Issue - meetings

This report advises the Executive Member of the governments mandatory requirement to conduct the three yearly tenant satisfaction survey during 2006 using a postal survey method.

Members received a report which advised the Executive Member of the governments mandatory requirement to conduct the three yearly tenant satisfaction survey during 2006 using a postal survey method.

The report advised that during 2006/7 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had made it a mandatory requirement for Local Authorities nationwide to use a postal survey methodology in conducting tenant satisfaction surveys. City of York Council had surveyed the satisfaction levels of it’s tenants, annually, via a face to face survey for the past 16 years. Unfortunately, despite appealing to the Audit Commission who were leading the tenant surveys to allow York to continue to carry out a face to face survey, which was believed to provide more qualitative data, this appeal had been denied due to the requirement for a consistent approach nationwide. There was no further opportunity for appeal. This survey would replace the Annual Housing Service Monitor during 2006/7.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for Housing be advised to note the contents of the report.

Decision of the Executive Member for Housing

Members received a report which advised the Executive Member of the governments mandatory requirement to conduct the three yearly tenant satisfaction survey during 2006 using a postal survey method.

The report advised that during 2006/7 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had made it a mandatory requirement for Local Authorities nationwide to use a postal survey methodology in conducting tenant satisfaction surveys. City of York Council had surveyed the satisfaction levels of it’s tenants, annually, via a face to face survey for the past 16 years. Unfortunately, despite appealing to the Audit Commission who were leading the tenant surveys to allow York to continue to carry out a face to face survey, which was believed to provide more qualitative data, this appeal had been denied due to the requirement for a consistent approach nationwide. There was no further opportunity for appeal. This survey would replace the Annual Housing Service Monitor during 2006/7.

Members expressed their disappointment that the Audit Commission had denied the appeal to continue the surveys face to face and stated that a more qualitative response was received face to face.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for Housing be advised to note the contents of the report.

Decision of the Executive Member for Housing