Agenda item

To update the Audit Committee on actions taken to address the recommendations of the Internal Audit review on the Selective Licensing Scheme.

The Committee considered a report which detailed the actions taken to address the recommendations of the Internal Audit review on the Selective Licensing Scheme. It was noted that the report had been requested by Members at the last meeting of the Committee, where it had been noted that the audit review had identified that the expenditure incurred by the scheme was reasonable and in line with its delivery objectives. However, it had also been considered that there should have been more robust management by the service to ensure that budgets for schemes reflected actual expenditure and that the focus of the service had been on outcomes, rather than monitoring resources.

Mr Blackledge, Director of Community and Environmental Services, introduced the report and began by stressing what a positive experience the Audit process had been. He explained that the Selective Licensing Scheme was a huge undertaking and that approximately 2000 properties were covered by the scheme to date. In explaining the process to the Committee, he acknowledged that the scheme had raised a number of questions, particularly around costs. Mr Blackledge explained that any costs that related to enforcement issues came out of the Council’s Revenue Budget and not from the scheme itself. He now received regular updates on that subject and was confident that a far more robust process was now in place, helped by a greater focus now being placed on bad debtors through the Cedar system. He added that recent figures obtained from the police showed reductions in both crime and anti-social behaviour, which helped to illustrate the success of the scheme.

Responding to questions from the Committee, Mr Blackledge reiterated that the costs from the scheme paid for its management, but not for any enforcement action. He explained that whilst Legal Services documented all of their time on casework in relation to enforcement issues, the Public Protection department remained outcome focussed.

Asked about the acceptance and popularity of the scheme, the Committee was informed that the majority of landlords both accepted and appreciated the scheme. Mr Blackledge mentioned however that the media tended to concentrate on prosecution cases, so there was a requirement to change the emphasis of the media to focus more on positivity and the work of good landlords.

Mr Blackledge was asked about the approach that was taken with absent landlords and those that employed management companies. Particular concern was raised about what action Councillors should take when complaints were received in relation to absent landlords. Members were informed that an extremely robust approach was taken in such cases and that any complaints received should be referred directly to the scheme.

The Committee raised questions in relation to specific recommendations within the Audit Action Plan. In relation to Recommendation 7 ‘the budget holder should develop recovery plans for the forecast overspends on both schemes’ and the agreed action ‘a plan will be developed to reduce overspend and rationalise staffing levels as appropriate’, Mr Blackledge was asked to provide a further explanation. He outlined that part of the focus was on time spent and costs involved, however it could not be analysed as an exact science. There would be some staffing reductions made as a result of greater efficiencies achieved.

Relating to Recommendation 5 and the requirement to review and confirm staff time allocated to the Clarement Scheme to avoid any further issues, Mr Blackledge was asked how that would work. He explained that there had been a misallocation of costs amounting to £37,000.00. However, the costs needed to be understood in the context of an overall budget of £1.5m. The South Beach Scheme was now coming to an end and more certainties existed around costs, particularly around the scheme and enforcement issues. Mr Blackledge further explained that he now met regularly with the Housing Manager and Service Manager to ensure a more robust budget monitoring process was in place.

Pointing out that there were seven priority 2 recommendations contained within the Action Plan, Mr Blackledge was questioned about his level of confidence that all could be delivered. He responded by explaining that the challenge from the Audit process had helped  enormously in improving the Selective Licensing Scheme and that in such a huge undertaking, it was considered an achievement that no priority 1 recommendations had been issued.

The Committee thanked Mr Blackledge for his attendance and agreed to note the report.

Background papers:  None.