b

Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee 17 October 2013

Lambeth’s Concierge Service Review – Phase Two All Wards

Report authorised by: Commissioning Director, Rachel Sharpe

Executive summary

In October 2012, The Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee (‘HSSC’) agreed on the second phase of the service review and a recommendation for a phased full cost recovery on tenants’ service charges from 2013/14 over a three year period pending completion of the second phase of the concierge service review. The HSSC also made the following recommendations for phase two of the concierge service review; 1. The membership of the review group is reconsidered to ensure Tenant

Management Organisations (TMO) representation 2. Steps are taken to include engagement with residents to ensure that the work of

the review group is representative of service provision across the whole borough 3. Potential benefits and cost savings arising from concierge service are explored for

instance the impact on community safety, public health, levels of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and subletting

4. The current job description of the concierge is explored, including whether the role

could be affordable enhanced The report outlines the activities and research undertaken by the group in response to scrutiny recommendations. It equally seeks to address the need for service improvements in relation to concierge service provision. Summary of financial implications

Full recovery of costs relating to concierge service will be achieved by implementing an increase to the current charge to tenants of £12.44 per week to a weekly charge of £13.10 in 2014/15 and £13.76 in 2015/16. This will represent an increase of 66p for each of the next two financial years.

Recommendations

(1) To note and agree the work that has been done in phase two of the review

(2) To note the list of duties in Appendix B as a definition of Lambeth’s concierge service

(3) To note the proposed weekly service charge increase of £0.66 in both 2014/15 and 2015/16 which will mean a weekly tenant service charge of £13.10 and £13.76 respectively.

(4) To note and agree on a review of the service at Southwyck House and Loughborough estate to ensure this is consistent with the service provided elsewhere.

(5) To note that there is not one service model for a borough wide provision

(6) To note the recommendation of the need for a policy going forward that defines Lambeth concierge service and sets out the criteria for implementation.

Consultation Name of consultee

Department or Organisation Date sent Date response received

Comments appear in report para:

Internal

Sue Foster Executive Director of HRE 08/10/13

Rachel Sharpe Divisional Director Housing 15/07/13 15/07/13

Paul Cooper Assistant Director Strategy and Regeneration

11/7/13 11/07/13 Throughout

Greg Carson Governance and Democracy 04/07/13 09/07/13 Throughout &15.1 to 15.10

Christina Thompson

Director – Business Partnering

Lynette Peters Strategy and Client Manager 11/07/13 15/07/13 Throughout

Nilesh Jethwa Business Partner 04/07/13 11/07/13 Throughout & 16.1

Review Group Concierge Service 04/07/13 11/07/13 & 16/07/13

Throughout

Frank Higgins Corporate Finance 21.08.13

Councillor Pete Robbins

Cabinet Member for Housing

External

Lambeth Living Head of Finance (LL) 04/07/13 09/07/13 Throughout

Report history

Date report drafted: Report deadline: Date report sent: Report no.:

10.07.13 26.09.13 08.10.13 169/13-14

Report author and contact for queries:

Barbara Grant

020 7926 7734, BGrant.gov.uk

Background Documents:

See appendices

Appendices:

Revised Terms of Reference for the group Appendix A - Concierge Service Review Group Appendix B - Lambeth concierge service duties specification Appendix C - Concierge service costs and contributions 2012/13 Appendix D - Focus group outcomes April 2013 Appendix E - Concierge survey results Appendix F - Perception of ASB and safety results Appendix G - Islington and Sandwell Visit notes Appendix H - Explored service delivery models

1. Context

1.1 In September 2012 the concierge review group completed the first phase of the service review which focused on the cost of the service to residents and the impact on HRA subsidy. It was concluded that HRA could not continue to subsidise the cost of concierge service for tenants and a recommendation was made for a phased full service cost recovery on tenants’ service charges from 2013/14 over a three year period. This would bring the tenant’s concierge service charges recovery in line with the Council’s policy of full cost recovery.

1.2 The sub-committee agreed on this recommendation which resulted in a £3.10 per week increase year on year on tenants’ service charge from 2013/14 pending completion of the service review. As a result, tenants currently contribute a uniform weekly charge of £12.44 whilst leaseholders continue to pay the full cost of the service in their respective blocks.

2. The Concierge Service Review Group

2.1 The second phase of the service review commenced in January 2013 with revised Terms of Reference (see Appendix A) agreed at the first meeting on 29th January 2013. The group membership was revised as per sub-committee recommendation and has met on seven occasions between January and July 2013. During the course of the review period, regular updates have been provided to Tenant’s Council and Leaseholder’s Council on activities undertaken by the review group.

2.2 As part of phase two, the concierge service review group membership

was revised to include Council officers from Community Safety, Public Realm, TMOs and leaseholder representatives (see Appendix A).

2.3 Since January 2013 the review group has undertaken research and

analysis on the impact of a concierge service on community safety, ASB levels and resident satisfaction. These activities are outlined in Section 3 below:

3. Activities undertaken by the review group during the review period

3.1 The review group acknowledged that although there is a standard job description for the concierge service ‘operative’ role, residents are of the view that over the years the service has evolved into a bespoke service where the duties performed vary from block to block. Therefore a mapping exercise of duties was carried out, to identify inconsistencies and address residents’ concerns regarding the inconsistency in duties performed by operatives. However this exercise revealed that the duties performed are fairly consistent with a few exceptions across the blocks (see Appendix B).

3.2 Additionally there is a disparity between expectations on estate services contracts performance delivery and what happens in practice across the estates with the concierge service. It is therefore recommended that a consistent approach is adopted across the estates that are managed by Lambeth Living (LL) and TMOs.

3.3 The group therefore recommends that the mapped list of duties (see Appendix B) is taken forward as a specification of Lambeth’s concierge service to address the disparity between residents’ perception of service standard and the job description for concierge operatives which is the same across all blocks. It is equally recommended that where there is a concierge service, the list of duties, operating hours and standards are clearly advertised in a prominent place. This would show more transparency and accountability in the service provision.

3.4 The service levels and costs in respective estates/blocks, was also reviewed to clarify service levels and show transparency in service costs which are based on staffing levels in respective estates/blocks. For example, the blocks have been grouped together to reflect the block/estate size and design and this has implications on service level provided on the respective estates and associated costs. This is the case on Ethelred estate where there are three blocks with separate entrances however the service is stationed at Brittany Point and the other two blocks are only remotely monitored. This is outlined further in Section 5.

3.5 The review group conducted two surveys with residents who benefit from a concierge service and those that do not have a concierge service. This was to test resident satisfaction with a concierge service and perception of ASB and safety on their estates. There was a high response to both surveys in particular the satisfaction survey, which showed the concierge service is an important issue for residents. The key findings of both surveys are outlined in section 8.

3.6 The review group also reviewed and analysed anti-social behaviour (ASB) data on the estates with a concierge service provision for the period of 2011/12 and 2012/13,with a view to understand the effectiveness of the concierge service in mitigating ASB incidents and its impact on residents’ perception of safety on Lambeth estates. The outcome of this is outlined in section 9.

3.7 As part of the benchmarking exercise and research, the review group

visited Islington concierge/CCTV service on the 14th February 2013 as well as Sandwell Homes CCTV/Concierge service on 22nd March 2013 (see Appendix G for visit notes).

3.8 Both visits support the benchmarking key findings that in recent years, traditional concierge services have been modernised or rationalised to include CCTV monitoring and to certain aspects of caretaking or estate services. The key findings of the benchmarking exercise and the visits carried out are discussed in detail in section 12.

3.9 The review group also explored different service delivery models identified in the first phase of the review and it was concluded that no ‘one model fits all’ as a borough wide provision, it depends on estate design, ASB issues and perception of crime, safety and well being. These models are outlined further in Appendix H.

4. Key issues identified with the current service

4.1 It was recognised that the core service level and standards relating to concierge services were unclear to residents. This was borne out of the surveys and focus groups carried out with residents who benefit from a concierge service, to gain a better understanding of residents’ percerption of different aspect of the concierge service.

4.2 The responses from residents indicated that there is a disparity

between residents’ perception of the service and the actual service

delivered. The residents are of the perception that different service levels and standard of duties were performed across estates. This suggests that one of the main issues with the current Lambeth service are related to operational and contract performance management.

4.3 Though the majority of concierge service in blocks is delivered through the repairs and maintenance contracts as part of Lambeth Property Contracts (LPC), residents' views seem to indicate that little or no monitoring of performance is undertaken by LL, unlike in other areas such as gas servicing, lifts, and other responsive repairs areas in the borough. This is further supported by LL’s confirmation that there are no performance monitoring matrix in place for concierge service to assist with the contract peformance monitoring.

4.4 In recognition of the contract management related issues, the review

group recommends that LL who manage the contract, put in place concierge performance monitoring matrix as part of estate services and to address performance issues and ensure consistency in service standard delivery at a operational level by clearly advertising service standard.in a prominent position. This would deliver service improvements and value to residents.

5. Current concierge service levels delivered

5.1 As previously mentioned above in section 4, the outcomes of resident surveys and focus groups carried out in February and April 2013, highlighted a need for greater transparency in regards to service levels delivered and the cost of service in the respective blocks across estates that benefit from a concierge service.

5.2 The review group thoroughly scrutinised the concierge service levels on estates and associated service costs as part of the second phase. As outlined in Table 1 below, six of the nine estates receive a service level of 8.5 hours per day based on a two shift service between the hours of 7:00am and Midnight.

5.3 There other three estates tend to be smaller and only operate a single shift. It should be noted that the block design and size influences the number of shifts and staffing resources used to deliver the service. This is the case on Cotton Gardens estate which comprises of three blocks, two shifts are delivered per day across two blocks with one entrance. By comparison to Southwyck House has double number of shifts and staffto cover two entrances (see Table 1 below).

5.4 Table 1 below illustrates the breakdown of concierge service operational levels on estates to clarify residents’ concerns about not receiving a full range service as previously stated in the phase one report to scrutiny.

Table 1: Concierge operational service levels Area Estate No of

propoerties

Block Operating hours

Weekly total hours of service

No. of staff

North Ethelred:

296 Brittany Point Elkington Point Ward Point

07:00 – 24:00 14 shifts x 8.5hrs 3

North Cotton Gardens

242 Fairford House Ebenezer House Hurley House

07:00 – 24:00 14 shifts x 8.5hrs 3

North Penwith Manor 134 Falmouth House Penryn House

07:00 – 24:00 14 Shifts x 8.5hrs 3

North Spurgeon & Mursell

163 Kelvedon House Rundell Tower

08:30 – 17:00 7 Shifts x 8.5hrs 1

North

South Lambeth

104 Wimbourne House

08:30 – 17:00 7 Shifts x 8.5hrs 1

North Holland Rise House

103 Holland Rise House Whitebeam Close

08:30 – 18:00 7 shifts x 8.5hrs 1

Central Westbury 160 Amesbury Tower Durrington Tower

08:00 – 16:00 &

16:00 – 23:00

7 shifts x 8hrs &

7shifts x 7hrs

3

Central Southwyck House

173 Southwyck House 8:00 – 16:00 & 16:00 – 23:00

14shifts x8hrs &

14 shifts x 7hrs

6

Central Loughborough 412 Harris House Howard House Kemble House Kettleby House Woolley House

7:00 – 16:00 &

16:00 – 24:00

14 shifts X 8.5

12

6. Revised cost of service for 2013/14

6.1 A phased increase of £3.10 for tenants’ charges over a three year period was implemented from April 2013 in line with the Council’s policy set on full cost recovery. Tenants now pay a uniform service charge of £12.44 towards the overall cost of the service, whilst

leaseholders continue to pay the full cost of the service on their blocks respectively.

6.2 It should be noted that concierge service costs and tenants contributions in 2012/13 (see Appendix C) used to determined the required increase on tenants’ weekly service charge, included an element of cost recovery for the mobilisation costs associated with estates services contract set up as part of LPC contracts. This was a one- off cost which does not apply to later years as illustrated in Table 2 below for 2013/14.

6.3 Table 2 below illustrates the revised breakdown of overall concierge service cost, with contributions from residents for 2013/14 at a phased full cost recovery.

Table 2: Concierge service costs and contributions for 2013/14.

The cost of service is based on the number of operatives employed to provide the service in respective estates. This is reflected in Southwyck House where six operatives cover two blocks with

Block No Residents Tenant Annual Lease Annual

T L Weekly total Weekly total Annual Total surplus/

Charge Income Charge Income Total Costs deficit

2013/14 Tenant 2013/14 Lease Income 2013/14 2013/14

Ebenezer House 65 15 12.44 42,047 10.62 8,286 50,333 51,364 -1,033

Hurley House 70 10 12.44 45,282 10.91 5,675 50,956 52,024 -1,069

Fairford House 69 13 12.44 44,635 10.91 7,377 52,011 51,609 +401

Brittany 95 17 12.44 61,454 8.81 7,787 69,240 58,755 +10,487

Ward 74 23 12.44 47,869 9.06 10,835 58,704 49,931 +8,774

Elkington 76 11 12.44 49,163 8.62 4,929 54,091 45,926 +8,168

Penryn 57 9 12.44 36,872 17.85 8,353 45,225 76,409 -31,183

Falmouth 59 9 12.44 38,166 19.48 9,118 47,283 79,163 -31,881

Kelvedon 66 15 12.44 42,694 8.04 6,269 48,963, 39,395 +9,570

Rundell Tower 71 11 12.44 45,928 7.70 4,404 50,332 38,062 +12,270

Wimborne House 82 22 12.44 53,044 13.30 15,215 68,259 81,828 -13,569

Durington house 62 18 12.44 40,107 12.91 12,088 52,194 61,295 -9,105

Amesbury Tower 66 14 12.44 42,694 12.66 9,216 51,910 61,803 -9,892

Southwyck House 139 34 12.44 89,916 24.21 42,804 132,720 246,339 -113,620

TMO

Holland Rise

House/Whitebeam

House

71 32 12.44 45,928 7.88 13,110 59,038

38,671 +20,369

LEMB

Loughborough 356 56 12.44 230,289 18.27 53,202 283,491 441,789 -158,298

Totals 1,478 309 956,088 12.58 218,668 1,174,756 1,473,058 -298,305

separate entrances and Loughborough with 12 operatives to cover five blocks.

6.4 It is evident from Table 2 above that the two estates with the highest deficit are Southwyck House with -£113,620 and Loughborough with -£158,298. The review group therefore recommends a separate review of the service level on these estates to ensure that the service delivers value for money.

7. Proposed tenant service charges in 2014/15 onwards

7.1 In 2013/14 the one off mobilisation costs will be recovered as a result of £3.10 per week increase on tenant charges.

7.2 Consequently, it is proposed that the tenant service charge is increased by £0.66p in both 2014/15 and 2015/16. Table 3 below shows that a £0.66 increase would enable full cost recovery on tenants’ costs over a two year period and this would bring concierge services in line with the Council’s full cost recovery policy on service charges.

Table 3: Proposed tenant service charges for 2014/15 and 2015/16

Concier

ge

Tenants

Charges

2012/13

O’

heads

19%

Inflation

3.1% Total Stock Charge

Inc Req

Each

Year

Proposed

charge +/- Income

Under

Recovery

Phased

Increase

2013/

14 1,052,887 200,049 1,252,936 1,478 13.70 12.44 1.26 956,089 296,847

Phased

Increase

2014/

15 852,838 162,039 26,438 1,041,316 1,478 13.55 0.66 13.10 0.45 1,006,929 34,387

Phased

Increase

2015/

16 879,276 167,063 11,431 1,057,770 1,478 13.76 0.66 13.76 0.00 1,057,654 116

8. Resident satisfaction with concierge service and perception of safety on estates

8.1 The review group carried out a resident survey in February 2013 with residents who currently benefit from a concierge service. There was a high response to the survey and this highlighted that the concierge service provision is an important issue for residents who benefit from the service. A total of 228 responses were received from 1200 surveys sent to residents, this represented 13% of the overall residents who benefit from the concierge service in the borough. The survey sought to understand resident satisfaction and perception of ASB.

8.2 The survey results (see appendix E) indicated that:

•••• 74% of the respondents were satisfied with the concierge service and of these 39% are tenants compared to 37% of leaseholders and 24% of these respondents did not state their tenure.

• 34% of the respondents are satisfied that the service provides value for money. Of these 38% are tenants compared to 21% of the

leaseholders and 41% of these respondents did not state their tenure

• Of the respondents, only 11% of tenants are prepared to pay more for an improved service compared to 19% of these were leaseholders and 21% of these residents are in employment.

• 74% of the respondents agreed that a concierge service improves security and the housing environment.

• 47% of these residents feel secure in their block and consider a concierge service to be an important part to the overall welfare and security of their block.

8.3 A similar case study survey was conducted in March 2013 with residents on Loughborough, St Matthews, Hertford and Canterbury Gardens estates, where the majority of the residents do not benefit from a concierge service. This was to test residents’ perception of safety on their estates. It should be noted that only five blocks on Loughborough estate benefit from a concierge service. This case study assisted in drawing comparisons of residents’ perception of safety across estates with and without a concierge service.

8.4 The results of this case study survey indicated that 34% of the respondents who do not benefit from a concierge service feel secure on their estate compared to 47% of the overall respondents who benefit from a concierge service. Additionally 23% of residents agreed that ASB is a problem on their estates compared to 15% of the resident in blocks with a concierge service. (see Appendix F)

8.5 The Survey of Tenants and Residents (STAR) carried out in September 2012 also assisted in the analysis of residents’ perception of safety on Lambeth estates. The results indicated levels of dissatisfaction expressed by residents who reported ASB in the last 12 months prior to the survey. Just over half of the residents were dissatisfied with; how well they were kept up to date on their ASB case (54%), and the speed with which their case was dealt with over all (52%).

8.6 As part of both surveys carried out, residents were asked what their local priorities would be, to improve safety on their estates and neighbourhood. 44% of the respondents indentified the following as options that would make them feel safer:

• Fully functional CCTV with recordings made available when requested

• 24 hour concierge service

• Fully functional security door entry systems

• Greater Police presence and patrols especially at night

• More provision for young people to avoid loitering

• Better estate lighting

• Neighbourhood watch

9. Levels of ASB on estates

9.1 The review group analysed ASB levels on estates with and without a concierge service during 2011/12 and 2012/13. This was to assess the impact of a concierge service on estates. The ASB data accessed indicated that whilst blocks with a concierge service continue to suffer from incidents of ASB, the number of incidents reported to the Area teams (Tenancy Enforcement and Contact centre) were significantly low compared to the number of incidents reported from blocks without a concierge service.

9.2 The low level of reported ASB data on estates with a concierge service could partly be attributed to the impact of a concierge service in acting as a deterrent of ASB incidents as well as under reporting of incidents by residents and housing management staff for various reasons such as:

• Incidents not recorded once resolved by officer

• Residents perception that nothing would be done to resolve the issue

• The type of incident(s) may not be constituted as ASB

• Residents may not want the incident recorded

9.3 Due to the lack of reported ASB data on estates with a concierge service and pre-historical data, the analysis of the effectiveness of the concierge service heavily relied on anecdotal evidence on residents’ perception of ASB, and safety. This made it difficult for the review group to fully conclude the overall impact of a concierge service on ASB levels. However it was agreed that a concierge service does act as a deterrent of ASB incidents and improves residents’ perception of safety on their estates and therefore has a positive impact on overall community safety within their neighbourhoods. In view of this, it is recommended that ASB reported incidents on estates with a concierge service are clearly recorded to show incidents reported to the concierge operatives. This would assist with future analysis of the service impact on ASB levels as part of future concierge service reviews.

10. Illegal subletting

10.1 The review group did not carryout detailed research into illegal subletting incidents on estates with a concierge service. This was due to the review group’s recognition of the on-going initiatives carried out

jointly by the Council’s housing fraud team and LL’s tenancy enforcement team. These include regular tenancy audits carried out to identify and stop tenancy abuse. Through the ‘whistle blowing’ campaign the housing fraud Team and the Tenancy Enforcement teams continue to work closely in gathering local intelligence and investigating suspected reports of illegal subletting. Additionally, newsletter articles were used to promote the illegal sub-letting campaign on the estates and encourage residents to provide information to officers of any known sub-let or empty properties

10.2 The joint-working arrangements between ALMOs, Tenancy Enforcement and Housing Fraud Teams have provided a more focused and targeted approach in delivering initiatives and campaigns to tackle illegal subletting in the borough. Housing Fraud team reports that this approach has assisted in identifying more cases than before and to date 19 properties have been recovered as a result.

11. Community safety and public health

11.1 The review group acknowledged on-going community safety partnership projects and initiatives that have been implemented to improve safety and wellbeing of residents in neighbourhoods within the borough. It should be noted that there is no concierge service provisions within these neighbourhoods. The initiatives include:

• Community Safeguarding Project (Vauxhall Gardens and Fenwick Estate). The project team that included community safety and LL officers liaise with ‘Well London’ to ensure that the resources made available are adequately utilised on the estate.

• Tulse Hill Strategy - There has been progress made on the Tulse Hill estate as part of the partnership working arrangement with the Council’s Community Safety team and the Police. The Police are leading on programmes to tackle issues associated with youth offending.

11.2 As these initiatives are new and on-going the impact is not yet known and no data was available during the review period. Therefore it was not possible to assess as part of the review. These projects are not part of this review and will be evaluated as part of their project scope and timescales. The only evidence available was from the surveys and focus groups. The residents’ perception of safety within their estates is highlighted in section 8.

12. Benchmarking exercise

12.1 The review group looked at concierge service models operated by other housing providers however it was difficult to benchmark Lambeth’s concierge service because other providers offer a wide range of different services

12.2 Research shows that in recent years, traditional concierge services have been modernised or rationalised to include CCTV monitoring and certain aspects of caretaking or estate services. The variation in the type of service operated makes it difficult to compare the cost of the service between providers. The overall view was that a traditional concierge service ceased to be affordable and did not offer value for money. One of the service delivery models identified as best practice model by UK Housing Awards 2012 was Sandwell Homes service model, outlined in section11.5.

12.3 As the majority of the housing providers deliver the service as part of their estate services, the duties carried out by the concierge operatives varies from delivering a door entry control service to CCTV monitoring and assisting with investigation of ASB, crime and vandalism. However it is evident that the main aim and objective of the service is to give residents more security in their homes by assisting to control access to the blocks, providing a reception service and offering protection from vandalism and squatting which is now illegal.

12.4 The highest tenant service charge in the benchmarking data was another inner London Borough (Hackney) with a charge of £15.97 per week and the cheapest was Islington at £2.94 -£6.52 per week where the charge varies depending on the service provided on respective blocks or estates

12.5 As part of the benchmarking exercise, the review group visited the Islington and Sandwell service provision to gain a better understanding of the CCTV and door entry control service delivered. Both visits highlighted benefits related to the service provision (see Appendix G).

13. Future service provision

13.1 The review group explored further models previously identified in the first phase of the service review. However these were disregarded as a borough wide service provision models with the exception of standardising the existing service provision. This was due to the review group’s conclusion that no one model fits all, it depends on estate design, ASB levels and residents’ perception of safety in the respective neighbourhood, service costs and value for money. The service models explored are outlined in Appendix H.

13.2 The review group concluded that one model does not fit all as a borough wide provision. It was therefore recommended that where a concierge service is considered, estate design, ASB levels and perception of safety would need to be taken into account and a decision would be based on residents consultation where views would be taken from leaseholders, tenants on welfare benefits and working tenants. The residents would need to understand the full cost implications of setting up a concierge service that would include contract mobilisation costs within the first year of the service.

14. Summary

14.1 The review group acknowledged that the Lambeth concierge service provision represents an integral part of housing management service and provides a high perception of safety and security to residents who benefit from the service. Although a direct correlation with ASB prevention was difficult to deduce due to limited applicability of available ASB data, indications from the review suggests that the presence of a concierge service either helps improve security and may act as a deterrent to recurring incidents of ASB.

14.2 Additionally the review group recognises the impact that the service has in improving residents’ perception of safety. However it was agreed that a rationale should be used to determine estates that would benefit from a concierge service.

14.3 The review group concluded that delivering improvements on the current service provision would assist in addressing residents’ concerns in regards to service standards across the estates. As a way forward, the implementation of the proposed Lambeth concierge service standard would ensure that a consistent standard of duties are performed by concierge operatives to offer value to residents.

14.4 Additionally, dealing with contract management and operational issues would assist in delivering value for money and address residents’ concerns in regards to performance and quality of the service delivered

15. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy

15.1 Section 21 of the Housing Act 1985 provides the Council with powers for the general management, regulation and control of its dwelling stock.

15.2 Section 24 of the Housing Act 1985 states that the Council may make

such reasonable charges as it determines for the tenancy or occupation of its dwellings and that it must review rents from time to time and make such changes as circumstances require. Further, Section 24(3) provides that when the Council exercises its function under that section it “shall have regard in particular to the principle that the rents of houses of any class or description should bear broadly the same proposition to private sector rents as the rents of houses of any other class or description”

15.3 Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 requires the Council as a landlord

authority to maintain such arrangements as it considers appropriate to consult those of its secure tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by a matter of housing management to which this section applies such as these proposed contracts.

15.4 Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the Council

as a landlord to consult leaseholders in respect of qualifying works

(works where any one leaseholder’s contribution towards the works will exceed £250) and qualifying long term agreements (a contract for works and/or services for a period of more than 12 months). The specific consultation requirements are set out in the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

15.5 The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations

2006 (“TUPE”) applies where there is a transfer of an economic entity or on a service provider change. In the case of a change of service provider, employees who are members of an organised group (which can be one person only) whose primary purpose is the provision of the service will transfer to the new service provider.

15.6 Dismissal of such employees is automatically unfair, unless there are

valid economic technical or organisational reasons. Any changes to the terms and conditions of those employees will be invalid unless the changes are made for economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes to the workforce. These Regulations impose requirements to inform and consult with the employees affected by the transfer and trade unions representing them. These Regulations also impose duties on existing employers to provide information concerning the employees to their new employer.

15.7 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on the

council to have due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of its various functions and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area.

15.8 Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out the new public sector equality duty replacing the previous duties in relation to race, sex and disability and extending the duty to all the protected characteristics i.e. race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, pregnancy or maternity, marriage or civil partnership and gender reassignment. The public sector equality duty requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to:

• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation

• Advance equality of opportunity and

• Foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not

15.9 The Equality Duty must be complied with before and at the time that a

particular policy is under consideration or decision is taken – that is, in the development of policy options, and in making a final decision. A public body cannot satisfy the Equality Duty by justifying a decision after it has been taken.

15.10 The Council would need to ensure that it complies with any legal

requirements. In the context of the options being suggested to the Council, it will be necessary for the Council to consider the application of

public procurement legislation. The Council would be obliged to conduct a procurement process in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and its own constitution if it were to appoint a contractor to carry out works.

16. Finance comments

16.1 The current charge to tenants of £12.44 per week will need to be increased by 66p in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 to fully recover the costs of Concierge relating to tenanted properties. This is in line with the Council’s Rent and Tenant Service Charge Setting Policy of full cost recovery

17. Risk management

Included in the body of the report

18. Equalities impact assessment

An impact assessment will form part of the rent setting process

19. Community safety implications

The paper considers community safety implication throughout the report

20. Environmental implications

N/A

21. Staffing and accommodation implications

Included in the body of the report

22. Any other implications

N/A

23. Time table for implementation

With immediate effect the contract performance management issues needs to be addressed, particularly in regards to the service standard

Item Whom When

A consistent service standard Lambeth Living March 2014

Increased tenant service charge

HRE finance As part of the rent setting process timescale

March 2014

24. Appendices

Appendix A

Phase Two - Concierge Services Review

Revised Terms of Reference

1. Aim

To carryout in depth research and analysis of service delivery models to inform on a borough wide service provision that will represent value for money at full service cost recovery.

2. Duties and responsibilities

• To understand the costs that contribute to the service provision

• To consider alternatives for providing the service

• To understand what represents value for money

• To consider the implications of the current contractual arrangements

• To consider whether there are other options for picking up the cost

3. Accountability The group to report to the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services and Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee.

4. Composition/Membership

• Commissioning Director, HRE – Rachel Sharpe (Chair)

• Assistant Director Strategy & Regeneration – Paul Cooper

• Strategy and Client Manager – Lynette Peters

• Client Manager – Barbara Grant

• Business Partner – Nilesh Jethwa

• Principal Lawyer – Greg Carson

• Crime Reduction Manager – Rachel Gailey

• Contract Performance Officer – Sarah Apiny

• Director of Housing Management (LL) – Cedric Boston

• Head Officer (LL) – Patrick Pedder

• Concierge Manager (Loughborough TMO) – Barry Hay

• CCTV Development Manager (Public Realm)– Kevin White

• Estate Manager (Holland Rise TMO) – Abi Laseinde

• Resident representatives Pat Scahill and Jennifer Thomas

• Leaseholder representative – Elaine Mander

NB: Attendees may nominate individuals to attend in their place or to discuss specific issues or actions.

5. Attendance

Meetings where less than 4 key members are in attendance will be rescheduled.

6. Administrative support

Housing Client Team will co-ordinate the review by arranging meetings collating information from other contributors and evaluate value for money on the recommendations made.

7. Terms of reference to be approved at the first meeting

8. Frequency of meetings and duration of the project

Group meetings will take place on a monthly basis for the project duration which is from January – July 2013 and report to HSSC in July 2013. Meetings Schedule

Meeting Date Time

29/01/2013 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm

26/02/2013 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm

26/03/2013 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm

30/04/2013 3:30 pm – 5:30 pm

14/05/2013 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm

28/06/2013 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm*

10/07/2013 2:00 pm – 4: 00 pm*

• At this time the dates for HSSC are unknown, these dates may therefore be subject to change.

Appendix B Lambeth Concierge Service Standard duties

DUTIES

1 Customer Service Duties

1.1 Man reception desk

1.2 Maintain log book

1.3 Accepting deliveries

1.4 Control building access

1.5 New resident: door system induction

1.6 Key and fob administration

1.7 Manage access to community / communal facilities

1.8 Deal with resident enquires and requests

1.9 Deliver resident correspondence

1.10 Liaise with TRAs, contractors etc

2 Security and Safety Duties

2.1 Ensure security of buildings

2.2 Operation of camera equipment within the buildings

2.3 Watch CCTV contact police when ASB, vandalism etc witnessed

2.4 Ensure H&S compliance / report issues

2.5 Put emergency procedures in place e.g. for lift trapping, fire, flood etc

2.6 Respond to alarms

2.7 ASB reporting and investigating

2.8 Assisting police enquires

2.9 Work in partnership with enforcement agencies e.g. police, LA departments etc

2.10 Assisting with neighbour nuisance & unauthorised occupation

2.11 Check security arrangement for void/squatted properties

3 Maintenance and Repairs Duties

3.1 Inspection of communal areas

3.2 Report communal repairs

3.3 Report repairs on behalf of residents

3.4 Report repairs on behalf of vulnerable residents

3.5 Arrange emergency repairs

3.6 Basic maintenance of fire fighting equipment

3.7 Be aware of stopcocks and keep a supply of stopcock keys

3.8 Maintain and manage communal keys

3.9 Carry out cleaning tasks e.g. boiler house tanks rooms, graffiti

removal etc

3.10 Swap refuse bins when full and ensure chute room is clean and free of litter (on weekends/bank holidays)

3.11 Carry out regular health and safety checks and complete weekly H&S inspections forms

Appendix C Concierge service costs and contribution recovery position in 2012/13

Block No Residents Tenant Annual Lease Annual

T L Weekly total Weekly total Annual Total Net Loss

Charge Income Charge Income Total Costs to HRA

2012/13 Tenant 2012/13 Lease Income 2012/13 2012/13

Ebenezer House 65 15 9.34 31,569 11.36 8,861 40,430 57,946 -17,516

Hurley House 70 10 9.34 33,998 11.36 5,907 39,905 58,093 -18,188

Fairford House 69 13 9.34 33,512 11.36 7,679 41,191 57,946 -16,755

Brittany 95 17 9.34 46,140 9.11 8,053 54,193 65,986 -11,793

Ward 74 23 9.34 35,940 9.11 10,896 46,836 56,780 -9,945

Elkington 76 11 9.34 36,912 9.11 5,211 42,123 51,219 -9,096

Penryn 57 9 9.34 27,684 21.38 10,006 37,690 85,480 -47,790

Falmouth 59 9 9.34 28,655 21.38 10,006 38,661 88,505 -49,844

Kelvedon 66 15 9.34 32,055 10.02 7,816 39,870 44,431 -4,560

Rundell Tower 71 11 9.34 34,483 10.02 5,731 40,215 42,569 -2,355

Wimborne House 82 22 9.34 39,826 6.34 7,253 47,079 41,837 5,242

Durington house 62 18 9.34 30,112 13.02 12,187 42,299 65,424 -23,125

Amesbury Tower 66 14 9.34 32,055 13.02 9,479 41,533 65,424 -23,890

Southwyck House 139 34 9.34 67,510 24.42 43,175 110,684 261,698 -151,014

Holland Rise TMO

Holland Rise

House/Whitebeam

House

71 32 9.34 34,483 6.87 11,432 45,915

45,164 751

URH

Loughborough 356 56 9.34 172,902 15.33 44,641 217,543 372,047 -154,504 Totals 1,478 309 717,835 208,331 926,166 1,460,550 -534,384

Appendix D Concierge Review – Focus Group flipchart notes Wednesday 10th April Participants’ profile 5 x participants (4 tenants and 1 leaseholder) 4 x female 1 x male 2 x Kettleby House 1 x Styles Gardens 1 x Holland Rise 1 x Durrington/Amersbury Notes The service What does a concierge service mean to you? What is the purpose of the service? Kettleby House Means nothing!

- Don’t have a service 90% of the time - The service is supposed to be from 7am-12pm but this rarely happens - Have been told that the reason that the staff finish early is because

staff have to get a bus home, however all of them have cars. - There’s no service is a member of staff is sick or on leave - The service is over managed. At presented there are 12 staff, 3

supervisors and 1 manager who deals with CCTV as well - Staff have no powers, they can’t stop people entering buildings - The staff are meant to check communal bulbs but this doesn’t happen - Staff sit playing with phones etc

Amesbury / Durrington (leaseholder)

- Hours: supposed to be a 17 hours service with 8 hour shifts (7am-4pm or 4pm to 12am). In reality don’t do their hours staff start/finish 30 minutes after/before.

- SLA: what is the standard expected? - What is the role of the concierge? - What is the level of service that is meant to be delivered? - Residents and the council are being ripped off.

Styles Garden (no concierge, has CCTV)

- How do we know where CCTV goes and who is it monitored by?

- Here on behalf of her mum who is 80+ years old and is concerned about ASB. Has complained to local EMB.

Holland Rise The purpose/meaning of the concierge is:

- In control of safety - Deterrent for ASB - Comfort to some elderly residents (concierge staff visit them for a chat

and get newspaper for them) What sort of services would you expect a Concierge Service to provide?

Service Priority

Monitoring visitors *

Receiving deliveries

Block checks *

Liaising with housing department

Listening to residents

Reporting communal repairs

Reporting / recording noise pollution *

Having a consistent presence (in each block)

*

Cleaning / Clearing rubbish

Assisting people with mobility problems

Reporting ASB / Dealing with ASB (by dispersing groups)

*

Monitoring CCTV *

Having a positive attitude *

What are the positives and negatives of your concierge service?

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

Kettleby None Holland Rise

- Regular and consistent service - Helpful and report things - Clear structure: residents (in

general) know who does what Durrington / Amesbury

- Familiarity (positive & negative)

- Deterrent for undesirables - Point of contact for communal

issues

Kettleby - Why are residents without a

concierge service paying for one

- ‘Over managed’ – top heavy staff structure

- Staff attitude, some are not very helpful

- No parcel collection, have to go to post office to collect

- Blocks sharing concierge staff - Lack of accountability - Staff having interrelationships - Overcharged for a poor service

Durrington / Amesbury

- Familiarity (positive &

negative) - Lack of consistency in service

provided across borough (general comment)

- Don’t challenge people - Lambeth concierge service

provided by lots of different contractors. Not consistent, would be better to have one contract across the borough (general comment)

Holland Rise

- Residents having different expectations of their concierge service (general comment)

- Not enough clarity bout what a the concierge service is ‘supposed’ to provide (general comment)

- Seems to be a lack of staff training (general comment)

Estate Safety On a scale of 1-5, how safe do you feel on your estate (day and then night/dark)? Day

R3 R4

R1 R2

1 Unsafe

2 3 4 5 Safe

R2 R3

R1 R4

Night/dark Reasons for safety rating Resident 1 (Holland Rise): Feels safe in the day (5) but not at night (2). Does not feel safe after the concierge has gone - concierge is a deterrent. Resident 2 (Styles Garden): Feels safe in the day (5) but not at night (1). Rowdy and rude behaviour mainly by young people makes you feel unsafe. Here on behalf on her mum who is 80+ years old. This behaviour makes her mum feel uncomfortable in her own home. People are noisy at night time and there is no respect for the elderly.

Resident 3 (Kettleby House): Feels reasonably safe in the day (3) but not at night (1). The inconsistent concierge service makes this resident feel unsafe, the concierge staff are not security guards and nor are they the police. Loughborough housing officers don’t walk around the estate or visit blocks. They are mainly desk based. Resident 3 (Durrington / Amesbury - leaseholder): Feels reasonably safe in the day and at night (3).Thinks that the time of day is irrelative to how safe she feels and that safety is subjective. What would male you feel safer?

- Police patrol - Concierge presence - Community police - Having a close relationship with Community Safety

(Durrington/Amesbury has a close relationship) - Kettleby House – People on the estate are apathetic and disillusioned

about the concierge staff and management. - General comment: That we have to tread very carefully when linking

police service with concierge. Is ASB an issue on your estate?

- All participants said YES If YES what do you mean by anti-social behaviour, what do you regard of anti-social behaviour?

- Dogs (dangerous dogs and dogs mess) - Drunks - Druggies - Noise pollution - People doing DIY and hovering- - at anti-social hours

Value for Money Do you think your service is value for money? All participants bar 1 said YES. Participant form Holland Rise was not sure. Those saying no feel as though they are being ripped-off.

- Kettleby: Paying for a physical presence on the block but feel they are not getting this

- Durrington / Amesbury: Reduce the cost by doing a decent review of the service with proper facts and figures.

Extending hours of operation The majority of participants would not be willing to pay more for extended hours of operation, except for participant from Holland Rise who would be willing to pay more. Other comments

- Residents from Kettleby House would be happy for the service to go. - They also felt that the replacement of the intercom system was a waste

of money as the old one was working.

Satisfaction / dissatisfaction with concierge service overall

74% 11% 12% 3%

Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied No reply

Would you be prepared to pay more for an improved concierge service?

19%

11%

49%

69%

28%

16%

4%

4%

Tenants

Leaseholders

Yes No Don't know No reply

Appendix E

Would you be prepared to pay more for an improved concierge service?

27%

15%

11%

20%

12%

21%

45%

45%

33%

60%

63%

50%

57%

27%

32%

56%

20%

25%

31%

21%

8%

13%

8%

1%

Other

Retired

Self employed

Doing voluntary work

In education / training

Unemployed

In employment

Yes No Don't know No reply

Do you agree or disagree that within your building the concierge service...?

74%

62%

67%

66%

73%

8%

11%

11%

14%

9%

11%

20%

14%

12%

10%

7%

7%

8%

8%

8%

Improves security

Prevents unwanted visitors

entering

Prevents vandalism

Helps up reduce anti-social

behaviour

Makes the housing

environment better

Agree Neither Disagree No reply

Appendix F

Perception of ASB and safety results

Percentage of respondents feeling safe on their estate

34%

47%

With concierge Without concierge

Percentage of residents agreeing that ASB is

a problem on their estate

15%

23%

With concierge Without concierge

To what extent are any of the following a problem on your estate?

9%

19%

10%

9%

10%

12%

17%

28%

12%

31%

32%

33%

26%

18%

38%

42%

52%

82%

46%

53%

52%

60%

74%

47%

38%

11%

4%

5%

5%

5%

5%

3%

2%

2% 6%

3%

Other crimes

Abandoned or burnt out

vehicles

Drug use or dealing

People damaging property

Vandalism and graffiti

Drunk or rowdy behaviour

Racial or other harassment

Disruptive children/teenagers

Noisy neighbours

Major problem Minor problem Not a problem No reply

Satisfaction with reported anti-social behaviour

37%

39%

37%

29%

17%

10%

10%

15%

44%

50%

52%

54%

2%

2%

2%

2%

The advice provided

The support provided

The speed with which your

anti-social behaviour was

dealt with

How well you were kept

informed about what was

happening throughout your

anti-social behaviour case

Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied No reply

How willing would you be to report any anti-social behaviour in the future?

62% 31% 8%

Willing Reluctant Don't know

Appendix G Islington and Sandwell Homes Visit notes Notes from Concierge Visit to Islington – 14th February 2013 Went to visit King Square Estate in Islington to see the CCTV monitoring system that they use with Jennifer Thomas and Abi Laseinde from the Concierge review group. Meet the CCTV manager and concierge on site. Background: Kings square is a large estate of about 800 units which has 4 large tower blocks and lots of low rise social housing. CCTV has operated on the estate for 6 years. Started off as access control to dealing with ASB issues There are 104 camera’s on the estate which is monitored from one central control room on the estate (which use to be parking that was under blocks) which is manned 21 hrs per day. Camera connected to intercoms but not smoke alarms but do operate including voice/ visual in lifts (helps if people get struck in lift and can be spoken to until lift is repaired. Cameras rotates the whole estate in 1 hour, hot spots on full screen Information is stored for 28 days and then it over rights. Concierge only monitors camera’s and reports communal repairs. They also liaise with police on ASB issues at bi- monthly meetings and complete incident forms/ update council where relevant. The manager also attends TRA meetings. They do not conduct estate inspections, provide access for contractors, patrol, hold keys, or provide meet and greet to residents. CCTV works well and reasonably reliable with a good turn around on repairs or technical issues. Estate is in process of works which includes updating and re-sighting cameras, improving lighting to assist with viewing and updating intercoms. (No cost info available) As a result of having CCTV:

• Levels of ASB have reduced including general crime in surrounding

area – stats and cost information can be obtained from Dan at council

and was not available on the day.

Only complaints from residents: 1. They are unable to view what is captured by CCTV – goes straight to

police’/council

2. Areas where there are no cameras or camera can not be sighted such

as on residents front doors.

The main areas for improvement:

• More camera’s

• Update camera’s and re- sight to ensure that they comply with

legalisation

• More people in control rooms during busy times.

• Relationship with police are good but would like to build on this

• More comprehensive training for concierge which needs to cover IT

(new technology, CCTV, evidence gathering.

Summary – The visit very clearly demonstrated how CCTV can improve an area and reduce ASB. It also dispelled some of the concerns residents wanting / needing a more meet and greet. It appears that what is more important to residents is that it reduces ASB/ Crime, improved security and the feeling safe. Sandwell Homes CCTV/Concierge service – visit summary notes (22nd March 2013) Officers and a tenant representative (CB, SA, AL, BH, JT) from the review group attended the visit to gain a better understanding of the service provision in terms of associated cost, maintenance, impact on ASB levels and future aspirations. The visit was facilitated by the CCTV/Concierge Service manager Jason Flannagan and two colleagues. Background information Prior to 2011 Sandwell Homes provided a 24 hour shift pattern service from various locations with a team of 55 members of staff. As part of service improvement measures, it was suggested that the service was delivered from 3 command sites across the housing stock. However a final decision was taken to provide a standardised and central service from a purpose built location. The main drivers for centralising the service provision were to protect the investment on the service, offer value to residents and community safety. This decision created an annual cost saving of £500k in 2011. A centralised service has been fully operation from 2011 and is delivered from a Control Room that is staffed 24 hours 7 days a week. There are 54 high rise blocks in the borough and 29 blocks currently receive a standardised service. Over 500 cameras are located in public spaces and estates; covering communal areas, door entrances and lifts. Audio CCTV cameras are available in public spaces. There are currently 8 members of staff and 4 supervisors on a four on and four off shift per week 24/7. The Control Room is linked to the property data base that is used to identify fob entrance key holders. It is also often used as a command centre as an added value to the Police. The radios are linked to town centre Police. Key advantages of the Control Room

• Reassurance through intercom system

• Monitoring through CCTV system

• Partnership working through effective liaison with other agencies and residents

Cost of Service provision The current annual cost of service provision and maintenance is approximately £2m. The ALMO is responsible for the service and it does not pay for itself, therefore subsidised by the Council. However it is envisaged that with addition income that will be generated, the service – Control Room will be able to become self sufficient in terms of its maintenance costs. The service manager stressed that the service is not just about providing CCTV, it is also about controlling access to blocks and providing a concierge service. In determining the cost of service charge to the residents, Welfare Reforms were taken into consideration as there was a concern that CCTV cost would not be covered under new housing benefit (HB) regime. However this has not been the case and residents can claim for the service charge as part of HB. All residents pay the same service charge of £8.05 per week for; door entrance control, CCTV and concierge Approximately £600k will be required for new investment for expansion to the remaining 25 blocks that current do not have the service. There is only one maintenance contractor and this assists in maintaining the cost of the service provision. Intercom – Door entry services

• Day-to-day access control and assisting visitors and deterring nuisance callers

• Dealing with a range of issues, repairs, ASB, residents stuck in the lifts, health and safety.

• Assists in identifying abandoned properties

• Issue warnings via intercoms in relation to tenancy breaches such as noise nuisance.

• Control access to some blocks from 6pm-7am

• Vetting callers and visitors

• Check on residents’ welfare, provide feedback on inquiries and enforce tenancy conditions

Sharing information and intelligence

• Information and intelligence gathered is shared with the Police, tenancy officers, Wardens, Neighbourhood Officers and ASB teams.

• Service operatives aim to del with incidents as much as possible at source but also forward information to relevant teams to ensure appropriate follow up actions are taken

• Daily and weekly reports are produced and forwarded to relevant agencies for required actions

Incidents and actions handled in Control Room in 2011

• A total of 2741 incidents reported

• 1013 incidents resolved at source (Control Room)

• 718 incidents where information has been passed to other agencies

• 937 actions taken as a result of information and intelligence provided

• 73 incidents were no actions were taken The Control Room operatives deploy emergency services depending on the incidents captured. Listed below provide an overview of incidents dealt with by various agencies:

• 305 by the Police

• 33 by Ambulance services

• 21 by Fire Brigade Categories of ASB handled Since 2011, there has been an increase in crime/ASB case load reported because the service is now able to capture, report and record more incidents through the various camera footage. ASB partnership working is now more co-ordinated across the borough. Effective coverage of the service, TRAs involvement and regeneration of estates have helped to reduce vandalism and ASB. Listed below are some of ASB dealt with:

• Noise nuisance

• Communal nuisance

• Criminal behaviour

• Litter/fly tipping and vandalism Incidents dealt with at source

• Suicide threats

• Persons carrying weapons

• Found missing children

• Intervened in a kidnap

• Led Police to drug dens Partnerships with residents

• Drop-in sessions are held in the control with housing services panels, resident groups, Councillors and Community Crime agencies

• Service manager regularly attends TRA meeting and assists in addressing issues

Partnership with Sandwell Wardens The Wardens are part funded by Sandwell Homes and there is an SLA in place. The role of the Wardens is integral to the service delivered from the Control Room. Wardens attend to minor incidents of ASB, noise nuisance and a total of 190 incidents were dealt with by the Wardens in 2011.

Information and intelligences shared assists and reassured the Wardens in carrying out roles such as; door knocking, estate patrols and systems checks as part of health and safety measures. West Midlands Police The Control Room has supplied CCTV footage on nearly 2000 occasions and assisted the Police with their investigations. In 2011 at least 40 arrests were a direct result of footage captured. It was also the primary provider of CCTV evidence in the August 2011 riots. Other service

• There service will be expanded to other residents on 27 blocks that are currently not receiving the service.

• Alarm receiving part of the service is a big target that could generate significant income from other revenue stream linked to the wireless cameras across the borough

• The Control Room will continue to provide the services to the Council – Town Centre coverage

• Support partners such as the Trident

Appendix H Explored concierge service models 1. Model 1 – Standardise existing service

1.2 Lambeth provides a concierge service is delivered through repairs and maintenance contractors as part of LPC, with the exception of Loughborough where the service is delivered in-house and Holland Rise where external agency staff deliver the service.

1.3 The service is delivered at the cost of £1.5m and the service is funded from service charges levied to residents within the blocks that benefit from the service. The tenant contribution for 2013/14 is set at a uniform weekly charge of £12.44 and leaseholders contribute the full cost of the service on their respective blocks.

1.4 It is proposed that the current service remains as is with improvements on service standards to deliver a consistent approach across estates

1.5 Advantages associated with this model are:

• There would be no disruption to the service

• The issues associated with disparity in service levels would be resolved through a consistent service provision

• A standardised service would ensure efficiency in the delivery of the service and value for residents

• Residents would be able to choose to pay for an enhanced service

1.5 Disadvantages associated with this model are:

• The service may cease to be affordable to residents at full cost recovery under the current financial climate.

• LPC contract costs increase annually during the 7 year contract period, due to inflationary uplifts built into the contract and this could have an impact on costs and resident satisfaction.

2. Model 2 –Local delivery model

2.1 This service delivery model is currently delivered at Holland Rise and Whitebeam TMO. The service is out sourced whilst supervisory responsibility is retained by the Estate Manager. The current cost of the service is £38,671 which is within the TMO management allowance received from the Council.

2.2 This model would not be ideal as a borough wide option as it requires residents to have sufficient capacity and existing structures that would support local deliver. However it can be encouraged in view of co-delivery with the residents as part of the Council’s co-operative agenda.

2.3 Advantages associated with this model:

• The service would be delivered in partnership with the residents

• Full cost recovery would be achievable

• This could lead to reduction in staffing costs through the use of resident volunteers

2.4 Disadvantages associated with this model

• Residents may not have sufficient capacity and structure to take on local delivery

• It would be difficult to monitor performance at local delivery

• There may be contractual and legal implications in delivering this model, including breach of contract, TUPE and redundancies and may only be viable for TMOs

3. Model 3 - Sandwell Homes CCTV/ Door Entry Control model

3.1 Sandwell Homes provides a centralised service that has been fully operation from 2011 and is delivered from a central Control Room that is staffed 24 hours 7 days a week 365 days a year. The control Room systems are integrated to the property database that is used to identify fob entrance key holders and control access to blocks. The service is also complemented by a warden and communal cleaning services

3.2 The current annual cost of service provision and maintenance is approximately £2m. It should be noted that the existing remote CCTV infrastructure was used as part of the new provision. All residents pay the same service charge of £8.05 per week and this includes;; door entry control, CCTV and concierge

3.3 Adopting this model is likely to incur high capital set up cost for the installation of integrated door entry systems as well as altering the current door systems to ensure compatibility with the Sandwell service model. It is not possible to estimate maintenance and revenue costs without a feasible study. Therefore consultants would need to be employed to carry out a feasibility study in order to provide a full appraisal of costs and implications associated with this model.

3.4 Advantages associated with this model:

• CCTV would and detect more incidents of ASB and vandalism

• Recorded footage can be used to investigate and deal with ASB complaints

• It will allow access and information intelligence sharing across relevant agencies such as the Police.

• It could be used to support in delivering housing management services such as: carrying out enforcement actions, identifying abandoned properties and detecting tenancy fraud.

• Integrated intercoms could be used to check on the welfare of vulnerable residents

• It would provide residents with the reassurance that staff would be available to offer assistance 24/7 from the control room.

3.5 Disadvantages associated with this model:

• It may displace ASB to other estates/ neighbourhoods

• It may not have an impact on the various categories of ASB and crime such as noise nuisance.

• Housing management services would need to identify other ways of dealing with urgent communal repairs in the absence of a physical presence in the blocks.

• Significant capital investment would be required to install the infra-structure, which would then need to be serviced and maintained

• Costs would still be incurred in providing a 24/7 service 365 a year.

4. Model 4 - Mobile Patrol

4.1 This model would a departure from the current traditional concierge service provision in the borough. Under this model the traditional concierge officers would be replaced with mobile patrol officers with patrol vehicles to carryout periodic inspection and security patrolling of estates

4.2 This model would presume a certain level of borough wide joined up working arrangements with other stakeholders such as Community Safety and the Council’s CCTV service. It should however be noted that Community Safety have no financial resources that could be used to fund the service provision. Additionally the review group has not been able to identify any other provider who delivers this service for costs appraisal.

4.3 Advantages associated with this model:

• The service can be delivered across all Lambeth estates

• It could offer flexibility in the delivery of a service that can be specific to individual estates that are considered to be hot spots for ASB.

• Residents could benefit from economies of scale by paying a reduced service charge that is spread across all residents on estates.

4.4 Disadvantages associated with this model

• There is a potential for significant increase of ASB, crime and vandalism of estates after patrol time.

• There could be hidden costs associated with this model such as additional CCTV cameras and monitoring, leasing or purchasing patrolling equipment and additional insurance for officers if the service is delivered in-house.

• This could lead to redundancies and the Council may be liable to damage and loss of profit to the contractors as well as TUPE terms and conditions