Agenda item

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review the outstanding actions and questions from previous meetings.

 

The Scrutiny Committee received an update incorporating the outstanding actions and questions raised at previous meetings.  Responses were included within the document. 

 

Members considered the responses to each of the outstanding actions and questions. 

 

OA 6 – Benefits Service Update

 

The Chair invited Councillor Watkin, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Shared Services, to update the Scrutiny Committee on the Benefits Service.

 

The Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee that there was evidence that the service was resolving the problem with the number of outstanding claims.  He reminded Members that there were two relevant performance indicators; changes in circumstances and outstanding claims.  The outstanding claims referred to those people waiting to receive any benefits from the Council. 

 

The Portfolio Holder said that when he had been chairing Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Members were continually told how many documents were outstanding.  When he had been made Portfolio Holder he had asked that the number of outstanding claims was provided instead.  He received a weekly report from the service.  There had been a thorough review of the performance of all teams in the section.  The process was ongoing.

 

The Portfolio Holder reported that the average time to process a claim was 27 days against the target of 25.  The number of outstanding claims at 2 July was 309; this figure had been reduced and it was now standing at 124.  The service was beginning to see a change.  The situation with regard to change in circumstance applications was not as good.  The number of outstanding documents barely changed from one week to the next.  The number of documents processed varied dramatically.  He advised that SERCO was only paid for the actual work it carried out.  A review into the relationship with SERCO was currently under way.  He was unsure of the terms and conditions in which the company had been employed.  A report was being presented to the Shared Services Joint Committee at its next meeting.

 

Councillor Aron said that she was concerned about the impact the backlog had on the individuals concerned.  She had a case where the residents had moved from Watford to Dacorum; they had made the last payment due but had still received a reminder for non-payment.  The situation had since been resolved, but it had been very distressing for the people concerned.  She asked whether there was the same problem in this service.

 

The Portfolio Holder advised that this related to the Revenues section and generally that service's performance was adequate.

 

The Vice-Chair, Councillor Khan thanked the Portfolio Holder for being open and transparent about the figures.  He stated that he was a member of the Shared Services Joint Committee and had been sceptical about the actions being taken.  The people caught by the problems with the Benefits Service were vulnerable people.  The problem needed to be resolved.  He added that he had noticed two signs in the Customer Service Centre (CSC) which caused him some concern.  One of these signs indicated that there were delays with benefit claims.  The amount it had cost the Councils to employ SERCO could have been spent on employing additional full-time staff.

 

The Portfolio Holder supported the Councillor's concerns.  He was concerned that the Council was dealing with human beings.  He was unsure, however, if additional staff would have been the right solution.  He informed Members that the demand for benefits had increased by 20%.  The number of claimants in Watford was higher than the national average.  When the staffing level had been set for Shared Services it had been based on a number of assumptions, which were now understood to be wrong.

 

Following a question from the Chair, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that SERCO was only involved in change of circumstance applications.  With regard to the improved situation, he explained that improvements had been made to the initial contact at the CSC.  Officers checked that applicants had the right documents.  This meant that the Benefits service suffered far fewer interruptions to their work.  Phone calls were handled by the CSC.  The productivity of the teams had been reassessed; the processes had been reviewed and there had been an increase in overall productivity.

 

Following a question from Councillor Bell, the Portfolio Holder reported that, as at 20 August, there were over 3,000 documents outstanding.  He had not been advised of the average number of days it was taking to process change of circumstances.

 

Councillor Bell acknowledged the comments regarding the staff; however the economy had got worse.  The Portfolio Holder had stated that Watford had suffered a greater increase in claims and change of circumstances than the national average.  He noted that SERCO were not based at the Council and therefore did not see the customers. 

 

The Portfolio Holder replied that SERCO, theoretically, was able to process the documents and not be disturbed by enquiries.  The negative side of this however was that the assessors were removed from the impact on residents and their concerns.  He endorsed the use of outside support to reduce the backlog.

 

Councillor Martins felt that SERCO had been engaged but the delivery had not been managed.  The company was carrying out the work it had been required to do.  This was an emotive issue for Councillors.  Residents were being chased for Council Tax payments and rent arrears whilst they were waiting for their applications to be assessed.  It was necessary to link the various services together.  He asked how many people the 3,000 documents affected.

 

The Portfolio Holder advised that he did not have that information.

 

Councillor Martins stated that it was important that information was available.  He also asked what was being done to protect the people affected by the backlog where the fault rested with the Council.  He felt that the situation was not being taken seriously enough.

 

The Portfolio Holder responded that when benefit claimants did not hear about their application they came into the CSC to make enquiries.  He assured the Scrutiny Committee that the problems with the service were being taken seriously.  It affected people's lives.

 

Councillor Hofman asked whether it was possible to know how many staff were in the Benefits section and whether they had a staff forum.  He questioned whether it would be possible to invite benefits officers to a meeting in order for them to be able to explain the difficulties and how the Council could help.

 

The Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee that the Shared Services Joint Committee managed and scrutinised the service.  He was happy to report to Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the general position of the service.

 

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer reminded Members that it was possible to call-in decisions taken by the Three Rivers and Watford Shared Services Joint Committee.  The same call-in rules applied as Executive Key Decisions taken by Watford Borough Council.  She explained the complete procedure should a decision be called in from the Joint Committee.  She noted that the Vice-Chair was also a member of the Joint Committee and therefore he would not be able to be party to the call-in or chair Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

The Vice-Chair said that more scrutiny of the situation was needed.  A large sum of money had been spent on SERCO carrying out the work.  Originally officers had promised that the work would be complete by last Christmas, but it had not happened.  Delays had occurred and the situation needed to be resolved.  There had been an increase in the volume of work but a decrease in staffing.

 

The Portfolio Holder assured him that attention was being given to this matter.

 

Following a question from Councillor Aron, the Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised that there was no reason why information gained in the public part of the meeting could not be discussed at another committee, for example the Shared Services Joint Committee.

 

The Chair suggested that Members could look at the Shared Services Joint Committee's report and then consider whether they felt any further action was required.  She thanked the Portfolio Holder for his contribution to the meeting.

 

The Vice-Chair asked that it be noted in the minutes that the Scrutiny Committee was concerned about the situation regarding the change in circumstance applications.  The problems needed to be resolved as soon as possible. 

 

VS 1 – Support for the Voluntary Sector Task Group recommendations

 

The Scrutiny Committee noted the response from the Head of Community Services and Head of Legal and Property Services and acknowledged the recommendations would be covered by the new Commissioning Framework.

 

AHR 1 – Affordable Housing Threshold

 

Councillor Martins noted the response but said that he was concerned about the recent changes to planning legislation and the impact it might have.  He suggested that Members continued to monitor the situation.

 

PSL 1 – Property Policy review

 

Councillor Bell advised that he noted the comment in the update.  He said that Members needed to be mindful of how the Commissioning Framework would work.

 

HP 6 – Review of Hospital Parking Charges Task Group's Recommendations

 

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised that she had still not received a response from the hospital despite a letter, email and telephone call.

 

The Chair stated that she had expected some form of response or acknowledgement. 

 

The Vice Chair proposed that the Chair should write to the Directors and copies should be provided to the Hospital Trust's Chief Executive and the Mayor.

 

Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel

 

The Scrutiny Committee was informed that the new Scrutiny Panel had held its first meeting the previous evening.  Councillor Rackett had been elected Chair.

 

Councillor Rackett advised that the Panel would be reviewing SLM at its next meeting in November.  The Panel had received a long list of contracts and it might be possible at a future meeting to look at all relationships, including SERCO.

 

RESOLVED –

 

1.      that the outstanding actions and questions' update be noted and amended according to the Scrutiny Committee's comments.

 

2.      that the Scrutiny Committee's concerns regarding the ongoing problems with change of circumstances benefit applications be noted.

 

3.      that the Chair writes to the Hospital Trust seeking a response and that copies be forwarded to the Mayor and the Trust's Chief Executive.