EVIDENCE TOPICS

ITEM NO: 11 Appendix

�

�

�

�

PANEL MEMBERSHIP Councillor Noon (Chair) Councillor Jackson (Vice Chair) Councillor Dean Councillor Galton Councillor Harryman Councillor Johnson Councillor Odgers Councillor Payne �

�

�

SCRUTINY CO-ORDINATOR Diane Foley diane.foley@southampton.gov.uk 02380 834423

�

���� �� �� ��

�

� � ��� � �� �� � � �� �� � �� �� � � � ��

�� � �� ���� � ���

�

� � �

�

�� � � ���� ��

�

��� �� ��� ���� �� � ��� ������

EVIDENCE TOPICS

Forward This report contains the outcomes of the first of 3 “mini-inquiries” established by Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee to be undertaken during the 2007/09 municipal year. It has been an informative and useful excise, giving the Panel greater insight into Homebid and a number of wider housing issues. Given the short time for the inquiry and only being allowed two additional meetings of the Panel, members did attend extra briefing sessions in order to gain additional background information. Without this extra work I don’t believe the inquiry could have been completed. I would like to thank all those people both within the City Council and outside for their help and information, in particular Diane Foley for her outstanding efforts way beyond any normal expectation. The Homebid process has been successful in giving people more choice in were they live and therefore helping to achieve more stable and successful communities. The recommendations in our report, I believe, identify mechanisms to make improvements to this already successful process. Councillor John Noon Chair, Housing and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Panel

EVIDENCE TOPICS

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of the Housing and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Panel following its mini-Inquiry into the Council’s lettings system, ‘Homebid’. The Inquiry Plan is attached at Appendix 1. The report summarises the evidence gathered, which is set out in full in the separate Record of Evidence, available for inspection upon request to the Head of Corporate Policy and Performance. This report will be referred to Cabinet for its consideration and will be submitted, along with the Cabinet response, to Full Council by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee. The Scrutiny Panel would like to express its appreciation to all those who assisted in the Inquiry. A list of those providing evidence, or otherwise supporting the Inquiry, is set out at Appendix 2.

1.2 INQUIRY TERMS OF REFERENCE This Inquiry was initiated by Overview and Scrutiny Management

Committee at its meeting on 14th June 2007. The full Terms of Reference and timetable are set out in the Inquiry Plan.

1.3 SERVICE MANAGEMENT The Cabinet Member for Housing and Neighbourhoods, Councillor Phil

Williams, is responsible for the portfolio affected by this Inquiry. The lead officer is Nick Murphy, Executive Director for Neighbourhoods.

1.4 DEFINITIONS The following terms are used in this report:- LA – Local Authority LHO – Local Housing Office PUSH – Partnership for Urban South Hampshire RSL – Registered Social Landlord

SCC – Southampton City Council SHS – Swaythling Housing Society

EVIDENCE TOPICS

1.5 INQUIRY FORMAT The Inquiry consisted of four main elements:-

ξ Formal meetings –presentations and information were received over the course of two additional meetings of the Scrutiny Panel;

ξ Informal briefing – the Panel received an informal briefing on the

operation of the Homebid system and a confidential briefing on the Sheltered Housing Review;

ξ Background information - the Panel read and considered a

variety of background and supplementary information;

ξ Reporting – the Panel’s findings and recommendations are summarised in this report.

1.6 REPORT STRUCTURE The report is presented in three main sections:

ξ Summary of information presented; ξ Key Findings arising from the examination of the evidence; ξ Recommendations, setting out actions identified by the Panel as

desirable in order to improve the operation of Homebid.

EVIDENCE TOPICS

2. EVIDENCE TOPICS 2.1 INQUIRY FORMAT & CONTENT

During the course of the Inquiry, the Panel received evidence in the form of presentations, verbal briefings, discussions, written submissions and background research documents. The Panel considered evidence on the following main topics, full details of which are contained in the Record of Evidence:- The Homebid system The Panel was briefed on the rationale for the development of the Homebid system, how the system works in practice, and the different methods of making a bid. The Panel viewed the ‘live’ system, from the point of view of a customer making a bid, examined copies of the Homebid magazine and heard evidence about the advantages and drawbacks of the different bidding methods and the popularity of these methods with customers. Voids The Panel examined the Council’s voids performance and the impact of different types of housing and different bidding methods on the voids statistics. The Panel were also given the findings and recommendations from a recent voids review and examined the action plan that had been prepared to address the problems. National perspective The Panel heard evidence from the Department for Communities and Local Government in respect of the Government’s views about choice-based lettings, and examined relevant Government policy documents Evidence from other organisations The Panel heard evidence from Swaythling Housing Society about their relationship with the Council, experiences with Homebid and comments about how the system could be improved for tenants. The Panel also examined a committee report produced by Brighton City Council reviewing their own choice-based system and how improvements could be made. Customer perspective The Panel heard evidence from representatives of the Tenants’ Federation and Pensioners’ Forum giving their views about Homebid

EVIDENCE TOPICS

and tenants’ experiences of using the system. Evidence was also presented showing the results of a recent customer survey and the levels of satisfaction with various elements of Homebid across a range of tenants. Sheltered Housing The Panel received a confidential briefing on the Council’s forthcoming Sheltered Housing Review to inform the findings of the mini-inquiry.

KEY FINDINGS

3. KEY FINDINGS 3.1 INTRODUCTION TO FINDINGS The Council’s Homebid system was set up in July 2005, to reflect the

Government’s aspirations to increase choice for tenants and to promote sustainable, stable and balanced communities. Prior to Homebid, properties were allocated to tenants by Council officers and this system was viewed by applicants as unfair and difficult to understand.

Homebid operates on the basis of vacancies being advertised fortnightly in a magazine from which applicants are able to bid using a variety of methods. The system is underpinned by a points-based Lettings Policy which was outside the scope of this Inquiry. The Panel heard that demand for social housing vastly exceeds the supply available and that this is the main cause of dissatisfaction from applicants, regardless of the method of allocation.

The aim of the mini-inquiry was to establish the effectiveness of Homebid and in particular the ease and accessibility for all users and the impact of the system on voids performance.

The Findings have been organised into sections according to the main

concerns identified at the start of the Inquiry: accessibility for customers and voids performance. There is then a separate section on working with partners.

3.2 ACCESSIBILITY AND BIDDING METHODS

The Panel heard that there are two ways to browse the properties available for letting:

ξ Through the Homebid magazine, a high quality colour publication

which is produced fortnightly and distributed to numerous outlets around the City, including local libraries and local housing offices: or

ξ Via the ‘virtual’ copy of the magazine published on the Homebid

web pages.

The Panel heard that there are four ways to actually place a bid on a property: through the website, through the use of coupons, by telephone, or by text message. Of these methods, the vast majority of customers prefer to use the website and this number is increasing.

KEY FINDINGS

The Panel heard that the production of the Homebid magazine by the Council’s internal Print Unit is cost effective compared to quotes received from external sources. Furthermore, even if produced to a lower quality specification, there would be no impact on the ability to produce it on a more frequent basis. However, should the magazine be produced in an electronic format only, it would be able to be published weekly. The Panel heard that it may be possible to add newly available properties, which become ready to let after the publication deadline for the magazine but before the bidding cut-off date, to a ‘late deals’ section just on the website.

The Panel heard about other options for enabling access to electronic bidding, including the use of dedicated ‘bidding booths’, which have been introduced at Newham Council, with easy to use TV-type display screens. These could be installed at Local Housing Offices and other accessible locations, provided there was support readily available so as not to disadvantage older and vulnerable members of the community, not familiar or comfortable with new technology. The Panel also heard about different methods of advertising properties, in Post Offices, supermarkets etc which could help to offset the loss of a magazine. The Panel heard that customers are generally satisfied with how easy the system is to use and understand and the methods available for them to browse properties and make bids. However, there is perceived to be some demand for information about different local areas, to enable people to make a more informed choice about where to live and perhaps to encourage people to bid in a wider range of areas to maximise their chances of a successful bid. At present, successful bidders viewing a property are given information about the area by the member of staff conducting the viewing. Key Finding 1

The Panel found that the Homebid magazine is currently a valued and useful product, particularly for certain sections of the community who would have difficulties in accessing the list of available properties in any other way. However, it is clear that the trend towards web-based bidding will continue and this will be the preferred method for the vast majority of customers. The Panel found that it would be difficult, at present, to discontinue the magazine but that consideration should be given to how this might be achieved in the future without causing undue inconvenience to customers or inequality of access for certain sections of the community. The Panel also found that there was a demand for information about local areas to enable bidders to make informed choices. The Panel found that, whilst the ability to add ‘late deals’ to the website may marginally reduce the void times for those

KEY FINDINGS

properties, that this would be outweighed by the inequality of access for those using a non-electronic method of browsing and bidding.

3.3 VOIDS

The Bidding Process

The Panel was concerned that the current bidding allowance of three bids per customer per cycle increases the time taken to deal with the administration of the bids, and therefore potentially the voids performance, and increases the likelihood of a property being refused when, for example, a speculative third is was successful. The Panel heard conflicting evidence about the benefits and drawbacks of allowing multiple bids and that there is no agreement at a national level about whether to restrict or encourage multiple bidding. The other Local Authority examined for the Inquiry, Brighton, also allows three bids per customer, per fortnightly cycle. The Panel heard that the benefits of multiple bidding appear to centre on encouraging as much choice as possible in order to build contented and sustainable communities but that multiple bids can also lead to unfocused bidding, with properties not accepted when offered. There was also a particular issue with some customers who, when offered a property, then delay making a decision about it in the hope that their points will ‘buy’ them a better one. This delays the process and contributes to the void time. The Panel heard that if a customer making a successful bid is in rent arrears, that property will not be offered to them, but will instead be offered to the next placed customer. There was concern from the Panel that this could also delay the letting time, although this does not appear to be the case in practice. There was also evidence that Homebid has a positive effect on tenants clearing their arrears. Key Finding 2 The Panel found that, although there is no clear consensus about the desirability of limiting bids, there is sufficient evidence for investigations or trials to be carried out to see if a one bid per customer per cycle scenario is workable and beneficial. The Panel also found that requiring an applicant to make a swift decision about whether to accept an offered property could mitigate the problem of customers ‘hedging their bets’ to see if a more desirable property could be obtained before being pressed for a decision.

KEY FINDINGS

Feedback to Customers

The Panel heard that some feedback information is provided in the magazine about the number of bids placed for a particular property and the amount of points held by the successful bidder. There was, however, felt to be some potential for confusion for customers. For example, a property could be gained by an applicant with a very high number of points, perhaps acquired because of medical reasons or on the basis that the applicant is moving to a smaller property. However, the second placed applicant in the bidding process may have held a significantly lower number of points. Thus, people could be discouraged from bidding, believing that the number of points that actually acquired a particular property was the number of points needed to bid in the first place.

Key Finding 3 The Panel found that there is potential for improving the feedback

offered to customers through the website, both on a general and a personal basis. Improved feedback would enable customers to better target their bidding where there is a realistic chance that a bid will succeed and would eliminate confusion and misinformation about the number of points that customers believe they have to obtain to secure a property.

Communications with Customers The Panel heard about significant delays that can occur when

inaccurate or out of date contact details are supplied by an applicant, particularly in the case of mobile phone numbers which can change quite frequently. Council officers are then unable to let a successful applicant know immediately and may have to rely on written communication, adding further delays. The Panel heard that the Homebid software providers, Locata, could be approached to add an additional field to the bidding input screen, although this will probably have to be funded by the Authority.

The Panel also heard about delays in the process of sending the necessary files to a Local Housing Office in order for an offer of tenancy to be made, due to the internal courier service only covering one half of the city each day. Thus it can take two days for the files to arrive at the relevant office.

Key Finding 4 The Panel was concerned about the seemingly preventable delays

that are occurring due to inefficient information collection and

KEY FINDINGS

administration procedures. Whilst there are elements in the lettings procedure that inevitably take time to complete, the Panel found that this part of the process could be shortened with relatively little effort, reducing some of the time spent in ‘chasing’ applicants and thus alleviating frustration for staff as well as reducing void times.

Viewing Properties

The Panel heard that a successful applicant is able to view a property,

accompanied by a member of staff, prior to accepting or refusing the offer. If the offer is then refused, the next placed bidder is offered a viewing, and so on. The Panel heard that the idea of multiple viewings is being considered as part of a Voids Action Plan, as this system has had a positive impact on voids performance in other Local Authorities. Thus, the three or four highest-placed applicants for a property would have the chance to view on the same day; if the first placed then refuses the offer, the home could be offered immediately to the second-placed without the need to set up another viewing date. However, there was concern that this could lead to raised expectations and ultimate disappointment for applicants who view a property but are not subsequently offered it. The process would also be more resource-intensive than the current system of single viewing.

Key Finding 5 The Panel found clear evidence that multiple viewings could

reduce the void time for a property. The Panel agrees that setting up multiple viewings could present some challenges, particularly in managing expectations of customers. However, on balance, the Panel considers that the disadvantages would be outweighed by the advantages in letting a property in a shorter timescale. Furthermore, there could be additional benefits in that an unsuccessful ‘viewer’ would subsequently be able to make a more informed decision about bidding for a similar property that might be offered in the same block or street.

Sheltered Housing The Panel heard that the most difficult type of housing to let is

sheltered housing and that this presents the greatest barrier to achieving a good voids performance. The number of sheltered units available in the city exceeds the demand for them and thus these properties are attracting few bids, taking a disproportionately long time to let and are able to be obtained by bidders holding relatively few points. Because tenants can now actively choose not to be ‘allocated’ a sheltered property, they are exercising that choice and thus the voids

KEY FINDINGS

performance for sheltered accommodation has worsened since the introduction of Homebid.

The Panel heard that there is not much comparison evidence readily

available from other Local Authorities, although the situation in Brighton, based on a recent performance report, does appear to mirror the situation in Southampton. The Panel heard evidence, in a confidential briefing, about possible proposals for addressing the low demand for sheltered housing stock in a Sheltered Housing Review to be commenced shortly.

Key Finding 6 The Panel found that better alignment of the demand and supply

of the sheltered housing stock is the key to improving voids performance: more gains can potentially be made in voids turnaround time in this area than by any other single method or initiative.

3.6 WORKING WITH PARTNERS The Panel heard from one of the Council’s principal RSL partners,

Swaythling Housing Society, that they would welcome developing even closer links with the Council and bringing the two organisations’ allocations policies and working practices more closely in line. Currently 90% of SHS’s stock is let via Homebid and there were indications that this could be increased to100% in due course. The Panel heard that SHS considers Homebid to be a good system, easy to use and well liked by tenants. The voids performance for SHS properties in Southampton is comparable with SHS properties in other Local Authority areas, where different choice-based systems are used.

The Panel heard that there are possibilities for extending the Homebid

scheme to include private rented property, and also for working with partner Local Authorities. The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) is a voluntary working partnership of eleven LAs in the region, which has come together to address the economic and regeneration issues facing the urban South Hampshire sub region. Making better use of the region’s housing stock is a key PUSH priority and a bid is being developed by the partnership to gain funding to look at cross boundary lettings systems.

Key Finding 7

The Panel found that there is scope for improving links with partners and working more closely to improve consistency of lettings systems in the region and that this would appear to be wanted and welcomed by partners. A common approach, across

KEY FINDINGS

partners both within the SCC boundary and outside in the sub-region, would seem to be a sensible initiative to improve the service to tenants and reduce inequality of provision; to make best use of expertise across different organisations; and to reduce duplication of effort and minimise administration.

3.7 CONCLUSION The Panel found conducting and undertaking this mini inquiry to be an

interesting and worthwhile process, albeit a challenging task within the constraints of just two meetings. The Panel hopes that their Findings and Recommendations will be considered useful and positive.

RECOMMENDATIONS

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Set out below are seven key recommendations which the Panel has

made, based on the evidence presented to the mini-inquiry. Recommendation 1 The increasing use of the Homebid website to browse properties

and to make bids looks set to continue. The Panel therefore recommends that plans are commenced now to be able to phase out the use of the magazine in the longer term. These plans should include:

ξ Investigating the installation of ‘bidding booths’ at Local

Housing Offices; ξ Investigating the use of alternative means of promoting

and advertising properties, including local supermarkets and Post Offices. This could be piloted in parallel with the magazine, perhaps with a reduced print run, prior to any decision being taken about stopping production of the magazine altogether;

ξ Looking at ways of increasing internet usage among older and vulnerable communities and/or providing support for them to use electronic methods of bidding at appropriate locations.

ξ Investigating whether it is viable to produce one colour magazine per month, with properties advertised solely on the website for the three interim weeks. All the feedback about numbers of bids etc could be published in the monthly edition. This suggestion would need to be thought about in conjunction with, and not instead of, the recommendations above.

Recommendation 2 The more information an applicant has about the local area they may wish to move to, the more likely they are to make an informed choice when placing bids and therefore to accept any offer made and ultimately to live happily within that community. The Panel therefore recommends that information sheets, giving details of local facilities such as doctors’ and dentists’ surgeries, schools, leisure facilities, bus services etc be made available in Local Housing Offices and through the Homebid website and also be included in any ‘welcome’ documentation and information provided for new or relocating tenants. Much information of this type has been collected and is available already via different parts of Cityweb, but could be assembled by locality and made readily available for Council and RSL tenants (and indeed for owner-

RECOMMENDATIONS

occupiers or people in private rented accommodation who are new to an area).

Recommendation 3 There is clear evidence that alterations to the Homebid computer

software, together with a streamlining of some administrative procedures, could prevent a significant amount of time being lost in the lettings process. The Panel therefore recommends that the following actions are taken:

ξ Active discussions should be held with Locata, the

Homebid software provider, to see whether an additional field could be added to the bidding screen to prompt applicants for an up to date telephone number and/or email address before accepting a bid. In order to ensure equality of access for all sections of the community, the very few customers who are unable to be contacted by telephone, text or email should be noted in the system and treated as they are at present.

ξ Similarly, Locata should be approached to discuss how

improved feedback could be built into the system and specifically how this could be more individually tailored. The Panel appreciates that this may not be straightforward and may have to be developed over the medium rather than short-term, but nevertheless the benefits that could be accrued by providing more information to customers should not be overlooked.

ξ Finally, the use of the courier system to transport files

between the Civic Centre and Local Housing Offices should be reviewed. The Panel recommends consideration of an electronic system to relay the essential information required by the LHO to initiate the offer of a let – this could then be followed up by the paper files by courier should this be necessary, but without delaying the lettings process.

Recommendation 4 The Panel considers that there was broadly an equal division of views concerning the desirability of restricting the number of bids per customer, per cycle. Therefore the Panel recommends that a trial is put in place, perhaps restricted to one area of the city or to one type of property, whichever is easier to administer, to see if

RECOMMENDATIONS

restricting bids to one per customer, per cycle has any effect, whether positive or negative, on:

ξ Property refusal rates ξ Void turnaround times ξ Ease of administration ξ Customer satisfaction and service perception

An informed decision could then be taken as to whether or not the ‘one bid’ system should be introduced on a permanent basis.

Recommendation 5 The Panel recommends that a system be introduced immediately to facilitate multiple viewing arrangements for the shortlisted applicants for all offered properties. The Panel considers that this alteration to the process would offer real benefits to the Council in improved voids performance and potential benefits for customers in the ability to make more informed choices. Recommendation 6 The Panel’s findings clearly indicate that sheltered housing is the key area that needs to be addressed in order to improve voids performance. This has already been identified by the Cabinet Member and officers and is being addressed through the forthcoming Sheltered Housing Review. It is clear that the current situation is untenable and not serving the best interests of tenants or the Council. The Panel therefore endorses the aims of the Review and recommends that:

ξ The Panel is fully engaged through the Review process; ξ All options for the management and use of the current

sheltered housing stock are explored and considered; ξ Customers are fully consulted throughout the process

and their views are taken on board before any decisions are made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 7 The Panel supports working more closely with the Council’s RSL partners to maximise service benefits to customers. Although the lettings policy is outside the scope of this inquiry, the Panel supports the work that is currently being undertaken to review the consistency of points allocation across the Council and RSL partners. In addition, the Panel recommends that every effort is made, through the PUSH forum, to establish a consistent regional approach to choice-based lettings, across Local Authorities, RSLs and the private rented sector, in order to maximise choice, accessibility and ease of use for customers and to make the best use of the region’s limited stock.

APPENDIX 1

INQUIRY PLAN

CHOICE – BASED LETTINGS

Introduction 1. This Inquiry Plan has been prepared to guide the Scrutiny Inquiry on

‘Homebid’, the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme. It identifies:

• The background and rationale for the Inquiry;

• Topics on which the Panel will hear evidence or receive briefing; • Individuals and organisations to be invited to give evidence to the

Inquiry; • An outline timetable for the Inquiry.

Background 2. At its meeting of 14th June 2007 Overview and Scrutiny Management

Committee resolved that, in addition to the routine bi-monthly meetings of each Scrutiny panel, there should be three ‘mini inquiries’ held during the municipal year and that the evidence gathering for each Inquiry should be held over the course of two additional meetings set up specifically for the purposes of the Inquiry.

3. OSMC resolved that the first Inquiry topic should be a review of the

choice-based lettings system and should be carried out by the Housing and Neighbourhoods Standing Scrutiny Panel.

4. The City Council’s lettings system, Homebid, has been in operation

since July 2005, following a Best Value Review of the Allocations service. The system was set up in the context of Government guidance in the document ‘Sustainable Communities: Homes for All’, which stated as one of its objectives, ‘Expanding choice-based lettings nationwide, so tenants can choose where they live instead of having a home allocated to them’. The philosophy behind choice is to end the situation in which social tenants have to accept the accommodation allocated to them on a "take it or leave it" basis; and to shift away from a system which is based entirely around meeting what administrators perceive as the needs of people, to one that is much more geared to meeting the applicant's own aspirations. (The Government has set a target for all local authorities: to operate a Choice Based Letting system by 2010. This national agenda is further endorsed by the Regional Housing Strategy for 2006 onwards which urges local authorities to

APPENDIX 1

work in partnership with RSLs in the operation of choice based lettings schemes.)

5. Local authorities have the flexibility to design their own choice based

lettings schemes (following a Code of Guidance) .The main objectives of Southampton’s City Council’s Homebid scheme are:

• To allow applicants more control and choice, and to provide a

transparent, simple and fair system; • To protect priority for those in greatest need whilst allowing those

who may not have the highest priority to obtain low demand housing;

• To create and develop sustainable communities by having people

live in places they wish to live and so creating social investment from residents;

• To make the best use of the housing stock, including hard-to-let

properties. Terms of Reference 6. The Panel’s remit is to:

• Review the effectiveness of the Homebid service against its original objectives, drawing out the main successes of the scheme, the impact on customers and the areas where there may have been challenges or problems. In particular, the Panel may wish to focus on associated elements such as:

o The letting policy, in terms of its effectiveness and equity o The length of time taken to re-let a void property o Issues generated by the Council’s housing stock mix,

including variations for re-let times for different types of properties.

• Make any recommendations for the improvements of the service.

7. The Panel will hear evidence, and receive reports, briefing and

background information from the Cabinet Member and officers within the Council. It may also be possible to call external witnesses to provide additional information and a different perspective, although Members should note that external parties are not obliged to attend scrutiny. The limitation of the Inquiry to two meetings will also constrain the amount of evidence that can be given.

APPENDIX 1

Timing 7. The approval for the Terms of Reference will be sought at the H&N

Panel meeting scheduled for 13th July 2007. The additional meetings of the Panel to facilitate the Inquiry will most likely be held during September or very early October with a view to the approval of the final report at the scheduled November meeting of the Panel.

8. Once formally approved by the Panel, the report will be submitted to

OSMC.

APPENDIX 1

DATE MEETING THEME INDICATIVE TOPIC DETAIL EVIDENCE TO BE PROVIDED BY

13/7/07 Routine Panel meeting Agree and approve Terms of Reference

Pre-Inquiry

Circulation of background briefing material, and possible pre-inquiry briefing

Background and current position in Southampton. Local and national policies Explanation of Homebid process.

Written material compiled by Performance and Scrutiny Team

Meeting 1 24/9/07

Introduction & current policy

Introduction to local lettings procedures and policies National and regional context – overview of research Policy – any changes under new administration & ambitions for service

Executive Director Head of service/other Officers DCLG Cabinet Member for H&N

Meeting 2 8/10/07

Best practice Other Local Authorities / RSLs Tenants’ perspective

Representatives from another Local Authority and a RSL. Tenants’ Association rep

Between meetings

Evidence analysis and report preparation

• Review of all evidence

Scrutiny Co-ordinator with input from Panel

APPENDIX 1

2 and 3 • Drafting report

Meeting 3 Routine Panel meeting date TBA (5/11?)

Approve report for submission to OSMC

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE INQUIRY

Contributors to the evidence meetings Cllr Phil Williams Cabinet Member for Housing and Neighbourhoods Nick Murphy Executive Director for Neighbourhoods Liz Slater Housing Needs Manager Bryn Shorey Head of Decent Homes Barbara Compton Head of Housing Solutions Alison Venning Choice Based Lettings Advisor, Department for

Communities and Local Government Ralph Facey Director, Swaythling Housing Society Louis Slack Chair, Federation of Southampton’s Tenant’s and

Resident’s Associations Twink Edmonds Secretary, Federation of Southampton’s Tenant’s

and Resident’s Associations Other contributors to the Inquiry Graeme Kemp Head of Neighbourhood Management Janet Gay Housing Services Manager Diane Whinney Allocations Manager Jo Holt Brighton and Hove City Council John Nixon Member of the Pensioners’ Forum