Tenant Scrutiny Panel

Transcription

1 Tenant Scrutiny Panel Loss of Revenue from Garages owned by the Vale of Aylesbury Housing Trust TSP Inquiry No. 5 Of the 2098 garage units owned by the Trust, only 1137 were rented out as at March 31st The 952 un-let units represented 479,226 per annum in lost revenue. Tenant Scrutiny Panel :- John Braithwaite, Janet Doman, Sonia Edwards, Charly Skilling, Anthony Taylor, Tsvetana Traykova, Julie Williams and Michael Young. September 2014

2 Tenant Scrutiny Panel Inquiry into the Loss of Revenue from Garages Owned by the Trust 1. Introduction The Vale of Aylesbury Housing Trust owns some 156 plots of land, on which stand blocks of single-storey brick units, designated as garages. These garage units are designed for rent to members of the public, be they tenants of the Trust or not, as a source of income to support the Trust s main activity of providing social housing. On reviewing information supplied to the TSP by Mr Ian Silver, Director of Housing Services, the Tenant Scrutiny Panel identified that of the 2098 units owned by the Trust, only 1137 were rented out as at March 31 st The 952 un-let units represented 479,226 per annum in lost revenue. At the Tenant Scrutiny Panel Meeting (TSP) held on 13 June 2014, the Panel agreed To inquire into the loss of revenue from garages owned by the Trust. 2. Methodology Used In gathering evidence for this Inquiry, the TSP undertook the following activities: 2.1. Document review of key documents relating to the garage for rent service, including: Original garage data issued by Ian Silver, entitled Garage Data as at 31 st March 2014 and issued on April 4 th VAHT Garage Site Strategy VAHT Waiting List and Garage Allocations Procedure List of locations of VAHT garages untitled Sample garage allocation letter and copy of garage licence Clippings of all references to garages on VAHT website Data on complaints received by the Trust concerning garages/garage sites Data on costs to Estate Services of dealing with fly-tipping etc. at garage sites. The document review helped us understand the aspirations of the Trust and the systems in place Website review Both the Trust s website and those of other Housing Associations and Local Authorities were evaluated for content relating to this inquiry Staff interviews, including: Garage Manager Garage Advisor 2

3 Tenancy Services Manager Customer Contact Centre Manager Customer Contact Centre Team Leader Employees were able to provide information about target-setting, processes, delivery and outcomes Tenant Questionnaires A questionnaire was sent to 150 people who rented a garage from the Trust A different questionnaire was sent to 150 Trust tenants who do not rent a garage from the Trust Site Visits TSP members visited the following garage sites: Belgrave Road, Quarrendon Carlton Close Grafton Road, Quarrendon Keble Close Mitcham Walk, Quarrendon St Anthony s Close Yardley Avenue, Pitstone Chesterfield Place Sherrif Close Rochester Place Masons Court St Annes Road Joint visit by TSP Chair and Director of Housing Services to various sites in Aylesbury Vale Additional Research AWARD Report on Garage Sites, commissioned by VAHT Lock-up to Start-up commissioned by Greater London Authority Conservatives 3. Key Strengths We found as a Panel the following strengths: There is a perceived need for garages Existing brick units could be used for other uses There is no capital value attached to these sites A new dedicated team is in place, and are enthusiastic and motivated A new strategy has been written Tenants endorse and have a positive view of the garage service. 3

4 4. Key Weaknesses We found as a Panel the following weaknesses: Many garage units are in disrepair, some are in need of demolition and some are no longer fit-for-purpose (dimensions too small to garage modern vehicles) The appearance of many sites may be neat, but is not attractive The use of the word garage restricts thinking The garage service is not a priority for many Trust staff 4.5. There are few figures, no KPIs, and limited targets a general lack of monitoring measures 4.6. The new strategy is short-term Revenue is being lost Costs are being incurred through ASB and fly-tipping, as are increased maintenance costs 4.9. Asbestos costs are involved in many major works on the existing units The investment budget is neither robust nor long-term No lettable standard or minimum repair standard yet in place, although they are planned for. 5. Key Findings Finding Reasoning Impact 1. Use of word Garage (as in garage sites/ garage manager) unhelpful When interviewed, staff focus on concept of brick garage, up-andover door. Fail to appreciate the worth of the whole site, or flexibility of brick unit 2. No vision exists for how these sites fit into Trust s long-term strategy 3. New strategy only shortterm 4. The existing assets on these sites are given low priority 5. Lack of consistency in application of resources 6. Lack of focus by the Trust, in the past, on revenue generating possibilities 7. Little attention given to repair cost reduction through preventative maintenance In interviews, some staff could not explain how sites contribute to Trust s Objectives Budget only identified for two years Both staff interviews and tenant surveys indicate garage repairs and maintenance are given low priority Site visits and tenant surveys indicate some re-furbished garages and some derelict in the same block Lack of targets, KPIs and monitoring systems. Repairs and maintenance to these sites given low priority. Service not integrated into Trust s business plan, strategies or budgets. No long term investment planning. Sites in slow decline, repairs and maintenance more costly. Attracts ASB and fly-tipping. Decline of surrounding area devalues good product and is off-putting to potential customers. Opportunities to generate income for the Trust not explored. Longer term, maintenance and repair costs are higher. 4

5 Finding Reasoning Impact 8. Less income/usage creates greater costs 9. Tenants and garageholders view the service positively, go on using it for a very long time, and would recommend the service to friends 10. Staff do not promote the service nor have in-depth knowledge of it. Very limited advertising of service 6. Recommendations Staff interviews and site visits show that the fewer regular users of a site, the more likely criminal behaviour, fly-tipping, graffiti and general anti-social behaviour Responses to direct questions in the tenant surveys. Tenant surveys show only 8% of tenants had heard of the service from VAHT staff, and comments in the survey suggest inadequate staff knowledge. Only 14% had seen the service on the website. The TSP recommends that the Trust undertake the following actions: Short-Term Cost to Trust of dealing with such behaviour increases. Customers value the product and there is a demand for the service. Missed opportunities to find new customers and disgruntled customers and inadequate service Develop monitoring systems and KPIs for site usage, gross and net income, and costs Start local (i.e. local to the utility site) marketing of units for use as garage/storage to reverse decline in income, as well as longer-term marketing campaigns throughout the Aylesbury Vale Apply resource to simple site improvement works creative paint schemes, better lighting etc Review pricing and introduce two-tier system with higher rate (exc. VAT) paid by non-tenants. Longer-Term 6.5. Re-designate sites as Utility sites 6.6. Develop a vision for multi-purpose, multi-user Utility Sites at Board level. Create a minimum 5 year strategy to support the vision Put in place robust investment and operational budgets to support the strategy Disseminate vision and strategy throughout the organisation Set-up a cross-departmental Utility Site Development Group, to include, among others, representatives of property services, tenancy services and estate services for the on-going review and development of the sites Review each site, prioritising by lowest income/highest cost, and consider current and potential uses, using the following criteria: - benefit to the Trust, benefit to the tenant, benefit to the wider community, and overall value for money Develop a toolbox of alternative uses which might include :- redevelopment of site for social housing; use of existing units for household storage, or home-worker industry 5

6 storage; conversion of existing units to small business start-up sites, workshops, hobby sheds, higher value storage, community clubrooms, etc.; clearance of existing units and the provision of permit-holder parking spaces, mini- allotments, ball courts, play equipment, outdoor exercise equipment etc.; and combinations of any or all of the above with or without some continued garage provision Consider cost benefits/satisfaction rates of strategies such as selfrepairing leases, regulated by minimum standards of repair and annual inspections Consider pros and cons of setting up a Trust subsidiary, commercial joint venture, or partnership with other representative bodies or organisations, to manage, maintain and develop Utility Sites on the Trust s behalf, generating profits to feed back into social housing Put into place an action plan to improve performance. 7. Conclusion The TSP appreciates the recognition by the Trust of the need to solve the problem of loss of revenues from garages. However, the AWARD Report, commissioned by the Trust, had too limited a brief. A much broader, more imaginative approach is required. Our recommendations include several short-term actions to reverse falling revenues and longer-term actions to ensure these sites continue to make a positive contribution to the Trust s business objectives. Taken in total, these recommendations will lead to more profitable, all-encompassing and sustainable solutions being reached. The benefits of well-maintained, regenerated, Utility Sites will not only include maximised revenues, but also an enhanced relationship between the Trust and the communities it serves. 8. Appendices Appendix 1 Original garage data issued by Ian Silver, entitled Garage Data as at 31 st March 2014 ; Complaints data ; and Caretaking data. Appendix 2 VAHT Garage Site Strategy Appendix 3 VAHT Waiting List and Garage Allocations Procedure Appendix 4 List of locations of VAHT garages untitled. Appendix 5 Sample garage allocation letter and copy of garage licence Appendix 6 Clippings of all references to garages on VAHT website. Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 9 Questions Sheets for Staff Interviews Survey sheets for Garage-holders and Non-Garage-holders Sample photos from site visits Appendix 10 AWARD Report commissioned by VAHT Appendix 11 Lock-up to Start-up commissioned by GLA Conservatives Appendix 12 Proposed VAHT Action Plan Report Format 6