Audit Commission report on Homes for Islington

London Borough of Islington - Homes for Islington (ALMO) p 5
high tenant satisfaction with major work schemes and works to meet the
Decent Homes Standard (DHS);
continuous improvement in the performance on voids turnaround, urgent
repairs carried out in target time and appointments for repairs made and
kept;
resident involvement in repair improvements and performance review
resulting in improved customer satisfaction with repair service;
successes in increasing income, reducing losses and cost efficiencies
through the detection of fraud; caretakers carrying out minor repairs and
contractual arrangements;
proactive approach to rent and service charge collection;
wide range of initiatives used to deal effectively with antisocial behaviour
(ASB) and to sustain tenancies;
HFI managed estates are clean and free of graffiti;
positive joint working with the council’s housing department on allocations,
and a well publicised accessible transfer system; resident improvements
delivered as a result of consultation at area panel consultative forum;
greater involvement of harder to reach residents through community groups,
specialist forums and out reach work; and
open board and sub-board meetings and board directors accessible at
consultative forums.
9 However, there are a number of weaknesses that need addressing:
there are still some inconsistencies in service delivery and approach, for
example, graffiti and cleaning on a few estates and health and safety
compliancy on some major work sites;
not all informal sources of feedback are being used to inform service
improvement and performance in dealing with stage two complaints still
requires improvement;
there is no overarching value for money strategy and cost efficiency is
secondary to service improvements;
gas servicing performance improved but still unsatisfactory at 92 per cent;
cleaning standards for empty properties not consistently met;
a few major works sites did not meet the safety standards;
performance on processing right to buy applications has improved but is still
poor as is the collection of major work costs;
information requests from transfer applicants not consistently followed up
delaying offers and some cases files not updated following transfer;
until the review of resident involvement is completed the resources for this
service area are not fully aligned to objectives, outcomes of some activities
are unclear and there is some duplication of roles and activity; and
still dissatisfaction among leaseholders about consultation for major works.