Value For Money Strategy 2014/17 Progress Against Targets - September 2015

(1)

Target Actual Performance

Area Indicator

Quality or

Cost/Efficiency 2014/15 2013/14 2014/15 2014/15 Commentary

14/15 Target

met?

New Homes

Resident satisfied with their new home

Q 86% 82.50% 92% A large improvement, meeting the

target.

Y

New Homes

Shared Owners satisfied with the sales process

Q 85% 83% not yet

available

We didn't collect enough data on this to give a reliable figure in 2014/15

-

New Homes

Residents satisfied with way last defect (repair to new home) was dealt with

Q 76% not yet

available

We didn't have systems in place to carry out surveys in 2014/15; they are being done in 2015/16 though.

-

New Homes

SAP (energy efficiency) rating Q 85 with

<=10% <80

83 84.8 We partially met this in that none were below 80; however, one scheme took us very slightly under our target.

N

New Homes

2011/15 Programme -Cost of new Hexagon developed new homes per square metre (m²) of floor area (this is the measure that housing

associations typically use to compare costs of new homes

C <£1550/m² £1530/m² £1463/m² We met this target Y

New Homes

2011/15 Programme -Total scheme costs for completed schemes as a proportion of the costs when we agreed them (This is to measure how well we are controlling our costs)

C <100% 99.94% 99.48% The costs on most schemes were as we agreed them, with one slightly over budget as we had to make some changes to the works agreed, but this was more than covered by savings on another scheme.

Y

(2)

Area Indicator Cost/Efficiency 2014/15 2013/14 2014/15 2014/15 Commentary met?

New Homes

2011/15 Programme -All the new homes in our 2011/15 programme are finished by 31 March 2015 - this was important as we would have lost grant funding if we were late

C 100% reach

PC by end of year

No interim measure

100% We met this target Y

New Homes

2015/18 Programme -Cost of new Hexagon developed new homes per square metre (m²) of floor area (this is the measure that housing

associations typically use to compare costs of new homes

C This did not apply to 2014/15 -

New Homes

2015/18 Programme -Total scheme costs for completed schemes as a proportion of the costs when we agreed them (This is to measure how well we are controlling our costs)

New Homes

2015/18 Programme -All the new homes in our 2015/18 programme need to start on site by 30/09/2016 to make sure they finished by 31 March 2018 - this is important as we could lose grant funding if we are late.

(3)

New Homes

2015/18 Programme - Staff per 100 units developed (3 year average)

C At or above HouseMark 3rd

quartile for London

6.3 7.58 The HouseMark data is being checked (September 2015) but we don't think that we have me the target for 2014/15

Treasury Mgt

The total amount we have borrowed to pay for new homes and

improvements to our older homes.

This should be less than we had assumed in our Business Plan.

C £148,642 £130,448 £142,506 We met this target in 2014/15 Y

The total amount we pay in interest on money we have borrowed to pay for new homes and improvements to our older homes. This should be less than we had assumed in our Business Plan.

C £5,391 £4,353 £4,737 We met this target in 2014/15 Y

The average amount we pay in interest on money we have

borrowed to pay for new homes and improvements to our older homes.

This should be less than we had assumed in our Business Plan.

C 3.63% 3.34% 3.32% We met this target in 2014/15 Y

Asset Mgt

Resident satisfaction with kitchen and bathroom replacement works

Q 73% - 90.90% Target met, a big improvement from

previous years, although the numbers are relatively small

Y

(4)

Asset Mgt

Resident satisfaction with planned works (including roofs, windows, kitchens, bathrooms & disabled adaptations)

Q 75% - 88.60% Target met, a big improvement from

previous years, although the numbers are relatively small

Y

Asset Mgt

Resident satisfaction with cyclical painting

Q 72% 68% 81% This was a big improvement in

2014/15, easily meeting our target

Y

Asset Mgt

Resident satisfaction with cyclical painting (from 'STAR' Tenants Survey - undertaken by phone)

Q 76% 73.8% 74.80% This was an improvement, although not quite as much we had hope for.

N

Asset Mgt

Average SAP (energy efficiency) rating of properties – high is good

Q 70 72.5 69 We slightly missed the target for

2014/15 by 1 point, this followed revising down some homes following surveys we undertook during the year.

N

Asset Mgt

Number of homes with SAP (see above) rating of less than 65 (excluding residents who refuse work)

Q 1384 1784 1094 We met this target Y

Asset Mgt

No homes fail the Decent Homes Standard (our homes our expected to be in a reasonable state or repair, have relatively modern facilities such as kitchens and bathrooms, and have reasonable thermal insulation ) this excludes residents who refuse the work

Q 0 1 0 We met this target Y

(5)

Asset Mgt

We check at least 20% of our homes each year to make sure the dates we have for replacing kitchens,

bathrooms, roofs and windows are correct.

Q 20% 27.2% 20% 717 were successfully targeted for

surveys in 2014/15 - meeting our target

Y

Asset Mgt

The costs of managing our painting programme - based on HouseMark (a housing benchmarking service) costs

C £50 £43 not yet

available

The most recent HouseMark results (13/14) showed a big reduction as temporary staff costs were reduced during the year.

-

Asset Mgt

Major Works - works costs per property – maintain current

relatively low costs (HouseMark data - see above))

C <= London top quartile

£737 not yet available

The most recent HouseMark results (13/14) showed a big increase in expenditure, putting the Association in the 3rd quartile (at least 75% of housing associations were cheaper than us). We undertook some more detailed analysis of the figures which showed that this was happening at a time when London expenditure was reducing. Hexagon will spend what it needs to maintain its stock in good condition and does not necessarily consider low expenditure to be positive.

-

Repairs Resident satisfaction with the repairs service (from 'STAR' Tenants Survey - undertaken by phone)

Q 71% 64.1% 67.6% Hexagon had serious problems with its repairs contractor during 14/15 with its main contractor going into administration. Ratings dipped as a result, although improved at the end

N

(6)

of the year

Repairs Resident rating last repair ‘good’ - from phone survey

Q 88% 82.9% - We do not have reliable data on this

for 2014/15; new systems are in place for 2015/16 for collection of this data.

-

Repairs Average length of time from reporting repair to it being completed

Q 10 12.7 11.8 We have hoped to improve on this

in2014/15, but our main contractor went into administration during the year with large amounts of incomplete orders - a significant number of these had already passed their target dates before we were able to identify them and the putting in place new

contractors and re-raising orders had a negative impact on our performance in this area.

N

Repairs Percentage of current gas safety inspection certificates

Q 100% 99.7% 100% Every unit had valid certificate at the year end.

Y

Repairs % repairs completed at first visit within a second appointment needing to be made

Q 93% 84.0% - We do not have reliable data on this

for 2014/15; new systems are in place for 2015/16 for collection of this data.

-

(7)

Repairs The length of time it takes to let an empty home from one resident moving out to the next tenancy starting

Q 28 39 40 A poor first half of the year followed

by improved performance in 2nd half of year when performance was 31 days - relatively close to the target.

Work in early 2015 in understanding where delays are occurring should lead to improved performance in 2015/16.

N

Repairs Responsive repair work cost per property – no more than £445 plus inflation (we will use the adjusted HouseMark figures)

C <=£445 £493 not yet

available

The most recent HouseMark results (13/14) showed a big increase resulting from

- an increased volume of repairs due to high winds; and

- our main contractor winding up its operations with a resultant increase to Hexagon in repair costs from

replacement contractors.

-

Repairs Responsive repair management cost per property - 5% cheaper than the median (mid-point of London housing associations) by end of strategy (HouseMark figures)

C London

median

£199 not yet available

The most recent HouseMark results (13/14) showed costs more or less stable & slightly cheaper than the London median (£200)

-

Repairs Average works costs to empty homes are no more than 10% higher than London HouseMark median by the end of strategy

C <=15%

>London median

£2,485 not yet available

The most recent HouseMark results (13/14) showed a decline in costs with a strategy based on reducing costs to slightly above the London median - we were 16% above when the strategy

-

(8)

was written. The 2013/14 HouseMark figure put Hexagon inside the top quartile.

Repairs The rent Hexagon loses on empty homes as a proportion of all rent

C <0.80% 0.72% 0.76% Slightly better than the target, which was higher than 2013/14 because of an expected higher number of voids in the year as an indirect result of new scheme handovers during the year &

the resultant lettings to transfers.

Y

Repairs Works costs for 'routine' empty homes

C £1,500 £1,482 £1,037 This reduced a lot during 2014/15 and was well within our target

Y

Repairs Works costs for 'major works' empty homes

C £4,500 £3,518 £3,593 Our costs were similar to 2013/14 which saw a big improvement and remains within our target

Y

SH Voids

Days to let an empty supported housing home, which is not funded by the local authority

Q 35 94 62 An improvement but nowhere near as

great as had been hoped for

N

SH Voids

Rent loss due to empty supported housing properties (all)

C 5.0% 12.6% 10.1% An improvement on 2013/14, but not as great as we had hoped.

N

(9)

SH Voids

Rent loss due to empty supported housing properties (where our losses are not covered by the local

authority)

C 4.3% 8.4% 7.5% An improvement on 2013/14, but not

as great as we had hoped.

N

SH Voids

Any Supported Housing scheme where empty homes lead to over 10% rent loss, excluding periods that the local authority funds, should be reviewed with the funder after each letting to

· Learn for future voids; and

· Consider the medium term future of the scheme.

C All

schemes with

>=10%

voids reviewed

All schemes with

>=10%

voids reviewed

We have regular liaison with funders and/or support providers and

quarterly monitoring via voids reports and voids action plan

Y

SH Voids

Develop a plan for potential other uses for Supported Housing schemes should funding &/or demand change

C Not yet due

Estate Services

Resident satisfied with Estate Services - from phone survey of residents where we provide communal cleaning, gardening or related services

Q 65% 55.1% 62.1% A slight improvement, although not as great as hoped for but an extra staff member checking contractor work was introduced in 14/15 but after the survey should lead to better results in future years.

N

(10)

Residents Satisfied with Neighbourhood (from 'STAR' Tenants Survey - undertaken by phone)

Q 83.6% 82.7% 84.3% Slightly ahead of target Y

Cost per property of providing estate services should be no more than 70%

of top quartile

C <=70% 56.3% not yet

available

Figures not yet available -

Average service charge no more than 95% of the average for the boroughs Hexagon works in

C <=95% 86.5% not yet

available

2014/15 levels are not available until NROSH data in published in September 2015, longer term we expect our S/C to increase slightly for the reasons above.

-