The Chair informed the scrutiny committee that she had been contacted by Mr John Hardman asking if the council could carry out a scrutiny on Watford Community Housing.  She invited Mr Hardman to explain his reasons for the request.

Mr Hardman explained that he had considerable correspondence with Watford Community Housing and had met the group’s representatives to discuss his issues.  He was aware that the council had previously scrutinised the group and he had attended scrutiny meetings when councillors had put pressing questions to the organisation’s representatives.  He advised that he had two main concerns which were ‘value for money’ and the performance of companies contracted to carry out work, particularly garden maintenance and the legionella check in the tanks located in the blocks of flats.

Mr Hardman informed the scrutiny committee that the service charges had increased considerably over the last couple of years.  In 2016/17 the charges were increased to 100% of costs.  For the current financial year the costs had been increased by £9 per week.  With regard to contractors’ performance, previously he had videoed a contractor and then sent it to the group’s Chief Executive.  The Chief Executive had agreed that the contractor had not been carrying out inspections as required; she had apologised and advised that the tenants would not be charged that part of the service charge for that particular year.  Mr Hardman explained how much the tenants were charged weekly for the legionella testing and commented that he felt this was a high figure for two inspections each year.  He said that he was not convinced that the company had carried out the work during the current financial year. 

Mr Hardman explained to the scrutiny committee that the Homes and Community Agency were the regulating body for social housing providers.  Value for money was a key part of the regulations.  He felt that Watford Community Housing was not providing ‘value for money’ and therefore not meeting this key regulation.

The Chair thanked Mr Hardman and opened the discussion to the scrutiny committee.

Councillors were concerned about the issues raised by Mr Hardman and were aware of issues within their own wards.  There was some concern whether the council was able to carry out the scrutiny and the powers it had to make an external organisation carry out its recommendations.

The Chair confirmed that the council was able to scrutinise external organisations, however it had no power to force them to carry out any recommendations.  The council was able to put forward recommendations for organisations to consider.

Councillor Asif Khan referred to the previous task group which had looked at Watford Community Housing.  The Chief Executive and others in her management team had attended the scrutiny meetings and had responded to the recommendations.  He was not aware of any reason the council was prevented from scrutinising the group.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised councillors that scrutiny was an ‘influencing’ role, particularly in respect of external organisations.  She would work with the chair and Councillor Asif Khan on the scrutiny proposal form and present it at the next meeting.  The task group would commence in the next municipal year.

RESOLVED –

1.      that a scrutiny proposal be developed on the review of Watford Community Housing with particular focus on service charges and their value for money and the performance of the group’s contractors.

2.      that the scrutiny proposal be presented at the next meeting for formal approval.