked if a mobile office could be used to
reach some of the more remote properties in the large geographical area that
the Kendal office covers. The Panel Chair commented that if the Association
did go ahead with the idea of a mobile office it would be an opportunity for the
Panel to suggest that Members accompany staff, on occasions, to meet
residents and enlist their participation on the Residents Panel. The IEO said
that she always received a good response from residents in the Whitehaven
area and this may be due to there being an area office to visit. Mr Cornish
commented that it would be cheaper for the Association to share office space
with another organisation but that it must be well signposted to the public as,
whilst recently carrying out a mystery shopping visit to the Kendal office, he
found it very difficult to locate.
Asbestos testing, fire risk and public relations activity were all progressing.
The Chair said that government policy now dictated that residents must have more
involvement in scrutinising the work of housing associations and that Panel members
should expect to see this policy reflected in their Terms of Reference. He added that
it was very important that resident’s voices are heard and taken into account.
The IEO described the Balanced Scorecard to Panel members as a detailed
document used by officers and Committee Members to measure performance in
both housing services and property services against clearly defined objectives.
Ann Carr stated that Committee Members receive reports on the issues to be raised
at the forthcoming meetings. The reports cover items such as rent arrears, customer
service response figures, proposed new developments, anti-social behaviour, etc
and it is an opportunity for resident members to speak up and make
recommendations. The Chair said that although, to date, he had only attended two
Committee meetings, he was not frightened to speak up on important issues and
3
said that the NWRCSC Chair, who is also a serving City Councillor, took his time to
ensure that Panel members had their say.
In the NW, the Chair mentioned that on the NE RCSC, about half of its members are
residents and the Chair is also a resident. On the NW RCSC the split is 70%
independent members and 30% residents and the Chair is not a resident.
Mr Cornish mentioned that Two Castles’ current Rules of governance say that no
more than a third of the Board can be residents.
In the NE, Ron Steele added that Two Castles was currently under target on gas
safety checks because tenants were missing their appointments and not letting
contractors into their properties.
Mr Steele also mentioned the difficulty of letting void properties with the NE Panel.
He said the main problems were poor kitchens over 20 years old and heating. He
said the stock condition survey is due to finish in April and once this is done the
Association will get a bigger picture of the problem and the works needed. Mr Steele
said customers are looking at other properties as the standards are higher, so voids
are proving harder to let as they need a lot of work done.
Valerie Poulton, Vice Chair, in the NE, said that she thought Two Castles had under
invested in their old stock in the past. The IEO mentioned that the stock condition
survey and new technology Two Castles is investing in will at least give residents
information about when their kitchens and other aspects of their homes will be
replaced.
Residents from Pembroke Court, Sunderland, reported that their walls had not had
cavity wall insulation installed, because of the high cost of scaffolding their large
building. The holes in the walls were made a couple of years ago, and these were
causing draughts. They also mentioned that they can’t turn off individual radiators.
The Property Services department is investigating the holes problem and whether
radiator valves can be fitted at the scheme (it depends on the central heating system
installed). When Two Castles upgrade central heating systems we usually fit radiator
valves so that residents can turn individual ones off to save money on their heating
bills.
4. Selection process the Board – Ann Carr / IEO
Ann Carr, resident Board Member, RSCS Member and Panel member, took
residents through the slides in the NW and the IEO did so in the NE. Mrs Carr said
that residents can serve for a term of three years on the Board, are evaluated yearly,
and are then required to be re-elected.
In the NW, Mr Cornish added that applying for Board Membership via the nonresident route is open to all on the purchase of a £1 share in Two Castles.
In the NE, Mr Steele asked whether residents on Committee will also receive a
yearly pay of £2,500. The IEO has since confirmed that there are no plans to pay
Committee members – only Board members. In the NW, Mrs Carr mentioned that
4
Resident Board Members can choose whether or not to be paid – some are and
some are not.
In the NE, Mr Steele also suggested that new Board vacancies be advertised in the
Fanfare resident magazine to encourage more residents to come forward and apply
because residents would be interested in the extra money.
The IEO has since asked the Chief Executive about this and Two Castles will try to
do it in future. However, Fanfare is only published quarterly and many Board
vacancies are only advertised for a few weeks so it will depend upon the timing of
the vacancy becoming available as to whether Fanfare will be published too late.
Two Castles will however advertise Board vacancies on the website and send copies
of the job advertisement to Committee members and Panel members.
5. 1st Annual Tenant Panel Conference - 28th November, Northern Housing
Consortium - Valerie Poulton
In the NW, the IEO gave a review of this scrutiny conference which was held in
November 2011. After distributing handouts from that meeting, the IEO said that
Valerie Poulton, Panel member, and Jonathan Cannon, former Involvement and
Equality Officer, had attended it. Valerie had found the meeting enjoyable but
intense.
The following are the notes read out by Valerie Poulton, Vice Chair, at the NE Panel
meeting. Jonathan Cannon’s (IEO) report was circulated at both Panel meetings.
Jonathan Cannon & I attended this event and to be perfectly honest it was very
intense and I felt for the most part out of my depth. The following is a synopsis, what
I gained from it and the workshops I attended. The day’s programme was run by a
company referred to as SEPS (Scrutiny and Empowerment Partners).
The first 1¼ hours of the day covered the following. In 2010, national standards were
introduced by the Tenant Services Authority (TSA). The TSA had regulatory powers.
The TSA has now disbanded so these powers will shift to an Independent Regulation
Committee within the Homes and Communities Agency.
The focus is on tenants playing a greater role in scrutinising their providers with more
transparency between providers and tenants. To a degree, this already takes place
within Two Castles through the Board and Committees and Residents’ Panel
members. The idea is that residents become more skilled and trained in how to
analyse reports, suggest improvements and play a greater part in decision making.
Presently there are 6 National Standards – a 7th is to be added. These are listed in
Jonathan’s report. In housing jargon we hear the terms co-regulation, co-regulatory
and co-regulators. This simply means providers working with their Board,
Committees and Residents’ Panels.
Throughout the country there have been 10 housing providers championing this coregulation over the past couple of years to show other providers, like ourselves, how
5
they can work with their Boards, Committees and Residents’ Panels better. A report
on their findings is due to be published next month.
SEPS, who presented the day’s programme, is a company that gives presentations
and training in the art of scrutiny. Scrutiny is “critical investigation and examination
into details“. This company gave presentations throughout the day on varying
aspects of scrutiny in the form of workshops - 12 workshops in all, from which we
could choose to attend two. I chose to attend “Are you new to scrutiny?” and “Tenant
cash back”.
The “Are you new to scrutiny?” presentation began with the following quote: “The
officers used to give us information and we provided comments. Now we are taking
the lead – we say what we want to review and what type of information we want.”
With scrutiny, tenants have a direct line to Board and senior management to insist on
changes. Scrutiny is about testing that landlords meet national standards and local
offers and includes:
 Speaking to tenants by telephone and door to door surveys
 Speaking to staff
 Job shadowing
 More power for Board, Committees and Residents’ Panel to challenge
providers.
The Tenant Cash Back scheme is only in its very early stages. This scheme will
allow tenants to ask their landlords for the chance to carry out DIY themselves or pay
someone locally to do the work and keep the savings made. This refers to routine
repairs such as leaking taps and replacing locks. Big items remain the responsibility
of the landlord. Some of the objectives of this scheme are:
 Resident empowerment
 Save money
 Develop pride
 Rewarding positive tenant behaviour.
The cash back scheme is being tested on a small scale. However, before it can be
implemented nationally there is a lot of research, work and training to be done. The
following are some of the areas needing to be investigated and considered:
 Demand
 Quality
 Safety
 Fairness
 Insurance
 Scams
 Budgeting
 Control
 The benefit to housing providers and tenants by encouraging all tenants to
look after their homes.
In addition to the workshops, there were also presentations on changes to the
complaints procedure; tenants in control; the new Housing Strategy, and housing
changes in the localism bill. For me it was an interesting but very complex day.
6
The Chair then introduced Paul Bayman, an independent consultant from the Tenant
Participation Advisory Service (TPAS), who was to observe part of the meeting.
6. Your opinion about resident involvement at Two Castles – Paul Bayman
(Independent consultant from the Tenant Participation Advisory Service
(TPAS))
The IEO and minute taker left the meeting for this item so that residents could
express their opinions about Two Castles freely.
TPAS are evaluating the quality of resident involvement at Two Castles by
interviewing residents and staff and reading relevant documents. The results of their
report will be reported to the Panel before the next Panel meeting on April 17 th at
Hexham Racecourse.
When this discussion was complete, the IEO and admin officers came back into the
room and lunch was served.
The IEO said that the next Residents’ Panel meeting to be held in April at Hexham
was a very important meeting for Panel members to attend because it would focus
on a discussion of a new Resident Involvement Strategy & Action Plan for the next
three years.
The Chair encouraged members who had computer facilities to look at the TPAS and
Chartered Institute of Housing websites for best practice examples on resident
scrutiny and general involvement.
7. Skills audit
Two Castles would like to find out which skills members of the Panel have or would
like to develop so that these members can be matched to provide good value for
money training and support to each other to help them in their role as Panel
members.
Questionnaires were given out and residents took them home to complete and return
by 2nd March. The questionnaires were also sent to residents who were unable to
attend.
The results will be cross-referenced with the results of the Panel satisfaction survey
(mentioned later in these minutes).
8. Budget for 2012/13
The IEO brought to Panel members’ attention that a lot of money is being spent (on
average £500 every two months) on travel expenses to and from meetings. Mrs
Poulton suggested that if a taxi is booked people share to bring the costs down. The
IEO agreed this would be a good area to cut costs and is already happening with
some residents, facilitated by the IEO.
7
There was a discussion on next year’s budget. The IEO confirmed that, despite
prices going up due to inflation, the resident involvement budget will not be getting
an increase in line with inflation next financial year. We are expected to deliver the
same quantity of activity but find efficiency savings. Residents agreed that they will
all try their best to keep costs down.
In the NE, Mrs Poulton discussed the option of using the Two Castle office for
meetings to cut out costs on room hire. However the IEO said that the Two Castles
Board room is not accessible for disabled residents. Mr Steele also proposed using
sheltered housing schemes and all agreed this would be a helpful. The IEO
suggested also using community centres in areas where Two Castles had stock and
inviting local residents to increase attendance.
In the NW, the IEO confirmed that Panel members and Committee members
received the same mileage allowance of 45p per mile, as recommended by the
Inland Revenue.
Chris Allen suggested that a network of communication could be set up, whereby
members called/e-mailed each other about forthcoming events, to possibly save on
postage.
At present, NE & NW members meet 3 times per year separately and have one
combined meeting. In the NW, Mr Cornish stated that Panel members from both
regions should meet together twice per year. However, some thought that meeting
as a large group could possibly change the meeting to a social event with not
enough time being devoted to discussion and decision making. There were also
concerns that more combined meetings may result in members from each region
listening to issues that may not be concerning them in their particular area, but the
IEO confirmed that this would never happen. Others were concerned that a large
group may inhibit people from speaking up.
Members asked if a representative of each region could travel to each regional Panel
meeting, although concerns were expressed at how democratic that would be. A
member from the Whitehaven area enquired if more meetings could be held in that
area. Kendal and Penrith areas were also suggested.
The Chair said that the Panel satisfaction questionnaire being sent out after the
meeting will include questions about the wider participation of residents.
The IEO asked the Chair if the quality of the discussion was better at the NWRCSC
meeting or at the Panel meetings. The Chair replied that the Panel meetings were
more relaxed with more opportunity for lengthy discussion, whereas all speakers
need to go through the Chair at Committee meetings, which can create a barrier.
9. Decision & date of thankyou event
The IEO confirmed that the Association would like to put on a thankyou event for all
Residents’ Panel members and the details of this are included in the presentation.
The NE and NW will have separate events to minimise travel.
8
The NE Panel discussed an idea of going to a show but it was agreed that choosing
a show would be much harder to agree upon than going on a day trip to Whitby or
Scarborough.
However, there will also be a Panel, Board and staff social event on Friday 30th
March at Hexham’s Beaumont Hotel between 11am and 2pm. All Panel members
will shortly receive an invitation to this.
10. Board decision about financial support
The IEO informed the Panel of financial support decisions and no comments were
made.
11. Satisfaction surveys
The IEO reported that her proposals for future customer satisfaction measurements
have been amended, with the last meetings of the Panel having a strong impact on
the proposals. The Board will be looking at it in March, with the next big customer
survey being carried out in September 2012.
No comments were made following the IEO’s update.
12. Mystery shopping
The IEO mentioned that there are not enough mystery shoppers at the moment and
they are very difficult to recruit.
A request in the Fanfare magazine produced no new volunteers. Discussion followed
on whether the title ‘mystery shopping’ was misunderstood and should be changed
and if a larger, poster type, advert was needed in Fanfare to attract volunteers.
The IEO explained that members wishing to become involved in mystery shopping
would receive training on the types of questions to ask staff and would be paid in
vouchers at £10 for phone calls or £40 for visits made.
In the NE, Mrs Poulton said that the more she does mystery shopping, she was
concerned that staff may recognise her.
The IEO suggested teaming up with another association so that their shoppers could
test Two Castles and we could test their association in return. All agreed that this
would be a good opportunity and the IEO agreed to search for a partner
organisation.
In the NE, Mr Steele asked whether mystery shopping is achieving good outcomes
and what feedback Two Castles gets from this. The IEO said that it is one of the
main ways that Two Castles “reality checks” its services. Staff do not always see
things from a resident’s or member of the public’s perspective. We have many
policies and procedures but we need to test whether staff are following them and
when they are not whether they need more training or equipment to achieve better
9
results. The shops highlight the weak areas we need to focus on. Doing mystery
shopping ensures we get to evaluate our customer service skills are and how well
we meet different customer’s needs and requirements in different situations.
In the NW, the Chair asked about members of the Panel carrying out inspections of
properties, with staff, following major refurbishment. Mr Cornish replied that at
present, a representative from Cumbria Housing Partners may call and ask residents
if the work was completed to their satisfaction. The IEO replied that only a sample of
properties are inspected this way once a year, if that. Mr Cornish also thought that
the Panel could become involved with checking the standard of properties at the
point of letting to a new tenant, to ensure that they were up to a lettable standard.
13. TPAS involvement accreditation
The IEO reported that TPAS is to report back to the Association shortly, giving
details on how near we are to gaining accreditation. This will be reported back to
members by the next Panel meeting. In the NW, the Chair asked if it was also worth
looking at HouseMark for accreditation.
In the NW, Mr Cornish commented that from his attendance of Cumbria Partnership
meetings, he has learned that none of the housing associations in Cumbria are
members of TAROE (Tenants and Residents Organisations of England). The IEO
said that after a request from the Chair and due to the low cost of the Panel (not Two
Castles) joining TAROE, this will be pursued on the Panel’s behalf.
In the NE, Mr Steele asked how much work is needed to reach accreditation and is it
worthwhile changing so much to fit the TPAS criteria. The IEO said that the health
check and report that TPAS give us will help us to decide whether accreditation is
appropriate to Two Castles. Because we are a small provider with stock spread over
a large area, their template may not fit the way we do things.
14. How we benchmark resident involvement
Further to a request from the Chair at the last NW Panel meeting, the IEO explained
the benchmarking process used by Two Castles to compare itself to other landlords
and drive improvement. The example used was for resident involvement but similar
methods are used in all departments. No comments were made about this in the NE.
In the NW, the Chair said that a conference about resident scrutiny was being held
by TAROE in Runcorn, Cheshire, on 29th February, which he would be attending.
The IEO stated that Two Castles were moving more towards residents leading on
involvement benchmarking and went on to say that if the Panel felt that something
could be done better their ideas could be incorporated into the Panel’s 3 year
strategy, to be discussed in April. Any new proposals would be presented to the
Senior Management Team. Then, if agreed, the Panel would be consulted, policy
changes drafted then passed to Committee and Board. The Chair reminded
members to be conscious of their ability and proactive in championing best practice
within the Association via the management structure.
10
15. Resignations
Following a request from the Chair at the last NW Panel meeting, the IEO gave
details of the how many Panel members had resigned and their reasons for doing
so. Comments were made on how people just become to busy to attend meetings
and some cases lose interest.
In the NW, the IEO said she wondered if some who had resigned had found the
meetings boring or frustrating and asked members what they thought about the
meetings. Mr Cornish thought that the meetings had improved since the IEOs had
been appointed, Ann Carr suggested that perhaps some members were not seeing
improvements being made and Chris Allen thought that some people may only be
attending for social reasons.
In the NE, Mr Steele said that he suspected some residents may have been
disenchanted with a lack of or slow feedback from Two Castles when residents had
given their views about something. The IEO mentioned that Two Castles is aware of
this problem and is working on making sure all staff always tell residents what the
next steps are and how long it would be before residents heard the impact of their
involvement. Two Castles has not always known this information at the time of
consulting residents and better planning and timetabling could improve this.
The IEO suggested that a working group could perhaps be set up to look at ways of
inspiring people to join the Panel and Panel members agreed with this.
In the NW, Chris Allen said that she would be willing to design a Panel leaflet that
could be finished before the road show as it is important to widen communication to
attract younger people to the Panel.
16. Repairs and Maintenance Review Update – NW only
Rob Johnson, an independent consultant from Elliot Johnson, updated the Panel on
the project. His slides are enclosed with these minutes.
Because of the short timescales for the project, unfortunately the involved residents
were unable to attend the contractor interviews for this procurement exercise.
In the NW, a Panel member asked how the appointment system would be tested and
how customer service would be measured. Mr Johnson replied that in relation to void
properties, which are easier to inspect as there are no occupants, the properties
would be inspected by the Housing Officer for the scheme and also the contractor.
With responsive repairs, some residents will be offered appointments when the
system goes live and checks will be made to see how the system is working, then
gradually more and more will be offered appointments until the system is 100%
active. Residents will be contacted to ask about the quality of the work and if it was
completed on time.
11
The Chair asked about the baseline percentage for satisfaction and Mr Johnson
replied that improvement would be monitored over two years. Now that voids and
responsive repairs were being dealt with by 4 contractors, it would be easier to track
their performance against the Associations’ Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s). An
opportunity will also be made for Panel members to meet the contractors.
The Chair asked who will inspect the work in void properties. Mr Johnson said that
an officer and the contractor will do this. The Chair requested that residents be
involved in inspections.
The Chair also asked how residents’ views were sought about responsive repairs.
The NE Property Services Manager said that residents were contacted by Two
Castles to check that contractors had turned up for appointments we had booked for
them, and customer satisfaction questionnaires were sent to residents who had
recently had work done.
A resident also asked about what happens when a contractor is under-performing.
There is a 13 week notice period to terminate the contract on both sides and the
contracts usually last 2 years. Mr Johnson stated that their contracts were linked to
performance, and contractors all have enough staff to manage the new systems of
work. Those who continually fail can have their contracts withdrawn, with the
possibility of the Association returning the contractor who was in second place when
contracts were awarded.
Mr Waller commented that Top Notch had done a bad job of installing French
windows at his scheme some time ago. Other residents in the room said that the
service they had received from Top Notch recently had been excellent.
The Chair felt that it was very important that the Scrutiny Panel kept a close eye on
the quality of contractor work and residents to provide feedback to Two Castles’
officers. Mr Johnson stated that the new responsive repairs contracts did not include
gas servicing, which was provided by Integral, nor did grounds maintenance form
part of the contracts, as this service was currently undergoing a separate review by
staff.
Ann Carr commented that the contractor review had been a long but hopefully a
successful process.
Any other business
17. Grounds maintenance review update
Julie Cuthbert, NE Property Services Manager (PSM), gave an update on the
progress of this project.
The PSM reported that the review had been undertaken in response to a number of
complaints received on the standard of ground maintenance which was not
consistent between the NE & NW regions.
12
Further to the resident meetings about this subject held at the Crown & Mitre,
Carlisle, and Newcastle Arts Centre last year, Two Castles has been doing a lot of
work to change how we will manage grounds maintenance in future. Our aim is to
ensure that every scheme is the same standard, whatever type of grounds they
have.
We have visited all the affected schemes and made detailed drawings so that
contractors and residents know which areas the contractors maintain and which they
do not. We have drawn up a detailed specification showing what contractors are
supposed to do and when. (All residents will be given a copy.) We then bundled all
the work together into 3 areas in the North East and 3 in the North West, in order to
increase efficiency when managing the contracts. Until now Two Castles has had to
manage 17 different landscaping contracts – 12 of which were in the North West.
We then held a meeting with our current contractors to explain the new
arrangements for if they wanted to work for us. The process involves them filling in a
“Pre-Qualification Questionnaire” (PQQ) which asks detailed questions about their
financial viability, resources and skills, among other things. If they are found to meet
all our criteria then they are invited to quote (“tender”).
We also advertised our new contracts in local newspapers so that new contractors
could express their interest in working with us and fill in a PQQ. The closing date for
all expressions of interest was January 10. We have now assessed them and 18
contractors are really good so we will invite them to tender and they will have three
weeks to visit all the schemes included and price them up properly. The tenders are
due back on February 13.
The tenders will be evaluated and the PSM invited Panel members to be part of this
evaluation panel, which will meet in February to choose which contractors get
through to the next stage, ready for them to start work on April 1st. Six residents
volunteered – two from the NE and four from the NW. Although unable to attend,
Ann Carr would like to look at them.
The PSM thanked residents for their input into this review.
In the NE, Mr Steele said that landscaping issues had not been dealt with in the past
and that he had found it disenchanting to see no signs of anything being done since
the last meetings about this in October. The PSM said that Two Castles had a lot of
work to do in the interim and that was why there was no further consultation but
agreed that residents should have been told what was happening and when they
would hear more.
In the NW, the Chair asked how residents would be involved in checking contractors’
work. The PSM said that contractors will do so when they can, but Two Castles will
do this as well, and in the future trained residents will be able to take part in this. The
Chair suggested sending out a customer satisfaction survey to check contractors’
work.
13
In the NW, the Chair & Ann Carr stated that they had recently attended a stage 3
complaint regarding ground maintenance and they would like to be satisfied that
some of the issues raised in the complaint would be addressed in the new contract.
The PSM stated that the new contracts were very detailed and residents would
receive information detailing the work to be done and how often. Mrs Carr asked who
would be signing off completed work and Julie replied that the contractor, staff and
eventually, residents, after training.
Mr Wright highlighted a problem with trees at Knowefield Close and the PSM said
that she would speak to the contractors, Alan Hudson and the Housing Officer for the
scheme to try and sort out the problem.
Mr Waller volunteered for landscaping training for the Greystoke Park area in
Penrith.
A Panel member asked if the new contracts would mean a cost increase as
residents on the scheme in which she lived felt that they already paid enough. The
PSM said that contracts will be awarded not only on cost, but on service, and this will
be the same across the areas.
18. IT/online communication with residents
Chris Allen, NW Panel member, and some other NW Panel members have said they
would like to examine further how Two Castles responds and communicates with
residents through our website, emails etc. A meeting of an IT group with residents
had happened in April 2011 but she had heard nothing since. None of the NE
members present wished to participate but they commented that they would prefer to
have long documents such as minutes, slides and questionnaires sent to them by
post even though they had email addresses.
The IEO has since asked the head of IT, Peter Stockdale, what plans are being
implemented this year and when residents will be consulted. He said that the online
repairs diagnostic and reporting service is about to be launched on our website and
residents are already using it. Work will also shortly be completed to allow us to
share customer vulnerabilities data with our contractors to ensure that, for example,
residents who are hard of hearing are communicated with in the right way. Also
planned for this year is a data cleansing exercise which will enable us to use the IBS
“Customer Contact” module, which will enable staff to see vulnerabilities and
communications data at a glance when in contact with residents to ensure that we
communicate with residents in the appropriate way.
Regarding online communication with the Residents’ Panel, the best forum for this to
be discussed would be the April Residents’ Panel meeting, where we will start the
process of revising the Resident Involvement Strategy & Action Plan.
19. TPAS Group membership for the Panel
The fee for group membership is £73, which was agreed, and will include briefings
and good practice, website and helpline, e-zine and a regular magazine, plus
14
discount off conferences and training. Panel members agreed with Two Castles
paying for this membership from which they could all benefit.
20. NE only – NECTAR membership
The IEO said that she had been looking for a NE alternative to the NW’s Cumbria
and North Lancashire Tenants and Residents’ Forum. The Cumbria Forum is made
up of residents from different housing providers who meet to compare notes on their
landlords and organise information days on topical issues to inform the wider
resident population. The IEO has found NECTAR, which could be a NE equivalent
but wanted to test whether it was a useful organisation to join first. The IEO asked
the NE Panel who would like to go to a trial meeting with her. Valerie Poulton
confirmed she will attend, to check dates with Clare Galland.
21. NE only – Active Learning for Residents
The IEO said that some residents had dropped out of the CIH Active Learning for
Residents (ALfR) level 3 course in Scrutiny in the North East, so there are 2 vacant
places if any NE Panel members are interested in pursuing the qualification. No
members expressed an interest in this.
22. Panel satisfaction survey
The IEO said that the Panel will shortly receive a satisfaction survey to find out views
about how the Panel is run. The results will be circulated by the next Panel meeting.
23. Resident involvement working group
The IEO said that she would appreciate a small group of residents to volunteer to
contribute towards widening involvement at Two Castles (in terms of numbers but
also diversity). Several residents volunteered from the NW. This group will start work
after the 17th April Panel meeting and if you would like to join it please contact the
IEO.
24. Virtual Panel and Advance Papers
The Chair asked how the virtual Panel will be consulted on the day’s business and
Chris Allen suggested the virtual Panel is sent the minutes and slides with an
invitation to respond.
The IEO asked Panel members whether any of the items discussed would have
benefitted from documents being circulated in advance. Only the repairs and
maintenance overview and Mrs Poulton’s report on the Scrutiny conference were
mentioned – neither of which the IEO had in advance of the meetings.
25. Next meeting
Tuesday 17th April at Hexham Racecourse. This will discuss the new Resident
Involvement & Empowerment Strategy and Action Plan as well as Two Castles’
15
scrutiny arrangements. Minibuses will be running from Whitehaven, Carlisle,
Sunderland and Newcastle.
The Chair and Vice Chair thanked everyone for attending and the meetings closed.
16
Appendix 1 – Attendees and apologies
Attendees NW:
Brian McCarthy
Ann Carr
George Cornish
Christine Allen
Muriel Dinning
Joan Salmon
Christine Marshall
Sandra Waller
Lee Waller
George White
Carol Misselbrook
Chair of Residents’ Panel & RCSC Member
Residents’ Panel, RCSC and Board Member
Residents’ Panel & RCSC Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member (new)
Residents’ Panel Member (new)
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Apologies NW:
Mrs White
Audrey Furness
Norma Rothwell
Eva Elliott
Irene Scott
Stephen Worrall
Steve Wilson
Valerie Poulton
Gladys McKinney
Sheila Ratcliffe
Barbara Green
Bob Gillespie
Stephanie Maffia
Dennis Hollyman
Jack Paton
Mrs Mueller
Mrs Swift
David Burchall
Hilda Ickerby
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Residents’ Panel Member
Guest
Guest
Guest
Guest
Staff attending NW
Paul Bayman
Clare Galland
Julie Cuthbert
Rob Johnson
Christine Hargraves
Tenant Participation Advisory Service
Involvement & Equality Officer
North East Property Services Manager
Elliot Johnson
Administration Officer
Attendees NE
Valerie Poulton
Vera Fairbairn
Vice Chair of the Residents’ Panel
Residents’ Panel member
17
Christine Selkirk, Panel member Residents’ Panel member
Ron Steele
RCSC and Residents’ Panel Member
Apologies NE
Dianne Morris
Linda Grimshaw
Roz Johnson
John Jones
Ann Crosby
Bryan Crosby
Bob Stones
Residents’ Panel member
Residents’ Panel member
Board Member, Chair of RCSC & Panel member
RCSC and Panel Member
Residents’ Panel member
Residents’ Panel member
Residents’ Panel member
Staff attending NE
Clare Galland
Julie Cuthbert
Kelly Somerville
Chris Davies
Paul Bayman
Involvement & Equality Officer
North East Property Services Manager
Administration Officer
Integral
Tenant Participation Advisory Service
18