brixton area leaseholder forum agm 2015 · brixton area leaseholder forum agm 2015 ... minutes of...

1

Brixton Area Leaseholder Forum

AGM 2015

Date: Wednesday 4 March 2015 Venue: Council Chamber,

Lambeth Town Hall Brixton Hill, London

SW2 1RW

Time: 7pm to 9pm

Surgery 6:00 pm–7:00 pm with Home Ownership Services Officers Please note there will be no individual items taken after 7:00pm

3

Contents

Page 4: Invitation and Agenda for Meeting

Page 5: Minutes of the last Brixton Area Leaseholders Forum AGM

Page 8: Minutes of the last Brixton Area Leaseholders Forum

Page 14: Protocols for ALF Elections Page 15: Nomination Form for Area Leasehold Forum Representatives Page 16: Complaints Policy and complaints/compensation update Page 22: Leaseholder Engagement Report and ALF review 3: Major Works report

Page 35: Central Area Office Contact List

Page 38: Home Ownership Services Contact List

Page 41: Childcare Expenditure Claim Form

4

Brixton Leaseholders are invited to attend

The Brixton Area Leaseholder Forum AGM

Wednesday 04 March 2015

Lambeth Town Hall, Council Chamber Brixton Hill, London

SW2 1RW

Surgery 6 to 7pm with Home Ownership Services Officers

Please note there will be no individual items taken after 7pm

Agenda: 1. Welcome/Introductions 2. Minutes of last AGM 3. Minutes of last meeting 4. Matters Arising 5. Elections 6. Major Works update 7. Report from Home Ownership Services: Leaseholder

Engagement Report and ALF review 8. Leaseholders’ Council update 9. Any Other Business

For any further information or questions about the Area Leaseholder Forum, contact Emily Wester, Leasehold Community Engagement Officer at [email protected]

For any other queries about leasehold management, contact the Home Ownership Services Customer Service team on [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


5

Brixton Area Leaseholders Forum Thursday 13 February 2014

7:00 pm – 9:00 pm Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall

First Name Surname Initials Estate/Area

1 Mark Johnson MJ Renton Close

2 Irena Kowaleska IK Arlington Lodge

3 Peter D’Costa PD’C Arlington Lodge

4 Cryil Amyamwu CA Loats Road

5 D. Patel D’P Kellett Road

6 Scott Chown SC Kellet Road

7 Catherine Williams CW Kellet Road

8 Donna Higgins DH Arlington Lodge

9 Leslie Howden LH Herne Hill Road

10 E. Hickey EH Herne Hill Road

11 Melissa Madjitey MM Horle Walk

12 Roberta Tish RT No address given

13 Peter Doyle PD Park View House

14 G Brown GB Herne Hill Rd

15 T Clarke TC Deerdale Rd

16 Will Morland WM Broadoak Crt

17 Beryl Campbell BC Southwyck House

18 Kate Lynas KL Southwyck House

19 Dallas Kidman DK Crownstone

20 Samual Clayton SC Horle Walk

21 John Fellows JF Lambert RD

22 E Linehan EL Wincheap

23 Lynn Stennett LS Florence House

24 David Shead DS Hardel

25 Tiziana Dorigo TD Hardham House

26 Hazel Turay HT Woodruff House

27 Liz Boleyn LB Southwyck House

28 Robert Langley RL Holdsworth

29 Sarah Langslow SL Hayter Road

30 Mark Johnson MJ Renton Close

31 Olivier Burton OB Witchwood House

32 El Hickey EH Herne Hill Road

Officers: Paul Webb (PW) – Area Manager

Joseph Ajala (JA) – Project Manager Martin Chima (MC) – Calculations Team Leader Doreen Francis (DF) Resident Participation Officer Abdul Rouf (AR) – minute taker Councillors: Cllr Marcia Cameron

Cllr Matt Parr

6

1 Welcome/Introductions

1.1

PW welcomed all to the meeting. PDC agreed to be the chair throughout meeting in the absence of the Chair.

1.2 Previous AGM minutes were agreed to for accuracy.

1.3 Minutes of the previous Leaseholder Forum were agreed for accuracy.

2 Matters Arising

2.1 JF - noted that there were no councillors present at the meeting. SL & IG requested information as to why there were no councillors present and why there were no apologies. PW informed all that all meetings are included in Councillors calendars. A discussion took place on potentially moving the day of the meeting. However, it was agreed a change of day would not necessarily lead to increases member attendance.

3 Home Ownership Update

3.1 MC presented the Home Ownership update report and and stated that Lambeth has a stake in the blocks and therefore must maintain those blocks up to standard and that maintenance falls into two categories:-

a) Day to day repairs b) Cyclical/Planned works

3.2 IK stated that if something is not repaired or maintained for 20 years then this should be considered a breach of the lease agreement (e.g. peeling paint at Arlington that had not been dealt with for 20 years).MC stated that LL would investigate if a leaseholder felt there had been a breach of lease. PW advised Leaseholders to check their individual leases for details of repairing clauses then contacting LL if they think there has been a breach. It was also suggested that if LL was in breach Leaseholder may wish to seek legal advice.

3.3 The meeting was informed that the communal area at Florence House had not been decorated since it had sustained fire damage from a fire at number 12. PDC suggested that Lambeth officers should look into this matter. PW agreed to investigate and respond.

PW

4 LHS Update

4.1 PW reported that LL are starting some planned maintenance works up until April and that these would focus on works where there were no section 20 implications. Primarily works in communal areas and painting on landings and stairwells, drainage and fencing works. It was suggested that the street properties should also be a part of this process. PW confirmed that the planned maintenance would continue into 2014/15 and street properties would be considered as part of this ongoing process.

4.2 EH requested a single point of contact for leaseholders. This suggestion was widely supported.

4.3 It was suggested that a review was required of the billing process and the customer service process. PW indicated that LL would like suggestions to help identify the issues that were important to leaseholders about the process and stated that the process was being considered.

4.4 RB stated that she had requested copies of guarantees 5 times and that no guarantees had as yet been provided. JA agreed that there should be guarantees and agreed to provide further information on the guarantees. However, it was explained that although work on an individual scheme of works is guaranteed, it may not be possible to provide a copy of a guarantee to each property.

JA

4.5 PDC handed over chairing to MJ.

7

5 Election of New Officers

5.1 DF informed representatives forum about the process for electing new officers. The following were voted in and seconded as the new officers:- Mark Johnson, Gerlinde Gniewosz, Melissa Madjiety, Sarah Langslow, John Fellows (co-opted member).

6 Leaseholder Account Statements

6.1 MC stated that the final accounts have been issued for 2012- 2013 and apologised for the delay. MC also apologised for the overlap of the 2012/13 & the 2013/14 accounts. Several leaseholders requested that they be sent a summary of all accounts. MC to follow-up.

MC

7 Complaints Process

7.1 PW explained the current complaints system and provided the meeting with a brief report on the revised process which will apply from April. The complaints process was about to be overhauled and that emphasis would be placed on responding and completing the complaint in the early stages. IPW explained that the new system would be rolled out across the entire organisation. PW advised that the new complaints process would uploaded onto the website.

8 Any Other Business

8.1 MJ informed the meeting that Cllr Robins had set up a Task and Finish Group aimed at improving services to Leaseholders.

8.2

MJ - two new websites had been set up for communication and to disseminate information:- lambethleaseholders.com and lambethforums.com. PDC requested information on the websites as to whether they were independent; it was confirmed that they were independent.

8.3 MM informed the meeting that a quantity surveyor had been hired to independently scrutinise contracts and would give advice to the working group.

8.4 PW suggested a one off surgery towards the end of March (in reference to an earlier request). Proposed date for the one off surgery - 19/3/14.

ACTION POINTS

1. PW to ensure all councillors are invited to meetings. UPDATE: All councillors are sent Outlook diary invitations for these forums. They are also sent email reminders with the papers included.

2. PW to investigate post fire decoration works at Florence House.

3. JA to provide further information on guarantees.

4. MC to follow up on leaseholder requests for account summaries.

8

Venue: Lambeth Town Hall

Date: Wednesday 17 September 2014

Time: Surgery 6:00 – 7:00pm Meeting 7:00 – 9:05pm

Chair: John Fellows

Minutes: Rregjina Curaj

Attendees Leaseholders: Simon Brambles (SB); Emma Rowley-Conwy (ER-C); Theresa Clanke (TC); Eilffre Jacob (EJ); Irena Kowalewska (IK); Winfred Pepple (WP); Laud Afari (LA); Elizabeth Hickey (EH); Leslie Howden (LH); Gloria Brown (GB); John Fellows (JF); Gerlinde Gniewosz (GG); Joseph Mohuhi (JM); Sujata Biswas (SB); Inez Palmer-McLeod (IP-M); Robert Langtry (RL); Rebecca Smith (RS); Elaine Brissett (EB); J Griffith (JG); Noel Grocia (NG); Paulette Campbell (PC), Sarah Langslow (SL). Officers: Martin Chima (MC); Babatunde Ogunsipe (BO); George Ofili (GO); Newton Harvey (NH); Rachel Moocarme (RM); Monwara Begum (MB); Davina Gopala (DG); Emily Wester (EW); Andrew Jacques (AJ); Leeora Filemu (LF), Patience Aguor-Uche (PAU), Rregjina Curaj (RC – minute taker) Councillors: Cllr Adrian Garden (AG); Cllr Donatus Anyanwu (DA); Cllr Jane Pickard (JP); Cllr Marcia Cameron (MC); Cllr Mary Atkins (MA). Apologies: Mark Johnson (MJ); Melissa Madjitey (MM); Joseph Ajala (JA).

1. Welcome/Introductions

John Fellows (standing in for Mark Johnson) welcomed everyone in attendance and gave apologies. Councillors and officers present identified themselves.

2. Minutes of last meetings

Minutes of the previous forum were agreed. Reports were given by EW on actions arising from the previous meeting: Herne Hill boilers and compensation for missed appointments.

3. Matters arising

Further questions were raised about the reports given,

Minutes of the Brixton Area Leaseholder Forum

9

and updates requested for the next meeting:

- Further clarification was requested on compensation for missed appointments and the process for requesting this. Do the contact centre advise people to request it and explain the process?

- There was a related enquiry about the complaints process. LF explained there was a new complaints process and it no longer operates with Stages 1, 2, and 3 – can a written copy of the complaints procedure be included in the next pack?

- A further question was raised about other compensation offered, for damage, disruption, etc. AJ advised there is provision for this within LL and LBL complaints handling policy.

LF advised that if contractors don’t turn up for appointments residents should call the contact centre. A leaseholder (L/H) commented they have done that and contact centre gave them another job number but still no one turned up and they never got any update about what happened to the original work order raised. Similar experiences were reported with complaints. LF explained to the leaseholders we have a new complaints procedure since April. Leaseholder requested for all the information to be on website: the policy of compensation, policy of complaints. Complaints process is on website and it will be included in next meeting pack. IK said windows have never been cleaned and never get any compensation for that despite paying for cleanining in service charges. Have raised this in a meeting with Linda Elliot and nothing done. Mr & Mrs Howdon said there is a big issue with follow up with any enquiry or complaint, with no one responding within 10 working days or progressing complaints through the stages. They have taken their complaint everywhere: chief executive, minister of housing, Lambeth Living have been unable to resolve and their insurance don’t even want to know about it. GG said in her experience a complaint response is never issued in stated timescales, has has to go to Housing Ombudsman Service just to get a Stage 1 response issued. Asked for statistics on response times for Stage 1 and 2 complaints. Cllr DA raised the issue about leaseholders in some street properties in Knights Hill/Gipsy Hill who don’t pay

EW to include updates in next pack

EW to include update in next pack

10

service charges. He understands they did not become freeholders, but have opted to organise their own services/repairs and not pay service charges – according to the Cllr this arrangement dates to sometime in 2004/5. The leaseholder from 43 Elam Close said she had no hot water for two weeks, also roof leak and no one has come to do any survey yet, also handle on kitchen window is broken, the storage door is broken and cannot be open. L/H from Herne Hill House and Park View House – fire doors were installed, floor damaged. Complaining about the re-tiled flooring and ground outside damaged by contractors and subcontractors leaving portacabins/storage containers. Will L/Hs have to pay for damage to be repaired? Another L/H advised no, contracts say contractors have to make right any damage. If they cause damage contact the project manager and they should get contractors to fix it. LL officers confirmed this is correct. L/H complain about roof leak, when it rains it leaks inside her property, considering not paying her service charge bill as a result. Another L/H advised her to take a picture and keep it as evidence and take LL to court. A L/H asked Councillors to walk with them and see the state of estate. Councillor said they attend regular walkabouts with area housing officers. AJ explained housing officers have quarterly walkabouts. L/H asked if they invite councillors, TRA reps? AJ will feed back. Request for LL to publish walkabout schedule and ensure all appropriate parties are invited. A L/H advised that some blocks have the list of walkabout dates posted up in their block. Maybe something to ask TRA reps to do for your estate. Also the report after each walkabout should be made available. A L/H who’s a former TRA chair stated that the walkabout schedules are available on request from the Area Housing Manager. AJ advised that there are specific estate housing officers and surveyors assigned to patches. Cllr JP feels they need to be more proactive about inviting TRAs and Councillors. IK stated there are no walkabouts at Arlington Lodge. AJ will check it is on the schedule.

LL officers to investigate and report back to meeting

AJ to provide schedule

AJ to follow up

4. Major Works Update

IK said in her experience she’s been charged for work to repair damage done by contractors. DG confirmed that damages caused by contractors is contractors’ responsibility to repair. IK stated she was charged for

11

damage to gardens and hallway following roof renewal in 2007 – DG stated that leaseholders should now not be charged. GG asked does contractors’ responsibility to make good damage they’ve caused also apply to other repairs? Roof permanently damaged. DG will take away and find out. ERC: Canterbury Crescent is not on the major works update list. They’ve got estimates but not invoice yet for their major works. DG: This isn’t an LHS scheme so that’s why it isn’t on the list. ERC: the list should be complete and list all major works. L/H also queried the 10% admin fee and stated that Lisa Keating told us we would only get one bill for all major works but we are getting one bill for each job. Complaints that estimated bills do not have enough detail major works to be carried out so people are not happy to start making payments. A lot of confusion around what is going to be done, when to pay, and how much. Cllr AG suggested HOS produce a process map for the billing cycle including major works, so leaseholder have a visual aid to make the process clearer. PAU said we are hoping the estimates will be sent out by end of September and you are very welcome to start making payments now. PAU also informed the meeting that Home Ownership Services (HOS) had gone through a restructure and three new managers are in place and are putting new processes in place to improve the service leaseholders receive. They are all aware of the need to review the letters we send out, and this is something they are all feeding into and which the new Engagement Officer, Emily Wester, is working on. The aim is to produce letters which give much clearer information about bills and payment options. EW asked for volunteers to help her with template letters, advised she is trying to put together a leaseholder review panel who can look over template letters and documents before they are finalised and give their input on what info leaseholders need and what can be made clearer etc. L/H complained that the process of raising, carrying out and billing leaseholders for repairs is confusing. Bills don’t come with documentary evidence and it’s very hard to assess whether they’ve been charged fairly. PAU said if leaseholders have queries about bills they are welcome to meet with HOS officers at Hambrook House.

DG to report back DG agreed for future meetings to collate a complete list.

12

The HOS Calculations team will be able to provide more information about items on your bill.

5. Report from Home Ownership Services

EW introduced herself to leaseholders, explained had recently started as LL’s Leasehold Community Engagement Officer – a new role. Part of the role is organising these meetings and ensuring invitations are sent in good time, agreed actions are followed up, etc. EW explained she is undertaking a review of leaseholder engagement, looking at how things have been done in the past, what works and what doesn’t, and what can be improved. Asked for leaseholder feedback on ALF meetings, is there a need for more meetings, more surgeries, different days of the week or times. Explained piloting virtual document review panel discussed earlier and hopes to pilot estate champions scheme where leaseholders can volunteer to check through their estate’s service charges before bills are sent out and discuss anything that’s unclear or flag up anything that seems wrong. EW said her report will go to the board for approval and she will update on its progress and next steps at the next meeting. PAU explained some more of the changes the new HOS managers are putting in place: in her team, Collections, all phone calls go around to all my staff if anyone is not at their desk, the letters are being changed. Flagged up that to communicate better with leaseholders she needs them to ensure they give LL up to date contact details including phone number and email addresses. PAU explained in response to a query where HOS are based (Hambrook House, Porden Road, SW2 5RW) and gave the email address for the team’s main email box, also asked leaseholders to bear with us while new managers settle in and make these changes. She is confident that in 12 months leaseholders will notice an improvement to the service they receive. LF introduced herself – manages Right to Buy and Leaseholder Customer Services team. Explained she also is a new manager recruited to make changed and wants to improve relationships with leaseholders. Assured leaseholders that every call her team receives is answered – has put in new telephone procedures to ensure everyone’s phones are switched on, ringing audibly, and answered quickly – and the HOS email inbox which is managed by her team is being used and all emails dealt with. When not for her team they forward to

13

correct team. L/H asked if managers can share some of their plans and changes, is there a written version? L/H asked if they can make payments over the phone – GO, service charges co-ordinator, explained how to do this. L/H complaining about £300.00 for work in 2013, she is disputing bill now. PAU offered to speak to L/H in more detail after the meeting and follow up her concerns.

LF agreed to share service review plans.

6. AOB

Date was given for next meeting and meeting was closed.

14

Protocols for ALF Elections Elections are conducted by the Resident Participation Officer (RPO) Written Nominations, each supported by a proposer and a seconder, should be sought in advance in the letter sent by the RPO announcing the AGM. Once this list has been compiled by the RPO, it should be submitted to Area Leasehold Officer, so that a check can be made regarding the eligibility of the candidates. To be eligible a candidate must live within the relevant area and not be in arrears to Lambeth Council or, if in arrears, these must be reducing on a monthly basis, according to an agreed plan. Leaseholders who are in official dispute are eligible to stand for election. If the required number of nominations has not been received in advance, nominations may be taken from the floor, but if elected these reps cannot be confirmed in post until the Area Leasehold Officer has carried out the relevant checks. To void any conflict of interest, certain groups are barred from being Representatives, including employees of Lambeth Council, employees of any organization proving direct service to the Council e.g. employees of any other housing management contractor. Once elected, the representatives choose among themselves who is to be the area representative to Leasehold Executive Board. That person is automatically Chair of the Area Leasehold Forum. If they wish, the area representatives may choose from among their number a Vice-Chair, who will deputise for the Chair as appropriate. All locally elected representatives have a vote at full Leasehold Council, which takes place 4 times per year. The newly elected reps do not take up their positions until the next Leaseholder Council.

15

Nomination form for area Leasehold forum representatives

Nominee: Name……………………………………………………………………..

Address…………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………….

Telephone………………………………………………………………...

E-mail…………………………………………………………………......

Proposer: Name……………………………………………………………………..

Address…………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………….

Telephone………………………………………………………………...

E-mail…………………………………………………………………......

Seconder: Name……………………………………………………………………..

Address…………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………….

Telephone………………………………………………………………...

E-mail…………………………………………………………………......

16

Putting Things Right Complaints Policy 2.1 Introduction We aim to provide the best possible service at all times, but we recognise that sometimes we may get things wrong. Lambeth Living welcomes and values feedback on the services it provides and encourages residents to raise any concerns they may have on the services they have received. Where a problem arises, our primary focus will be on putting right the problem that has occurred. Where the issue cannot be changed, the focus will be on taking actions – revising policies, procedures or providing training - to try to avoid a reoccurrence of the problem. 2.2 Purpose Lambeth Living aims to have a Complaints Policy that ensures:

Complaints are valued and acted on promptly

Learning from complaints is used to improve services

Residents have a clear, simple and accessible method to raise an issue of concern

Staff know how to respond effectively to issues raised by residents;

Complaints are dealt with consistently and promptly with residents kept informed throughout the process

Service standards, agreed with residents, are met

No resident is treated less favourably as a result of making a complaint 2.3 Scope A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction by a Lambeth Living resident, leaseholder or other stakeholder, where an initial response to their problem has not proven satisfactory. The cause of the dissatisfaction must have occurred within six months of the complaint being raised. For example a complaint is where:

Someone is dissatisfied with our standard of service or the service provided by one of our contractors.

Someone feels we have failed to do something we should have done or have acted inappropriately.

Someone feels we have treated them or their family unfairly or impolitely.

Someone feels we have failed to follow our policies, procedures or met service standards.

There is a service failure which requires consideration to ensure it is addressed and to avoid complaints being made at a later date.

Complaints Policy

17

Complaints about neighbours or other residents are addressed through the Anti-Social Behaviour Policy A complaint is not:

A request for information or an explanation of our policies, procedures, practices or service standards.

An initial request for a service, for example, a repair request to one of our properties.

About a matter or service where Lambeth Living has no responsibility, for example, legislation, government or local authority policy or where the responsibility rests with another organisation.

Complaints can be raised by telephone, letter, e-mail, in person, through our web-site, or through third parties. Where a complaint is made by a third party on your behalf, it will be necessary for Lambeth Living to be satisfied that the person has permission to act on the complainants behalf before we respond. Wherever practicable, the member of staff first approached will seek to resolve complaints immediately and informally. Additionally, Lambeth Living employs Officers who may meet with the person making the complaint where this is considered the most efficient or appropriate course of action.

To ensure a speedy resolution of all complaints, it is important we understand what

went wrong and what action the complainant would like Lambeth Living to take

and/or what the complainant would like to happen to put things right. Where this is

not clear it may be necessary for Lambeth Living to clarify the problem, which can

cause a delay in responding to a complaint.

If the complaint is upheld, the primary aim will be to put right the problem that has

occurred and for Lambeth Living to apply any lessons learnt to improve services.

Sometimes it may not be possible, practical or value for money to retrospectively put

the matter right. In those instances the focus will be on taking actions – such as

revising policies, procedures or providing training – to try to avoid a reoccurrence of

the problem.

Wherever practicable, Lambeth Living will seek to resolve complaints immediately

and

informally. If that is not possible, the following process will apply.

2.4 Early Resolution We want to resolve complaints straight away, this will be passed to the officer who can resolve the issue. They will make contact with the resident within one working day and agree actions to resolve the issue and agree timescales. At this state the resident will not receive a written response however should they wish a written response this will become a Local Resolution.

18

Hopefully this will resolve the matter and, unless we hear otherwise, the complaint will be recorded as closed. If a complainant remains dissatisfied, they can ask for their complaint to be formalised to a Local Resolution. 2.5 Local Resolution Requests for a Local Resolution should be made in writing within 20 working days – if more time is required the complainant should contact Lambeth Living (within that timescale) to seek an extension of this time period. Requests for a local resolution will be acknowledged in writing within two working days. The request should explain in what way Lambeth Living’s response was unsatisfactory and what action the complainant would like Lambeth Living to take and/or what they would like to happen to resolve the complaint. Once in receipt of this information, a more member of staff will look at the problem that has been experienced and respond in 10 working days. The local resolution will not normally address new issues that were not previously raised at the Local Resolution stage. Our response will normally be provided within 10 working days, but should more time be required we will explain how long we think it will take before we can respond. Where a response is provided by telephone or in person, the outcome will subsequently be confirmed in writing. Hopefully this will resolve the matter and, unless we hear otherwise, the complaint will be recorded as closed after 10 working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they may appeal the outcome of the review of their complaint. 2.6 The Review Requests for a review should be made in writing within 20 days of receiving a Local Resolution outcome – if more time is required the complainant should contact Lambeth Living (within that timescale) to seek an extension of this time period. All requests will be acknowledged in writing. The request should set out in what way the Local Resolution was inadequate and what action the complainant would like Lambeth Living to take and/or what they would like to happen to resolve the complaint. Reviews are undertaken by an Improvement & Review Officer and a member of Senior Leadership Group and our response will normally be provided within 20 working days. The Review will not normally address new issues that were not previously raised at the Review stage. The outcome of the Review will represent Lambeth Living’s final response on the matter and the Trust will not enter into any further correspondence or discussion on the complaint. If the complainant is dissatisfied they may be entitled to refer the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service either directly after 8 weeks of completing Lambeth Living’s complaint process or earlier where supported by a ‘designated person’. Guidance will be provided as part of the Review response. 2.7 Mediation Lambeth Living may suggest mediation at any stage in the complaints process as a mechanism to resolve difficulties or disagreement. Mediation is voluntary, and will only take place with the agreement of all parties. If agreement is reached to enter into mediation, the cost of the mediation process will be met by Lambeth Living. The complaints process will be suspended whilst mediation is underway and will only be reinstated if the mediation is unsuccessful in resolving the issue. 2.8 Complaints about Staff & Board Members

19

The purpose of this policy is to establish if Lambeth Living has acted inappropriately and, if it has, to put things right. That should be distinguished from disciplinary proceedings, which are there to decide whether a particular member or members of staff have broken Lambeth Living’s rules. Where a complaint is raised about the actions of a member of staff this will be referred to their senior manager who may refer the case to Human Resources Department. A member of the Human Resources Department, in conjunction with an appropriate Senior Manager will assess whether the complaint and the supporting evidence justifies investigatory action and/or disciplinary action in accordance with Lambeth Living’s disciplinary procedure. The decision whether or not to initiate investigatory action and/or disciplinary action will be strictly confidential to the member of staff concerned and to Lambeth Living. Complainants need to be aware that if they make a complaint against a member of staff and investigatory and/or disciplinary action is initiated, the member of staff will be provided with a copy of the complaint and be given an opportunity to respond. Where a complaint is raised about the actions of a Board Member this will be treated in the same way as a complaint against a member of staff, except the matter will be referred to the Chief Executive who will liaise with the Chairman or Vice Chair of the Board. 2.9 Anonymous Complaints Anonymous complaints cannot be properly investigated, because of insufficient verifiable information, and are therefore discouraged. Where an anonymous complaint is received, Lambeth Living will consider if any action is either appropriate or practical. 2.10 Petitions Where a complaint is received in the form of a petition this will be logged as a complaint and will be recorded against the nominated spokesperson. 2.11 Legal Action Lambeth Living will not consider complaints that concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings. Where a complainant chooses to pursue their complaint through a solicitor, threatens legal action or takes legal action about an issue, Lambeth Living will normally refer the matter to their Solicitors and deal with the matter outside of the complaints policy process. 2.12 Multiple Complaints In the event that more than one or multiple complaints are received from a complainant, Lambeth Living reserves the right to deal with these as one complaint. Approval for this rests with a member of the Executive Team. 2.13 Vexatious Policy We expect complainants to behave in a reasonable manner. Lambeth Living will not accept or investigate complaints where the behaviour of the complainant has become unreasonable or unacceptable or vexatious – for example, if they are being threatening or abusive in any way or continuing to complain after the issue has been closed. In these circumstances the matter will be dealt with in line with Lambeth Living’s Vexatious Policy. 2.14 Time expired complaints

20

Complaints are expected to be made in a timely manner. Lambeth Living will not consider or investigate complaints where the cause of the complaint occurred more than six months prior to the complaint being raised. In addition, complaints will not normally be re-opened or escalated to the next stage of the complaints process once they have been closed. 2.15 Compensation Policy If the complaint is upheld, the primary aim will be to apologise, put right the problem (wherever that is possible, practical and value for money) and to apply any lessons learnt to improve services – such as revising policies, procedures or providing staff training - to try to avoid a reoccurrence of the problem. In exceptional circumstances, compensation may be payable. Any requests for compensation will be dealt with in accordance with a separate Compensation Policy. 2.16 Roles and Responsibilities All employees of Lambeth Living are responsible for dealing with complaints. Employees will be empowered to deal with complaints and will receive training and support to do this in line with Lambeth Living’s policy and procedures. Additionally, Lambeth Living employs Improvement and Review Officers whose role is to monitor, ensure consistency and promote good practice to all employees. The Complaints Policy will be publicised via the website. A factsheet – which summarises this policy is also available on the website, from Lambeth Living’s office and will be provided to all complainants.

21

Update on Complaints and compensation process further to discussion at last meeting: The full complaints policy is included in this pack (above). The complaints process is also outlined on the website at www.lambethliving.org.uk/complaints. Tina Bull, the Head of Service Improvement, confirms that when you phone Lambeth Living on 0207 926 6000 and report a missed appointment, staff should let you know that you may be entitled to compensation and log this request for you. If this doesn’t happen, something has gone wrong – possibly a training issue that needs to be resolved with that member of staff. If you experience this it would be helpful if you could take down the details of who you spoke to and when and report this to us. If you have tried to report a missed appointment to the main number and don’t think your call was handled appropriately, please phone the Area Office on 0207 926 1755 and let them know you want to report a missed appointment, request compensation, and report the service failure that occurred when you rang the main number. You can also email the Area Office on [email protected]. Tina Bull has offered to attend a future meeting of the Brixton Leaseholders’ Forum to discuss the complaints process and the work of the Service Improvement team, if leaseholders would be interested in inviting her.

http://www.lambethliving.org.uk/complaints


22

Leaseholder Engagement Report and ALF Review

As has been explained at the last round of Area Leaseholder Forums, the Leasehold Community Engagement Officer has produced a report reviewing Lambeth Living’s leaseholder engagement and recommending some changes and updates. That report can be found on the following pages.

The key conclusion that we now wish to carry forward with the assistance of Leaseholders’ Council is to form a project group of leaseholder volunteers to work with the Leasehold Community Engagement Officer review the role and format of Area Leaseholder Forums, discuss what form formal engagement with leaseholders should take, visit other boroughs to ascertain best practice, and produce new draft protocols for how our formal engagement with leaseholders is structured, to be approved by Leaseholders’ Council and the LL Board.

This proposal will be brought to the next Leaseholders’ Council meeting, as well as this round of Area Leaseholder Forums, and volunteers will be sought at each meeting. Leaseholders who wish to be involved can express their interest to the Leasehold Community Engagement Officer by emailing Emily Wester on [email protected].


23

Review of Leaseholder Engagement Strategy

For Information Approval

Prepared by: Title:

Phone:

Emily Wester Leasehold Community Engagement Officer 0207 926 0150

Purpose To consider Lambeth Living’s current methods of leaseholder

engagement, and propose recommendations for changes and

improvements with the aim of improving leaseholder satisfaction.

Summary This report considers the current position of Lambeth Living’s engagement with leaseholders, its communications with leaseholders, and other key factors affecting leaseholder satisfaction. It is the result of my assessment of these areas made during my first weeks at the organisation and takes into account views of colleagues in Resident Engagement, Home Ownership Services, and Communications, and draws upon feedback from leaseholders at Area Forums, Leaseholders’ Council, and individual conversations.

Key risks Currently leaseholder satisfaction with our services is among the lowest in London. There is a risk that this will not improve unless a strategic approach is taken to find new ways to engage and consult with leaseholders and act on their feedback.

Financial implications

I do not foresee a significant increase in costs to fund any of the recommended activity. The main outlay will be in staff time, and possibly overtime pay, for an increased number of evening surgeries. Improved engagement and clearer communication with leaseholders could lead to more accurate and prompt payment of service charges and major works bills, as it will avoid scenarios where leaseholders fail to pay because they do not understand what they have been sent and are unable to speak to the correct officer to answer their questions.

I. Introduction

a. I was appointed as a Leasehold Community Engagement Officer in Home

Ownership Services (HOS) in July 2014. It is a new role and was created to address low leaseholder satisfaction rates by employing someone specifically to design and implement a new engagement strategy.

i. I spent my first weeks at the organisation working closely with the Head of Home Ownership and the Leasehold Managers; learning about Home

Agenda item

Meeting Lambeth Living Board Meeting Date 26 November 2014

24

Ownership Services, including shadowing officers to get an idea of the role and structure of their teams; meeting with the Resident Engagement Manager and individually with all of the Resident Participation Officers in their local offices to discuss the Area Leaseholder Forums (which had been their responsibility but which I have now begun to take over – with particularly helpful assistance from Erin Healy, Executive Support Officer in the Central Area Office); attending Leaseholders’ Council, Area Leaseholder Forums, and setting up smaller informal meetings with individual leaseholders; discussing leaseholder communications challenges with the Communications team; and helping with the first project of the HOS Service Improvement Group (producing a revised homeowners’ handbook). ii. Those meetings and discussions have all directly fed into this report,

in which I review the current status of leaseholder engagement and make recommendations for improvement.

b. Structure of this report

i. I have divided the report into three main sections, looking separately at:

1. Engagement – the Area Leaseholder Forum meetings and formal engagement and consultation structures.

2. Satisfaction – areas for change within Home Ownership Services where we can improve leaseholders’ satisfaction with our services.

3. Communications – written and online communications with leaseholders.

ii. In each section I first consider the current position and existing structure, what is working and what isn’t; then move onto a second section setting out my specific recommendations for change.

iii. I then conclude with a full numbered list of all the recommendations set out in each of the three sections and propose next steps.

II. Engagement a. Existing engagement structure

i. Earlier this year, Mark Howarth, Resident Engagement Manager,

prepared a review critiquing the Area Leaseholder Forum format, which is our main structure for leaseholder engagement at present. That review is clear and informative so I will not repeat its contents here, but it can be found as Appendix A to this report. The intention for this report is to build on the ideas in his review and propose a way forward.

ii. There are six Area Leaseholder Forums: North Lambeth, Stockwell & Vassall, Clapham, Brixton, Streatham, and Norwood. They are open to all leaseholders in their area, and each forum nominates reps to Leaseholders’ Council. According to the protocols they are to meet three times a year.

iii. One of the key points in Mark’s review in May was that the Area Leaseholder Forums (ALFs) are not fully providing meaningful leaseholder engagement, and that no other similar organisation divides leaseholder engagement by geographical area in this way. He questions whether it is logical to do so, given most leaseholders will be concerned with issues that are either particular to their own block

25

or estate (rather than the wider neighbourhood) or issues that are specific to leaseholders but will affect all leaseholders equally across the borough.

iv. Mark raises the issue of ALFs replicating the function and content of AHFs (Area Housing Forums). Some leaseholders involved in their ALF don’t engage with their TRA and AHF, and raise issues or request discussions/presentations at ALFs about concerns that should properly be raised through their TRA/AHF (like pest control, estate services, anything non-leaseholder specific). The disconnect between ALFs, AHFs, and TRAs is reflected in complaints I have heard from leaseholders. Currently there is no formal way of ensuring that issues discussed at an AHF are fed back to the area’s ALF.

v. There is also a question of whether we are satisfied with the less democratic style of the ALFs – whereas AHFs are delegate bodies with representatives from the area’s TRAs, any leaseholder can go to their ALF and be nominated to then sit on Leaseholders’ Council. So it is possible for an ALF to be dominated by leaseholders from one particular estate, for example – there are no in-built safeguards against this happening set out in the protocols.

vi. As Mark pointed out in his review, until recently there has been a lack of interest in ALFs, with most not holding the normal schedule of three meetings per year. Interest has increased due to the LHS programme, and now some forums have expressed a desire to meet more frequently. There is also some confusion and inconsistency with how frequently they have been meeting: in some areas we are servicing more than three meetings a year and in others refusing to do so.

vii. It’s unlikely that the recent increase of interest and attendance of ALFs can be taken as an expression of support for the format; rather what is most likely happening is that leaseholders who have concerns or complaints about their major works are taking every opportunity available to try and get these resolved.

viii. Many leaseholders feel their area forum is their only opportunity to raise issues with LL staff face to face, so the meetings are very often dominated by attempts to raise individual issues (whether or not they were discussed at the surgery) rather than the discussion of wider issues the forums are intended for.

ix. As ALFs are only supposed to meet every four months (and even in areas where meetings seem to be somewhat more frequent, there will always be at least a couple of months between them) they are not an efficient mechanism for raising and following up action points, given this time lapse between the issue being raised at one meeting and officers coming back with an answer or update at the following meeting. Leaseholders have also complained about failure by officers to ensure issues raised are actioned as promised and comprehensive updates provided at the following meeting. There can be a lack of accountability for following up actions when different officers attend the meeting each time.

x. Surgeries: each ALF meeting has a surgery either before or after the meeting. In many cases, leaseholders are only attending to raise an individual query, and if they cannot be seen during the surgery, will try to raise this during the meeting itself.

xi. One issue with the surgery is that these are currently serviced by HOS officers only but a majority of the issues raised are to do with issues for which this team is not responsible: mostly, major works and repairs, and some local area office issues such as ASB, estate

26

cleaning, or key fob failures. For surgeries to be effective the appropriate teams need to be present and leaseholders need to be informed what kind of queries can be answered.

xii. There seems to be a real demand for surgeries local to the area and opportunities to speak with officers face-to-face; although some leaseholders certainly do want to get more involved and be elected to Leaseholders’ Council etc, a significant proportion of leaseholders, as discussed above, are more interested in access to officers and effective communication channels than in getting involved. There’s often a feeling of frustration and people attending meetings because they feel it’s the only way they can raise issues.

b. Engagement: recommendations Reviewing the ALF structure raises a number of questions – about the

appropriateness of the area format, the frequency of meetings, the lack of a clear channel of communication and feedback between the ALFs and the AHFs and TRAs – and these questions are not for me to decide but should rightly be considered by leaseholders themselves.

Therefore a key recommendation of this report is an endorsement of the recommendation of Mark Howarth’s review: namely, to propose to Leaseholders’ Council that we set up a project group with leaseholder volunteers to consider the engagement structure and decide what changes to make.

Once we have some volunteers we can decide the exact remit and timescale of the project, but it should at least review the role and format of ALFs. It would be very helpful to visit two other boroughs and meet with their leaseholder forum to learn about other ways of working.

After this main project group has finished, we can consider seeking leaseholder volunteers to form smaller working groups of leaseholders and staff looking at specific issues in future.

Going forward after this project group, it may be helpful for the Leasehold Community Engagement Officer to meet occasionally and consult with a small group of leaseholders as a ‘leaseholders steering group’ – parallel to the casual ‘residents steering group’ who meet with the Resident Engagement Manager. If the initial group volunteer to do this it would be helpful to check in and update on progress etc on, for example, a quarterly basis after their main project has concluded.

An online forum already exists, set up in conjunction with the Leaseholders’ Council website, and made by a leaseholder rep to Leaseholders’ Council who is a web designer. Some leaseholder feedback to proposals of us setting up an online forum was that we shouldn’t ‘reinvent the wheel’ and I agree – engaging with the forum set up by leaseholders themselves rather than trying to get people involved in our own is preferable and demonstrates that we are willing to work collaboratively with leaseholders rather than impose things on them from above. I and other relevant staff can sign up to the existing forum and post replies to questions, meeting dates, and other relevant information. I also see no reason why the homeowners’ tab on the LL website cannot include a link to this, as long as it has the standard disclaimers clarifying that it’s a link to an external site and LL are not responsible for content, etc.

Clearly there is a demand for far more evening surgeries at local venues convenient to leaseholders. Although these can be reviewed along with ALFs by the leaseholder group, I think this recommendation is non-

27

controversial enough that we can begin to action this now, and would like to begin scheduling and organising regular evening surgeries for leaseholders across the borough and publicising these on the website and through letters, e-newsletters, estate noticeboards, and automated text messages to leaseholders whose mobile numbers we have.

For leaseholders who might not want to come to an evening surgery or meeting, or who don’t feel they have an urgent enough question to come to a surgery but just want more information, we can look at doing a series of Saturday ‘leaseholder information sessions’. These could be done by area (possibly even at TRA level) or by topic. All we would need to do is organise a venue, publicise the event, produce an information pack to give people upon arrival, and have officers with the relevant expertise on hand to answer questions – staff wouldn’t need to speak to the whole room, just have one-on-one conversations with people. The idea would be to offer a friendly and relaxed environment (with tea and biscuits on hand) where people can get the information that’s relevant to them and get questions answered. It would also be an opportunity to run a survey and collect some email addresses so we can more easily communicate with more leaseholders.

III. Satisfaction with services a. Current position: STAR Survey i. The STAR 2013/14 results show that only 19% of leaseholders are

satisfied that LL listens to and acts on their views. Only 36% are satisfied with the opportunities they have to make their views known, and only 26% are satisfied with the opportunities they have to participate in management and decision making.

ii. Priorities identified by leaseholders in STAR, in order of descending importance: 1. Communal repairs, maintenance 2. Value for money in terms of day-to-day service charges 3. ASB 4. Listening to and acting on residents’ views 5. Neighbourhood as a place to live 6. Keeping residents informed

iii. We know that most leaseholders aren’t interested in overly participatory engagement, or agreeing to become involved in anything that will be a drain on their time. They don’t want to hear from us more than they have to and most don’t have time or desire to participate in feedback or consultation for its own sake. They’re most concerned with having clear channels of communication and getting correct answers and an efficient service from us when they do have to contact us.

iv. Other STAR questions focused on general satisfaction with leaseholders’ contact with LL also got poor responses: 1. 32% satisfied with LL services 2. 23% satisfied with maintenance and repairs 3. 20% satisfied with service charges/value for money 4. 20% satisfied with ease of contacting the right person 5. 25% said problems/queries resolved quickly/easily

b. Most leaseholders said in the STAR survey that they don’t find it easy to contact the right person and their problems and queries aren’t resolved quickly or easily. From this, and other feedback, we know they don’t have a clear understanding of how the service is structured and how it

28

fits in with the wider organisation, or who is likely to be able to help them, and we know that communications often break down between an enquiry being received and an answer being provided.

c. Satisfaction: recommendations Now that the Home Ownership Service has a new structure and new

managers in place, we can provide a HOS structure chart and a telephone or email list, to all leaseholders: at all public meetings, with meeting packs for area forums, in e-newsletters, on website. All HOS staff provide customer service so there is no reason emails and phone numbers should be kept confidential, and having a clear picture of who their queries are being directed to and how to contact them will reduce leaseholders’ frustration and incidences of enquiries being passed to multiple colleagues and a full response never being issued.

We can also implement some new policies around this: for example, if an officer receives an email from a leaseholder that they can’t answer, instead of forwarding email enquiry to appropriate colleague then responding to leaseholder advising it’s been passed on, always copy leaseholder in so they have that person’s contact details and feel we’re dealing with it transparently.

Collections and Consultations team already work in patches, so leaseholders should be given information on who their assigned officers are on relevant communications, as well as the more general inbox/phone numbers in case their named contacts aren’t available. We should also be ensuring that the patch officers are attending their area’s ALFs and their contact details are on ALF packs. Clarity and consistency on who to contact will help build productive relationships between leaseholders and officers.

It should be arranged for customer service training to be provided for all HOS staff, not just the customer service team. Managers might also consider having more structured phone call guidelines (for example officers always checking leaseholders’ contact details at the beginning of the call, in order to keep our records up to date and capture more phone numbers and email addresses; checking if the leaseholder has spoken to them or someone else in their team about the matter before, etc). Having customer service refresher training will be especially important for staff servicing more frequent surgeries.

At present, some leaseholders do regularly come to Hambrook House to speak to HOS staff in person; however, others do not know this is an option, which creates an unfair disparity in access. I understand there is reluctance to advertise this option because of the lack of appropriate and private space in which to meet with leaseholders, but the current system is not consistent: either we should be open to the public for the whole working day and make this clear on all communications, or we should have specific surgery times advertised and not see people the rest of the time – and again, clearly communicate this. The lack of space is not ideal but is not an insurmountable obstacle: either we can advertise certain times as our open hours/surgery times and have a room booked for this (in Hambrook House or elsewhere – Olive Morris House or the Town Hall are not too far for staff to go for a few hours) or we can continue to see people in the reception area until HOS is relocated and ensure that the new office has an appropriate surgery space.

29

We should also consider whether it is appropriate to have daytime surgery hours with HOS staff at other offices so as not to exclude those for whom Hambrook House is not convenient – for example, we could have a 9am-1pm leaseholders’ surgery once a week in the North area office, once in Brixton, and once in the South area office. This would be in addition to evening surgeries, which potentially could be held twice a week in total (so two of the six areas covered each week, and each of the six areas having a surgery every three weeks). Again, crucial to the success and usefulness of these is ensuring they are communicated as widely as possible.

After we start having daytime surgery hours and evening surgeries we can review their attendance and topics raised in a few months to gauge the need for these and and adjust frequency and staff represented accordingly.

Separate to STAR, there’s a need to do more of our own surveys on specific issues and asking leaseholders for their opinions, feedback and priorities. People are more likely to opt in to a survey if they are told in advance it is only a few questions, so we can devise a variety of very brief online surveys on different topics and ask leaseholders to complete them at relevant points: for example, one on the section 20 consultation process shortly after consultation closes. Other useful survey topics could be the right to buy process and the experience of new leaseholders after resales. Asking pertinent questions at appropriate times can help ensure we get useful feedback on what we can improve. Online surveys can also tie in to collecting email addresses so we can improve other forms of communication.

We also need to be sure that when big mail outs are being sent or when any policies and procedures are changed, we are updating the contact centre and sending them a good quality brief so they are prepared for calls about it. Responsibility for ensuring this is done should lie with the HOS managers and briefings can be prepared with assistance from the Leasehold Community Engagement Officer.

IV. Communications

a. Current status of communication with leaseholders

i. Currently, there is a lack of leaseholder-specific communications

except those around major works consultations. There is not a newsletter or regular mailout to leaseholders. The information on the website is clear but some needs to be updated and there could be much, much more information available. Many common queries leaseholders are likely to have could be addressed via topical webpages and FAQs but we are not currently taking advantage of this easy way to disseminate information.

ii. The Communications team are keen to improve information available to leaseholders but need the cooperation of the Home Ownership Service to do so, as they can only publicise the information they are given.

iii. Communication preferences identified by leaseholders in STAR: 1. Writing: 66% 2. Email: 56% 3. Phone: 47% 4. Newsletter: 31% 5. Open meetings: 24%

30

6. Visiting us at an office: 17% 7. Receiving a visit from us at home: 16% 8. Text message: 14% 9. Facebook and Twitter: 4% (combined)

Conclusions from this? o Social media a less popular option than might be assumed

– so probably not worth any gains that would be achieved by a big leaseholder-specific social media drive

o There isn’t actually that big an appetite for attending meetings – 76% didn’t select this as their preferred option. It is appropriate to consider this in light of the amount of time and labour that is spent on organising public meetings, like the area forums. In the long run spending the majority of the Leasehold Engagement Officer’s time on organising meetings that only serve needs of 24% of leaseholders is unlikely to achieve the increase in satisfaction and improved engagement we want to offer.

o Newsletter and email were both among popular options – an e-newsletter could be very effective especially in terms of value achieved (keeping in regular contact, providing updates, improved perception of the service) vs the relatively low cost, time and effort required.

o Most people only want to hear from us when they have to (evidenced by the preference for contact via letter or email, rather than public meetings or visits).

o We know 83% of our leaseholders have internet access at home so we need to be using email where possible.

iv. A common – and understandable – leaseholder complaint is that the letters they receive from us, in particular with bills, are not clear or understandable. Sometimes this is because they have too much jargon and aren’t in plain English; sometimes enclosed documents are referred to using different titles in the letter than that on the actual document, or aren’t consistently numbered, which can make understanding a bundle of papers extremely confusing. Many in Home Ownership are aware of the problems and have worked on changing letters and documents to improve this, but there is still much more to be done. It’s important to keep in mind that – although we have a lot of information to send out, and don’t want to be patronising – we can’t assume all leaseholders have a comfortable working knowledge of our service charge billing cycle or the difference between an estimate and actual bill, for example. So in all letters and responses to enquiries we need to give simple explanations and not assume more knowledge than we know someone has.

v. We have a Homeowners’ Handbook which has crucial useful information for leaseholders, but they are not currently given a copy as a matter of course at the point of sale or at any other time. This is being revamped by the HOS SIG at present and it is strongly felt in HOS that once this is rewritten and updated, it should be distributed to all leaseholders and going forward it should be sent to all new leaseholders when they buy a property. All of the content will also be easily accessed on the website.

b. Communications recommendations

31

The Engagement Officer will lead on producing a regular e-newsletter to be sent to all leaseholders with email addresses. This will include updates on Home Ownership Services, questions and answers, short articles, useful information that may concern leaseholders, etc.

This needs to be accompanied by a drive to collect email addresses: asking for updated contact information with all regular letters and bills, capturing emails through surveys and meeting sign in sheets and ensuring these are always updated on Northgate, etc. We can also consider having the call centre cold call leaseholders for whom we have mobile numbers but no email addresses to try and collect these, but they would need to be very well briefed to ensure that this is done in a way that doesn’t further contribute to negative perception of the organisation, given the level of dissatisfaction with the contact centre and concerns that leaseholders have already raised about the data they collect.

A paper copy of the latest e-newsletter can also be sent out with yearly bills and invitation packs to ALFs.

As long as we are sending out paper invitations to ALFs, this is an opportunity to communicate with leaseholders and send them useful information, even if they are not able to attend the meeting itself.

We also need to ensure ALF dates are being publicised on Twitter, on the Lambeth Council and Lambeth Living websites, on the online leaseholder forum, and in the Living Local magazine. There is a leaseholder section in Living Local, where we can include some of the same articles and content as in the e-newsletter, and list all upcoming ALF and Leaseholders’ Council dates.

We need to further the process of reviewing documents and template letters used by Home Ownership Services. To make sure these are appropriate and easily understandable, we need to consult leaseholders and seek their approval on new templates before they are used. In order to achieve this, the Engagement Officer will be seeking leaseholders volunteering for a virtual document review panel. This can be done very simply: when we need feedback on a document, we send it to all the leaseholders on the panel via email, and those who have time send us their feedback which we can use to improve the document. Consideration can also be given to seeking feedback from the online leaseholders’ forum when we need more views.

Mark Howarth proposed we ask for leaseholder volunteers to check their bills before they’re sent out to their whole estate. This got positive feedback at Leaseholders’ Council in July, so we should start signing up volunteers to do this – it can be an e-newsletter item and can feature on the website.

The Engagement Officer will be working with the Communications team to produce a revamped Leaseholder section of the Lambeth Living website. Part of this will focus on engagement – uploading minutes and meeting packs from the ALFs, asking for sign-ups to receive the leaseholders e-newsletter and storing archives of this, and sign-ups to participate in the virtual document review panel – and we can also improve, update, and add to the information already available about various leasehold matters online.

The website can also be used to showcase short videos introducing our teams and explaining our processes. This would be particularly useful for explaining processes that have to follow particular steps, for

32

example, the right to buy process and the section 20 consultation process.

V. Conclusion

a. Limitations and other considerations

i. The recommendations in this report are primarily focused on leaseholder engagement that can be enacted by Home Ownership Services. These recommendations, therefore, do not fully address some of the other areas that cause the most dissatisfaction among leaseholders: the contact centre, the implementation of major works programmes, communal repairs, and estate services.

ii. However, it is expected that colleagues in other teams will be apprised of the progress of the engagement strategy and will be expected to contribute, in particular in terms of providing information necessary for improved communications, and attending meetings and surgeries as required.

iii. Buy in from the rest of the organisation is particularly important for surgeries and meetings, as a frequent complaint from leaseholders is that the officers they speak to at these are only ‘taking away’ their concerns but not able to actually address them or answer questions there and then – this is often because HOS staff service the surgeries but the majority of queries raised are about major works and repairs. So more frequent and accessible surgeries will only be successful if they are serviced by appropriate staff.

iv. It is also important to ensure we engage with TMOs and with councillors. Once approved the leaseholder engagement strategy should be shared with councillors, and they should be kept updated about our ongoing progress and included in new communications to leaseholders such as e-newsletters and information packs sent out with ALF invitations.

b. Next steps

i. Once the Board/SMT approve the above recommendations in principle, the Head of Home Ownership, the Leasehold Managers, and the Leasehold Community Engagement Officer can work together to decide priorities and timescales of each.

ii. Some items can be brought to next Leaseholders’ Council (1-3). iii. Some will be for Leasehold Community Engagement Officer to begin

acting on immediately.

33

BRIXTON AREA MAJOR WORKS POSITION STATEMENT(LH) - January 2015

Senior Project Manager - Dr. Joseph Ajala

No. SCHEME NAME SCHEME DESCRIPTION YEAR

PROJECT LEADS CONSULTANT CONTRACTOR COMMENTS

Current Schemes

1 Rushcroft Mansions Major Refurbishment

2013-14 Prince Kamanda/ Nanda

Ramanjooloo

Pellings Thomas Sinden Works in progress and expected completion date May 2015. 75% of the

works completed.

2 Year 2 Street Properties: Talma, Rattary, Saltoun, Arlingford Road, Hayter Road,

Bythorne, Branksome, Ferndale, Kenwyn, Mandrell Road, Santley Road.

Street Properties 2013-14 Ronke O’Peters / Davina Gopala

Mace Mears Work in progress. 98% Completed

3 LHS Year 3 Estate Internal (Herne Hill, Bowater, Hurst Street, Railton, Tulse Hill)

Internal & External Works


Ramanjooloo

EC Harris Mears Work has commenced on site, approximately 75% completed, all

work is anticipated to complete by March 2015

Completed Schemes 1 12, 18, 20 Winterwell Road Struc.

Replacement. Inter. Decs


Ramanjooloo

Pellings Mears Completed - in Defect Liability Period (DLP)

2 Tulse Hill Structure PH1 Structural Replacement


Ramanjooloo

Frankhams Morrisons Completed - in Defect Liability Period (DLP)

3 Year 2 Estate Internal . and External (BOWATER CLOSE, Lyham, Loats,Herne

Hill.



Ramanjooloo

Pellings Mullaley/Keepmoat (TBC)

Completed - in Defect Liability Period (DLP)

4 St. Matthews Estate- Externals 2013-14 Ronke O’Peters / Davina Gopala

Frankhams Keepmoat Completed - in Defect Liability Period (DLP)

5 Tulse Hill Structure PH2, Purser, Heywood, Haworth, Landsdell,

Laughton, Lomley, Povey, Rudhall.

Structural Work AUG-2013

Prince Kamanda/ Nanda

Ramanjooloo

Frankham Morrison Completed - in Defect Liability Period (DLP)

34

Future Schemes

1 Year 2 Street Properties External upgrades.

2014-15 Ronke O’Peters / Davina Gopala

Hunters Mulalley Work have been awarded to Mulalley, at the final stage of signing the

contract, work expected to commence in Jun 2015.

2 LHS Year 3 Estate Internal and External (Arlington Lodge, Bowlands Road Estate,

Hertford Estate and Cherry Laurel Walk Estate)



EC Harris Mears Mobilisation stage, Option Appraisals produced for consultation

3 Year 3 Street Properties Internal & External Works



4 LHS Year 3 Estate Internal and External (Saxby, Virginia, Wiltshire)



Ramanjooloo


35

LAMBETH LIVING CENTRAL AREA

EMAIL: [email protected]

TELEPHONE: 0207 926 1755

Name Position Extension

Mobile

Paul Webb Area Housing Manager 61882 07931 419621

Erin Healy Executive Support Officer 68299

CUSTOMER SERVICES TEAM - [email protected]

Mia Peters Area Customer Services Manager 62038 07530 982062

Hilda Mordi Customer Service Officer 65613

Nicola Haughton-Campbell

Customer Service Officer 61847 07791 609643

Dionne Breedy-Anderson

Customer Service Officer 63824

Laura Michael Customer Service Officer 63827

Nana Ampiah Customer Service Officer 63845 07983 595973

Jibola Obalowo Customer Services Advisor 61755

Edward Bangura Customer Service Advisor 60434

Janet Lewis Area Void Properties Manager 61836 07908 841904

Abdul Rouf Customer Services Assistant (Voids) 61838

Louis Burton Customer Services Assistant (Voids) 63852 07931 103285

Angela Ebanks Customer Services Assistant (Voids) 6 8409 07950 266261

Bernard Cottrell Customer Services Assistant (Voids) 61756

Sarah Knox Customer Services Assistant (Voids) 68151

Ayesha Begum Customer Services Assistant (Solutions Team)

69800

Dideolu Bademosi Customer Services Assistant (Solutions Team)

63896

Damilola Olayiwola Customer Services Assistant (Solutions Team)

69315

Doreen Francis Resident Participation Officer (Brixton) 60762 07960 699857

Joanna Jackson Resident Participation Officer (Tulse Hill)

61839 07944 754695

Audley Walker Disrepair Case Manager 68262

Salam Tejan Disrepair Case Manager 68400 07791 631506 Justin Waite Disrepair Surveyor 07785 660578

CENTRAL TENANCY ENFORCEMENT TEAM

Tunde Akinyooye Tenancy Enforcement Manager 69662

Tony Sharif Tenancy Enforcement Officer 63821 07534 962156

36

Carol Mundle Tenancy Enforcement Officer 61869 07960 133193

Grace Eyamba Tenancy Enforcement Officer 61059 07956 253537

Stafford Vidale Tenancy Enforcement Officer 60373

Holly Dorkings Resident Support Officer 61158

CENTRAL ESTATE SERVICES TEAM

Tim Hurley Estate Services Manager 61742 07944 769212

Nicholas McCoy Estate Services Administrator 60933

Kevin Sterling Estate Housing Officer (Central BR1) 61850 07932 423406

Esther Dennis Estate Housing Officer (Central BR2) 63947 07985 599933

Konnie Mehmet Estate Housing Officer (Central BR3) 61863 07931 321501

Samantha Stewart Estate Housing Officer (Central BR4) 60545

Richard Rivers Simpson

Estate Housing Officer (Central CL1) 61879 07771 904491

Gregory Thompson Estate Housing Officer (Central CL2) 66912 07867 353414

Ryan Greenidge Estate Housing Officer (Central CL3) 64087 07983 330987

Roy Campbell Estate Housing Officer (Central CL4) 63833 07985 216272

Mark Brown Caretaking Manager 62327

Paul Joyce Caretaking Supervisor 61864 07931 368772

Joe Crowley Estate Services Assistant (Central BR 1&2)

07932 423640

Nick Grech Estate Services Assistant (Central BR 3&4)

07939 899897

Edwin Maduagwuanumnne

Estate Services Assistant (Central CL 1&2)

07960 237393

Michael Parchment Estate Services Assistant (Central CL 3&4)

07791 623291

Linda Elliott Estate Pride Manager (on secondment) 61878 07944 769212

Hayley Reece Estate Pride Project Officer (on secondment)

60291 07976 490060

CENTRAL RESPONSIVE REPAIRS TEAM

Andrew Jacques Area Asset Manager 63749 07957 316851

Phillip Araoye Business Support Officer 69586

Funke Abiose Quantity Surveyor 60579

Fiona Phelan Responsive Repairs Manager 61636 07943 842539

James Honan Surveyor (Central BR1) 63916 07960 161410

Nick O'Flaherty Surveyor (Central BR2) 61647 07930 412654

Michael Addico Surveyor (Central BR4) 61499 07956

37

396948

Andrew Baker Surveyor (Central CL1) 61870 07958 939473

Rodney Southgate Surveyor (Central CL4) 60078 07939 588786

Monica Thompson Business Support Officer 61640

CENTRAL CAPITAL WORKS TEAM

Joseph Ajala Senior Programme Manager 66362 07985 599820

Ibironke O'Peters Project Manager 63960 07985 599724

Prince Kamanda Project Manager 68339 07975 554244

Sabina Martin Project Manager 60679 07904 226930

Davina Gopala Project Officer 63973 07957 533683

Nanda Ramanjooloo Project Officer 65241 07985 216269

Gerald Brown Business Support Officer 60375

Henry Otu Customer Liaison Officer 63988 07930 349247

Esther Alum Customer Liaison Officer 61030

38

LAMBETH LIVING HOME OWNERSHIP SERVICES POSTAL ADDRESS

HOME OWNERSHIP SERVICES

HAMBROOK HOUSE RECEPTION

020 7926 3537 2nd FLOOR HAMBROOK HOUSE

LEASEHOLDER LINE 020 7926 6700 PORDEN ROAD

CONTACT CENTRE 020 7926 6000 BRIXTON

LAMBETH COUNCIL SWITCHBOARD NUMBER

020 7926 1000 SW2 5RW

HOME OWNERSHIP FAX 020 7926 3482

HOME OWNERSHIP SERVICES

First Name Surname Position Extension

Email Address

Lisa Keating Head of Ownership 63583 [email protected]

Lucy Sawyer Executive Support Officer 63812 [email protected]

Emily Wester Resident Engagement Officer

60150 [email protected]

CUSTOMER SERVICES / RIGHT TO BUY TEAM

Leeora Filemu Leasehold Manager 68936 [email protected]

Timothy McClave Team Leader 63711 [email protected]

Kate Rhule Service Charge Coordinator


Alison Tambling Service Charge Coordinator


Rachel Moocarme Service Charge Coordinator


Anthony Malcolm Service Charge Coordinator


Alla Hill Right to Buy Officer 69890 [email protected]

Maria Shyla Right to Buy Officer 61491 [email protected]

Luke Kelly Right to Buy Officer 66320 [email protected]

Jackie Pereira Property Sales Officer 63434 [email protected]

Linda Horgan Property Sales Officer 63531 [email protected]

Monwara Begum Property Sales Officer 63489 [email protected]

Ferenc Lendvai Legal Instructing Officer 64237 [email protected]

Michelle Murray Customer Service Officer 63584 [email protected]

Paul Savage Customer Service Assistant
































39

CALCULATIONS TEAM COLLECTIONS TEAM

Patience Aguor-Uche

Leasehold Manager 63744 [email protected]

Ingemar Castillo Collections Project Manager


Johnson Ajayi Collections Team Leader 66266 [email protected]

Chris Ojo Service Charge Coordinator


Aina McCallum

Service Charge Coordinator


Feonia Wildman Service Charge Coordinator


Marcia Nugent Service Charge Coordinator


Rob Gowland Service Charge Coordinator


Babatunde Ogunsipe Service Charge Coordinator


David Ansah Service Charge Coordinator


Armstrong Opoku Major Works Coordinator 60460 [email protected]

Rhoda Akinde Major Works Coordinator 63709 [email protected]

George Ofili Major Works Coordinator 67046 [email protected]

Rregjina Curaj Customer Service Assistant


CONSULTATIONS TEAM

Karen Kellaway Leasehold Manager 63712 [email protected]

John Gargan Major Works Project Manager


Vivienne Omo-Idahosa

Major Works Coordinator 63710 [email protected]

Claudine Thompson

Major Works Coordinator 63741 [email protected]

Hina Pawar Major Works Coordinator 63411 [email protected]

Janet Hepburn Major Works Coordinator 63523 [email protected]

Newton Harvey Major Works Coordinator 64102 [email protected]

Henry Kuteyi Major Works Coordinator 61083 [email protected]

Bridget Adebajo Finance Assistant 69711 [email protected]

CALCULATIONS TEAM

Sarie Jehu-Appiah

Income and Service Charge Accountant

63511 Sjehu-appiah@lambethliving.



















































40

org.uk

Martin Chima SC Calculations Team Leader


Pamela Moseley SC Calculations Officer 63530 [email protected]

Manisha Williams SC Calculations Officer 63814 [email protected]

Ines Bah-Savane

SC Co-ordinator 63806 [email protected]

IT PROJECT TEAM

Lakhvir Rehal Technical Project Manager


Johnson Awosoji Technical Business Analyst


Michelle Ramsammy

IT Project Officer 60718 [email protected]

Shah Uddin IT Project Officer 60721 [email protected]



















41

Childcare Expenditure Claim Form All child care cost must be claimed within one week of the meeting. Name: ________________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________________

Telephone number: ______________________________________________

Date of the meeting you are claiming for: _____________________________

You may only be reimbursed if you use a registered childminder. 1. What is the childminder’s registration number? _____________________

2. How many children you are claiming? ____________________________

3. How many hours are you claiming? ______________________________

4. What is the amount you pay per hour? £ __________________________

5. What is the total expenditure? £ _________________________________

Date: _________________________________________________________

Signature: _____________________________________________________

Please return the completed form to: Lambeth Living Home Ownership Services Leasehold Resident Engagement Hambrook House, 2nd floor Porden Road London SW2 5RW

brixton area leaseholder forum agm 2015 · brixton area leaseholder forum agm 2015 ... minutes of...

Documents