Housing: Lifetime Achievements of the HAT as a Landlord Properties and Clearance The Clearance Programme Low-Rise Living Rehousing Decanting Demand for Housing Make-up of the Waiting List Waiting List Restrictions Empty Properties Re-letting Properties Rent Collection Current Tenancy Arrears Former Tenants Garage Arrears Responsive Repairs Customer Satisfaction Anti-Social Behaviour Services for the Elderly VIP Gold Tenure Diversification Resident Involvement Properties and Clearance The HAT's 1994 Master Plan proposed clearing and demolishing 17 tower blocks and 24 maisonette blocks which, whilst necessary, was highly ambitious. Yet the clearance programme became far more extensive than originally expected, as the HAT later identified the need for more demolition. A further 15 tower blocks, 3 maisonette blocks and 114 bungalows were to be cleared and demolished, presenting an even bigger lifetime challenge. This enlarged clearance programme was accommodated and completed to the original time plan, one of the major successes during the HAT's lifetime. The programme started in 1994, the last of the rehousing was completed during 2002 and in total 2,262 households transferred. This was an average of five a week or one every working day. It dramatically changed the landscape of Castle Vale and made way for a more popular type of housing. . HAT Stock New Build 1994/1995 3467 60 1995/1996 3275 116 1996/1997 2551 154 1997/1998 2531 546 1998/1999 2234 822 1999/2000 1955 891 2000/2001 1637 960 2001/2002 1642 1040 2002/2003 1437 1144 2003/2004 1327 1398 Inherited in April 1994: 3479   The HAT's stock reduced over eight years as properties were cleared and demolished. Demolished properties were replaced with 1,398 newly built homes.   The Clearance Programme Within the first three years - by March 1997 - 1,016 properties were cleared for demolition. Abingdon, Bovingdon, Cosford, Cranwell, Kemble, Lynehan, Northolt and Shawbury Towers were the first tower blocks to be demolished. Known as the 'Centre 8', these blocks were 16 storeys high and each had 92 flats. Residents had a very low opinion of them and the flats had severe management difficulties. Ensign, Meteor, Valiant and Hermes Houses followed, four blocks of the Bison wall-frame construction on the north side of Castle Vale, very close to low-rise homes. The blocks had 50 flats each and were 13 storeys high. Clearance of the maisonette blocks had also started. Low-rise maisonette blocks were dispersed throughout the estate, they were poorly insulated and expensive to heat. They provided mainly 3-bedroom family housing above ground level with limited access to gardens. Generally residents were very dissatisfied with them and there was widespread support for demolition. By March 1999 the maisonettes had been completely cleared, as was Albert Shaw House, a 15-storey, sheltered-housing scheme containing 60 flats atop the main shopping centre. It was replaced by Phoenix Court, a HAT new-build, low-rise, extra-care, sheltered-housing scheme. Concorde Tower was Castle Vale's largest tower block, 20 storeys high and containing 116 flats. It was a landmark building forming the entrance to Castle Vale. The Master Plan proposals were to refurbish it. However, a later option appraisal that the HAT completed found that refurbishing it would be uneconomical. Demolition was approved and the block was cleared by March 1999. By March 1999 eight of the 14 tower blocks that stood on Farnborough Road had also been cleared. These were 11-storey blocks, each with 42 flats. All 14 had originally been chosen for refurbishment. As with Concorde Tower, a further option appraisal was completed and identified demolition as the most economical option. The six remaining Farnborough Road blocks were emptied during 2000. A similar option appraisal had also been completed regarding the future of 114 one-bedroom bungalows. Again, demolition proved to be the most economical option. The majority of the bungalows were cleared by the end of 2001. New 2-bedroom bungalows were built to replace them. By mid 2002 the residents of Hercules, Andover, Oakington and Ternhill Houses had been rehoused. These 11-storey blocks, each with 42 flats, were situated among low-rise homes. Residents had a low opinion of the blocks and they had been difficult to manage. These four tower blocks brought the clearance programme to an end.   Low-Rise Living As a result of the clearance programme the profile of the HAT's properties dramatically changed. 32 of the original 34 tower blocks were demolished. In 1994 56% of HAT-owned homes were high-rise flats; by 2004 only 6% were. Over the HAT's lifetime this represents a major transformation from high-rise to low-rise living. It was a popular transformation with Castle Vale residents. A MORI survey carried out in 2004 listed demolition of the tower blocks as one of 16 improvements that the HAT had made. Two-thirds of respondents consider said this demolition was among the HAT's two or three most important improvements.   1994 2004 Total Number of Homes 3479 1327 Number of High-Rise Homes 1943 82 % High-Rise Homes of Total Stock 56% 6% There was a 62% reduction in HAT stock during the HAT's lifetime. In comparison, however, between 1994 and 2004 the number of high-rise flats reduced by 96%. Overall Stock Reduced by: 62% High-Rise Reduced by: 96% In addition to reducing the number of high-rise properties, there was a change in the type of low-rise accommodation. The 249 maisonettes were replaced by more desirable family houses and low-rise flats.   Rehousing To complete the clearance programme, the HAT tried to move residents into accommodation that they not only needed but chose. The HAT tried to give residents as much choice as it reasonably could to ensure that they moved to properties they wanted both at the time and, where possible, for the long term. Rehousing was not necessarily done on a 'like-for-like' basis, which meant families had the opportunity to move from flats to houses. The HAT recognised, however, that the clearance programme was extensive and it was not always possible to move people to their final home on the first attempt. Some households found they were rehoused on more than one occasion, particularly where they moved to a property that later became part of the clearance programme. Homeloss and Disturbance compensation was paid to those who had to move. This included a cash sum before moving, to cover expenses. This benefited both parties as: residents had the funds to move quickly; and it reduced a potentially unmanageable administrative workload for the HAT that could have delayed the programme.   Decanting The HAT recognised that some residents would have to be rehoused in temporary accommodation. Decanting would be necessary for several reasons, one being that residents could became isolated or vulnerable if or when other residents moved before them. Decanting was also necessary when the alternative accommodation was unavailable or had not been built by the time it was needed. The HAT chose certain properties as decant accommodation and decorated and carpeted them throughout. The HAT also organised removals, utility disconnections and reconnections, and postal redirections. Residents were offered help on the day of moving. Every attempt was made to minimise the obvious yet unavoidable disruption to residents. This approach to decanting was also adopted for the HAT's refurbishment programme. The scale and nature of the refurbishment work meant that substantial decanting arrangements would be needed. So the HAT created five new posts to assess needs and arrange for residents to be decanted while their homes were being refurbished. The Chartered Institute of Housing identified the HAT's approach to decanting as an example of good practice in the social housing sector.   Demand for Housing The HAT feasibility study, completed in 1992, found that families who were about to be made homeless represented 35% of lettings in Castle Vale. 95% of the 591 lettings completed in 1991 were within the high-rise flats. Both indicators suggest that historically many people saw Castle Vale as a quick-fix solution to short-term housing need rather than a long-term housing choice. This perception of housing changed during the HAT's lifetime. From the outset, the number of requests for housing increased and Castle Vale became a place to live by choice. In terms of the number of requests for housing, during 1995 the HAT contacted the 527 households that were previously listed with Birmingham City Council as wanting housing in Castle Vale. From this the HAT compiled a waiting list of 386 (June 1995). This had grown to 507 by April 1997. The number on the waiting list remained largely consistent, fluctuating slightly until a dramatic increase in 2002. By April 2004 the waiting list had increased to 1,272. Waiting List Totals 1997 507 1998 677 1999 546 2000 528 2001 531 2002 809 2003 1056 2004 1272   Make-up of the Waiting List The make-up of the waiting list also changed during the HAT's lifetime. The nature of the clearance programme in the earlier years meant that the waiting list was made up mainly of those needing transfers from existing HAT properties. There were few new applicants for housing. Of the 386 that made up the total list in June 1995, just 81 were from new applicants and 305 were from existing tenants who wanted to transfer. In contrast, by 2004 the waiting list held 1157 requests from new applicants and just 115 transfer requests from existing tenants. 1157 requests from new applicants for housing suggests a healthy demand for housing in Castle Vale. Such a low level of requests from existing tenants can also be used as a measure of satisfaction, both with HAT homes and Castle Vale as a place to live. Of those 1157 requests, 69% were from households who did not live in Castle Vale. The number of requests for transfers equated to 9% of all HAT tenants. The turnover of HAT tenancies in the final year was 5.6% compared to a 17% turnover in tenancies recorded in the pre-HAT feasibility report. Both figures suggest satisfaction with housing in Castle Vale and corresponds with the findings of the 2004 MORI survey. This found that 90% of HAT tenants were happy with Castle Vale as a place to live. It also found that 92% of HAT tenants were happy with their homes and 79% were unlikely to move from Castle Vale within the next five years.   Applicants Transfers 1997 204 303 1998 310 367 1999 251 295 2000 313 111 2001 342 189 2002 665 144 2003 947 109 2004 1157 115   Waiting List Restrictions Initially the clearance programme left little scope for other rehousing so the HAT had to restrict those who could join the waiting list. A local-connection criterion for joining the HAT's waiting list was approved in December 1994 and remained in place until it was removed in October 2001, when it was removed as a result of the HAT's Race and Equality strategy. Removing the need to have a local connection to Castle Vale had a huge effect on the waiting list. Firstly the overall demand for housing increased by 52% from 2001 to 2002. In October 2001, 28% came from applicants who did not already live in Castle Vale. By 2004 this had risen to represent 68% of the waiting list.   Empty Properties Managing and maintaining empty properties was an important area of performance. Re-letting homes quickly reduces the potential for lost rental income and keeps the number of empty properties in relation to the HAT's total stock at a low level. Both are important not only for reducing lost rent but also for improving the image of an area. The number of homes empty and available for re-letting as a percentage of the HAT's total stock fell significantly over 10 years. The Government's national target for this was 2%. While in the first year of operation the HAT failed to meet this target, by the second the HAT had performed better than the national target and continued to do so for the next 8 years. The HAT consistently out-performed both national targets and its own targets, and in the final two years the HAT was among the sector's best performers. As reported by the Housing Corporation, in 2002 and 2003 the top 25% performing housing associations had no more than 0.4% of their stock empty and available for re-letting, compared to the HAT's 0.1%.   % of all Stock 1994/1995 2.7 1995/1996 1.5 1996/1997 1.6 1997/1998 1.5 1998/1999 1.9 1999/2000 1.9 2000/2001 0.9 2001/2002 0.1 2002/2003 0.1 2003/2004 0.2   Re-letting Properties In the HAT's first year, the average number of days a property was empty was 60, which was significantly higher than the national target. This gradually improved throughout the HAT's lifetime, ending with homes being re-let within 11 days. In the final year, 28 of the HAT's 78 lettings were completed with no void loss at all; as the outgoing tenant left, the incoming tenant arrived.   Average Number of days Void 1995 60 1996 40 1997 34 1998 27 1999 33 2000 25 2001 31 2002 15 2003 12 2004 11 Again, in the final years the HAT was among the sector's best performers. In 2003 the national average among housing associations for re-letting properties was 5.1 weeks or 36 days (as reported by the Housing Corporation). The top 25% performing associations re-let homes within 3.1 weeks or 22 days compared to the HAT's 2003 performance of 12 days.   Rent Collection Collecting rent is a significant function for any housing organisation as this determines how much it can spend on managing and maintaining the properties. One of the housing sector's performance indicators is to measure rental income and compare it to the amount of rent that has been charged and could have reasonably been collected. This amount is known as the 'collectable debit'.   Income as a % of the 1995 90 1996 95 1997 97 1998 99 1999 101 2000 100 2001 101 2002 100 2003 100 2004 99 The HAT's performance on rent collection gradually improved in the first four years, climbing to an outstanding achievement of a 101% collection rate in 1999. This placed the HAT among the best performers in the social housing sector, a performance that was maintained for the remaining five years.   Current Tenancy Arrears Arrears relating to current tenancies reduced relatively consistently over the 10 years. The HAT inherited a debt of more than £330,000, which was reduced to just over £124,000. This represented a 62% reduction in the debt.   Actual Arrears Inherited £336,613 1995 £281,000 1996 £348,858 1997 £241,000 1998 £212,518 1999 £187,000 2000 £179,000 2001 £225,000 2002 £159,716 2003 £123,817 2004 £124,012 Another way to measure performance in this area is to compare the outstanding debt from current tenancies as a percentage of the total rent that has been charged and could have reasonably been collected. The lower the debt, the better the performance. The performance indicator is known as 'arrears as a % of the collectable debit'.   % 1996 5.5 1997 5.3 1998 5.3 1999 5.2 2000 5.5 2001 6.2 2002 4.1 2003 3.2 2004 3.1 In 1996, the outstanding current tenancy debt owed to the HAT was equivalent to 7.5% of the possible rental income. By 2004 this had significantly reduced to 3.1%. The Housing Corporation reported that in 2003 the top-performing housing associations held their arrears at 3.6%. During the HAT's lifetime there was also a reduction in the percentage of households owing more than 13 weeks' rent. In the housing sector, arrears of 13 weeks or more are considered to be a long-term or higher-than-average debt.   % 1998 7.6 1999 6.1 2000 5.4 2001 7.5 2002 4.7 2003 4.0 2004 3.0   Former Tenants A debt owed by a former tenant is more difficult to collect as fewer legal sanctions are available. Aided in part by the clearance, rent arrears owed by former HAT tenants fell significantly. However even with the additional benefit of the clearance programme a significant amount of the former tenant debt was written off. In excess of £200,000 was written off after all reasonable and economical attempts to collect the debt had been exhausted.   Arrears 1998 £354,586 1999 £194,000 2000 £139,000 2001 £156,000 2002 £47,664 2003 £38,989 2004 £38,932   Garage Arrears In the early years, managing garage accounts was a low priority. But in the latter years, arrears on these accounts were reduced and managed at a consistent level.   Arrears 1998 £21,000 1999 £7,000 2000 £6,000 2001 £3,000 2002 £2,792 2003 £2,823 2004 £2,720   Responsive Repairs When the HAT was set up in April 1994 one of the key issues for local residents, and in particular tenants, was the strategy for repairing and maintaining existing stock in ownership. The first step in establishing a Repairs Policy was to re-tender the Responsive Repairs Contracts with revised completion times for each category of repair. After consulting residents through the Repairs Working Party, the HAT agreed these revised turn-round times: 24 hours for emergency repairs; 3 days for urgent repairs; 10 days for a standard repair; and 15 days and 25 days for routine repairs. These turnaround times were an improvement on those previously used. In later years the HAT reviewed the turn-round time for each category of repairs and agreed: 24 hours for emergency repairs; 3 days for urgent repairs; and up to 10 days for all other repairs. With the exception of 2001, the HAT's performance in meeting these targets was mainly good, with steady progress each year. & Completed on time 1996 95 1997 96 1998 97 1999 98 2000 99 2001 82 2002 96 2003 98 2004 99 Over the first two years of the HAT's life, 1994/1995 and 1995/1996, the HAT spent heavily on catch-up repairs, resulting in a large increase in repairs expenditure. An analysis showed that nearly 68% of all repair jobs were of a similar type but relatively low in value. The initial need for repairs was greatest in the high-rise and maisonette blocks. The work mainly involved temporarily making good what could not be replaced. The demolition and clearance programme focused on high-rise and maisonette blocks as the HAT targeted people from those property types for rehousing in the first new-build scheme in Cadbury Drive and the Centre 8. As clearance progressed, the HAT was able to reduce its overall expenditure on routine day-to-day repairs because it was investing less in properties that would eventually be demolished. In addition to ensuring that all tenants could see that the HAT was catching up on previous repairs, the Grounds Maintenance Working Party looked at environmental issues. It agreed to increase the specification for grounds maintenance, and the HAT paid an extra sum to Birmingham City Council to maintain the estate to a higher standard. Birmingham City Council later adopted this higher specification for the rest of the city.   Customer Satisfaction The HAT strived each year to achieve high levels of customer satisfaction with repairs. A detailed survey enabled the HAT to understand better what was working well and what could be improved. With one exception, the HAT maintained satisfaction levels at or above 94%.   % Satisfied 1996 97 1997 97 1998 98 1999 99 2000 94 2001 90 2002 94 2003 96 2004 96   Anti-Social Behaviour When the estate transferred from Birmingham City Council to the HAT in 1994 it had a bad reputation in Castle Vale and with the rest of the city. High rates of crime and anti-social behaviour meant it was a police hot-spot. When the transfer happened there were high expectations from residents for the HAT to tackle anti social behaviour. In the early years the HAT could take action only against HAT tenants whose anti-social behaviour breached their tenancy agreement. In extreme cases the HAT repossessed their home. Court action relied heavily on other residents being prepared to give evidence, and lengthy and costly court hearings. To strengthen the HAT's position as landlord, a new tenancy agreement with new terms about anti-social behaviour was issued in 1996. The HAT also introduced an external mediation service. This not only resolved neighbour conflicts between HAT tenants but also resolved conflicts across tenures. The service was not compulsory and worked best when those involved in a dispute volunteered to take part. To encourage a multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour the HAT launched a partnership agreement with the police, Valewatch, in 1997. Later, the school, Castle Vale Community Housing Association and the Youth Offending Team also joined. The group met regularly to talk about main offenders and decide on action against them, how to collect evidence and how to support victims and witnesses. The first evictions were in 1998. Ringleaders of gangs of youths were targeted. In 1999 it was decided to take action against a large number of families at the same time rather than singly. The HAT appointed an anti-social behaviour coordinator to specifically manage the increasing level of legal action. This led to a court case in 2000 where at the same hearing the HAT obtained repossession orders for the homes of five families. In the later years changes in the law gave landlords more ways of tackling anti-social behaviour. These included the ability to issue injunctions against HAT tenants for breaching tenancy agreements. Acceptable Behaviour Contracts became an option for the HAT. This was a voluntary written agreement between a person involved in anti-social behaviour and one or more local agencies that aimed to prevent it, such as the police or a landlord. The contract identified anti-social acts in which the person had been involved and which they agreed to discontinue. The contract came with a threat of legal action that served as a deterrent. During the HAT's lifetime 19 homes were repossessed as a result of the HAT obtaining repossession orders through the civil court. In addition eight injunctions were obtained and two Acceptable Behaviour Contracts were made.   Services for the Elderly In addition to its housing management work the HAT developed and set up other housing-related initiatives. This included introducing the 'Eskimo Lifepak' scheme in December 1999. The scheme was established in consultation with the Emergency Services. For older tenants taking part, it gives the Emergency Services quick and easy access to personal information in an emergency. In late 1996 the HAT also introduced a mobile warden who offered a visiting and support service to older tenants not living in sheltered housing schemes. In 1998 the new development at Phoenix Court was completed. This was the low-rise replacement for Albert Shaw House and some of the Albert Shaw House residents moved here. It offered 60 one- and two-bedroom flats with an on-site warden. In addition, supported by Birmingham City Social Services, Phoenix Court offered extra care facilities.   VIP Gold In July 2001 the HAT introduced the VIP Gold scheme. At the time, the HAT was only the second landlord nationally to introduce such a scheme. At the heart of VIP Gold is a strong commitment to enhance the relationship between residents of all tenures and social landlords and to introduce best-practice principles of customer service. It seeks to ensure that customer loyalty is rewarded and recognises the contribution of good customers to running the social housing business successfully. Membership of the scheme was open to Castle Vale tenants, leaseholders and homeowners. Financial rewards were available for tenants and leaseholders in the form of Bonus Bonds. Other benefits included access to cheaper home insurance and membership of the national Countdown scheme, which offered discounts at several retail outlets. While homeowners did not receive any direct financial rewards, they were able to get some of the other benefits of the scheme. An example was the HAT's responsive-repairs contractor, which offered repairs to prescribed time-scales and at predetermined costs. Within the first month the scheme had attracted 251 members and grew to over 500 by April 2002. Membership continued to grow steadily in 2002/03. In the HAT's final year there was a change in the way membership was granted, and at April 2004 the scheme boasted 1448 members.   2002 2003 2004 HAT Tenants 277 419 1114 Freeholders 168 194 211 CVHAT 34 47 64 Leaseholders 29 42 52 Other 4 7 7 Between July 2001 and April 2004 the HAT awarded HAT tenants and service-charge payers approximately £46,500 in Bonus Bonds, £6,500 of which was donated back to community organisations. 39 members took advantage of cheaper insurance and 64 used the responsive-repair contractor for home improvements. The competitions that appeared in the regular members magazine proved popular, with the average number of entries rising to 90.   Tenure Diversification A further aim of the HAT was to provide a wider choice of tenure and greater forms of ownership of dwellings to residents. This means, improving the balance between homes in ownership and homes in the social rented sector. In the early 1990s 1,407 or 29% of Castle Vale's 4,886 households lived in leasehold or freehold properties. The remaining 71% were living in the social rented sector. HAT tenants had retained the Right To Buy and in total 86 took the opportunity to purchase their homes and in doing so changed tenures. The HAT encouraged leaseholders to buy the freehold interest in their property and 97 leaseholders did so. As a result of both activities the HAT received in the region of £3 million and altered the balance of tenures in Castle Vale. The Self-Build initiative and homes built for sale further added to the number of homes offering an alternative tenure. In total, the number of freehold and leasehold properties increased by 156 or 11%. Properties in the social rented sector fell by 30%, and a combination of both altered the mix of tenures. In 2004, leasehold and freehold properties made up 39% of the total homes in Castle Vale, while 61% were in the social rented sector. In 1997 the HAT launched the Tenants Incentive Scheme (TIS) which offered HAT tenants a £10,000 grant towards buying an alternative property. It was initially integrated with the clearance programme and gave more options to move across tenures, increasing tenure choices. The scheme was later replaced by the similar Homebuy Scheme. Between these schemes 331 properties were purchased, 41% in Castle Vale - amounting to 97 moves from the rented sector to home ownership in Castle Vale.   Resident Involvement The HAT arrived into an environment where resident involvement had been key to its own formation. In the early 1990s the Community Action Team was set up to investigate the benefits of a HAT, and then positively campaigned for one. This resulted in 74% of tenants and leaseholders taking part in the ballot to establish the HAT, 92% of whom voted in favour of a HAT. Resident involvement has been a critical factor in all areas of the HAT's work but the scope of resident involvement has made the HAT unique. This has ranged from traditional ways of consulting residents, right through to residents being representatives on all the HAT's sub-Groups and therefore at the heart of decision-making. In an attempt to capture and voice the representative view of the majority of residents, the Castle Vale Estate Forum was established in 1996. This comprised two bodies, one representing the tenants' views, called the Tenants Representative Board. The second was the Community Council, which represented residents of any tenure on issues beyond their own garden gate. The idea was that the two bodies would feed views to the Estate Forum and the Estate Forum would interact with the HAT. Uniquely, the groups were formed as a result of estate-wide residents' elections, which took place as part of the first Democracy Day in 1996. All Castle Vale residents over the age of 16 were eligible to vote. Democracy Day became an annual estate-run event. In 1998 the Tenants and Residents Alliance (TRA) was formed through a merger of the Tenants Representative Board and Community Council. The TRA replaced the Estate Forum and established one group that could represent all residents across the estate. The TRA engaged with the HAT, negotiated with a range of different agencies and has held a number of the annual Democracy Day events. One of its important initiatives was to negotiate with the HAT a scheme for tenants that resulted in paying expenses to those whose properties had been refurbished. The HAT always supported the involvement of local area resident groups and during its lifetime saw the numbers of these groups rise and fall as issues were resolved and communities dispersed and rebuilt. Since 2001 there was a steady increase in these groups, who demonstrated that they had the skills to work with many agencies. Notably, one group identified an issue that led to Birmingham City Council reviewing and changing its policy on street lighting. The growing capacity of residents is shown by the increased number who sit on the boards of successor organisations. For example, CVCHA has a resident majority on its board of management, and a resident chairperson. In the final years the 2005 Group was established to consider succession issues in preparation for the HAT's closure in 2005. The 2005 Group worked closely with the Neighbourhood Management Partnership to develop service delivery strategies with the key statutory and voluntary service providers in Castle Vale. The one event that demonstrates how empowered and confident residents are was the landlord choice ballot in 2003. This led to an unprecedented turnout, with 83% of residents voting and 97% of properties transferring to CVCHA in preference to returning to management by the City Council.