Agenda item

The document sets out the update on the outstanding actions which arose at previous meetings.

The Scrutiny Committee received an update incorporating the outstanding actions and questions raised at previous meetings.  Responses were included within the document.  The Committee and Scrutiny Officer had circulated additional responses prior to the meeting.

 

Members considered the responses to each of the outstanding actions and questions.  They agreed which actions had been completed.

 

WP 9 – latest position of the Benefits Service

 

The Chair invited the Portfolio Holder responsible for Shared Services to update the Scrutiny Committee on the progress of the Benefits Service.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that the Head of Revenues and Benefits had been quizzed by Members at the Shared Services Joint Committee regarding SERCO’s workload and throughput.  The company had managed to work on the change of circumstance cases.  It was felt that the level of 2,000 documents awaiting processing as a ‘trigger point’ when SERCO would be required to provide short-term support was too high.  It was considered that the ‘trigger point’ should be between 1,000 and 1,500 documents depending on the complexity of the cases.  SERCO were able to process the change of circumstances quickly.  The Head of Revenues and Benefits felt that the situation was under control. 

 

The Portfolio Holder reported that:

·               the number of outstanding cases at the end of January was 228; 112 were live.  99 of those cases had appeared within the last three weeks; only 13 were older than three weeks. 

·               Eight of the outstanding cases had been received in September; nine in October; 25 in November; 69 in December and 118  in January. 

·               Of the live cases, 2 had been received in September; 2 in October; 2 in November; 7 in December and 99 in January. 

 

The service was processing cases nearly straight away once all the information had been received.  Members wanted the service improved further to ensure cases were processed within a week of receipt.  The ultimate target would be that cases were processed in three days.

 

Following a Member’s questions, the Portfolio Holder explained that the documents were not physically sent to SERCO.  The documents were scanned on to the computer and the contractor accessed the information through a portal.  Residents’ queries were handled by the Council and not SERCO.  He added that each time the Government made changes to the benefits system clients contacted the Council.  It was important to ensure that the right intervention levels for SERCO were in place.  It had been necessary to ensure that the Benefits Team were able to manage their workload.

 

Following a question about queries received at the Customer Service Centre, the Portfolio Holder explained that, as part of the Improvement Programme, it had been decided that the benefit staff would not take change of circumstance forms from clients.  Straightforward cases could be handed into the Customer Service Centres at both authorities.  Currently this was more successful in Three Rivers than in Watford.  He added that the types of cases for the two authorities were very different.  In addition Customer Service Centre staff at Three Rivers District Council had been carrying out this role longer than the Watford staff.

 

The Vice-Chair sought assurance that those clients with more complicated cases could speak to a member of staff from the Benefits Service.

 

The Portfolio Holder confirmed that this facility was still available.  In certain cases officers visited people at home.  Sometimes this might be as there was one document missing and it was quicker to collect it in person than rely on the postal service.

 

Following a question from the Vice-Chair about budget implications, the Portfolio Holder responded that there were no additional implications in the current year, other than those already agreed by the Shared Services Joint Committee.  There were concerns about the potential workload in the next financial year and the possible impact of the Universal Credit on the service.

 

Following a Member’s question about the number of staff used by SERCO for the work, the Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee that there were 30 employees in the Benefits section.  SERCO allocated between four and six people per day to the work.  The Head of Revenues and Benefits monitored the number of cases the contractor handled.

 

Following a further question, the Portfolio Holder advised that the company would be used when the intervention level had been reached.  This was currently the cheaper option until the Universal Credit had been introduced and the impact on the service was known.  There were some Councillors from Three Rivers District Council who questioned whether the service should be outsourced.  The situation in the service had materially improved since December.  The number of new cases had reduced and the number of outstanding documents had been more than halved.  Managers were seeing a reduced pressure on the staff.

 

The Chair asked whether the SERCO staff were better than the Shared Services’ staff at addressing queries or whether it was just that there were more of them carrying out the work.

 

The Portfolio Holder replied that the staff at SERCO could concentrate on addressing the cases and were not distracted by queries from clients.

 

A Member said that he noted the Portfolio Holder’s comments.  He said that the service had been a concern for Members and the Scrutiny Committee should continue to monitor it.  The Scrutiny Committee should also monitor the Revenues and Benefits Health check which had been reported to the Shared Services Joint Committee.

 

The Chair thanked the Portfolio Holder for the information.  He said that it had also been useful to see the action plan which had been presented to the Shared Services Joint Committee.  He felt that at the present time an investigation into the service was not necessary, however, he asked the Portfolio Holder to keep the Scrutiny Committee apprised of the situation.

 

The Scrutiny Committee agreed that no further action was required at present.

 

The Vice-Chair agreed that the Scrutiny should continue to monitor the service and be aware of the future situation, in particular the impact of the Universal Credit.  He suggested that at some point Members might wish to review the past and future provision of the service.

 

The Portfolio Holder reported that there was still very little known about the Universal Credit.  The Head of Revenues and Benefits would be attending a conference which would be looking at this matter.  The Head of Revenues and Benefits could possibly attend the Scrutiny Committee in the summer and provide an update for Members.  The Scrutiny Committee could then decide whether to set up a Task Group. 

 

The Vice-Chair suggested that it would be preferable to review the situation in the Autumn.

 

The Chair noted the comment that councillors from Three Rivers District Council had suggested outsourcing the service.  He asked how long SERCO’s contract had remaining.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that if the Benefits service was outsourced there would still be the Revenues service in-house.  That Team would probably move back into the Finance department.  Another option would be to put the service under one local authority and carry the work out for the other authority under the ‘lead authority’ model.  This was his preferred option as governance arrangements were easier.  Shared Services was very complex.

 

The Chair thanked the Portfolio Holder for the update.

 

It was agreed that unless circumstances changed markedly for the worse a further review of the service would be carried out in Autumn 2012.

 

Affordable Housing Review actions

 

The Scrutiny Committee noted the update for this review.

 

A Member said that she thought one of the concerns was the type of homes being created compared to the number of dwellings.  There was a need for family homes in the Borough. 

 

The Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee that a social housing need survey was carried out.  This had shown that the most pressing need was for one or two-bed properties.  The problem for families was the availability of three-bed houses, as they did not become available very often.  For developers to be able to build three-bed houses they needed to find large development sites. 

 

The Vice-Chair referred to the new Housing Policy Advisory Group which was chaired by the Mayor.  Any issues could be raised with that group. 

 

A Member commented that he had been informed by the Head of Community Services that there was a demand for one-bed properties.  Watford Community Housing Trust, however, said that there was a need for family homes.  People lived in flats as they were the only accommodation available.  Families left the town to find accommodation.  He added that personally he wanted to see more family homes being built.

 

The Portfolio Holder explained that the turnover for flats and houses was different.  The Housing Policy Advisory Group would look at the housing need and the availability issue.  There was little space available in the Borough to develop three-bed houses. 

 

A Member commented that she was aware that the Housing Trust had a large number of single people in three-bed properties.  It was difficult to move these people into smaller properties.

 

The Chair suggested that if Members had any concerns or comments, these should be referred to the Housing Policy Advisory Group.

 

Work Programme and Task Groups

 

WP 7 – South West Herts Cycling Strategy Review – The Chair advised that he needed to follow up on this action.  Once the information had been received it would be circulated to the Scrutiny Committee.

 

WP 8 – Review of the provision of drug treatment in the Borough – It was agreed that the deadline for this action would be amended to read July 2012.

 

RESOLVED –

 

1.         that the Benefits Service be reviewed in Autumn 2012.

 

2.         that the outstanding actions and questions list be updated as agreed.