KFTRA SCRUTINY PANEL. Grounds Maintenance (OF EMPTY PROPERTIES)

KFTRA SCRUTINY PANEL Grounds Maintenance (OF EMPTY PROPERTIES)

Scrutiny & Governance Team 2nd Floor, Civic Centre 3 Huddersfield HD1 2TG Telephone: 01484 221908 E-mail: scrutiny.governance@kirklees.gov.uk Web site: www.kirklees.gov.uk/scrutiny July 2012 Page 2

CONTENTS Page No. 1. Background 4. 2. Areas of Focus 5. 3. The Panel & working arrangements 5 4. Summary of evidence received, Panel views & recommendations 6. 5. Summary of all recommendations 33. 6. Attendees and witnesses 35. 7. Sources of evidence 35. 8. Appendices 36. 9. Action Plan 41. Page 3

1 BACKGROUND 1.1 Empty (void) property management is one of the most important areas of Housing Management and a key aim of many landlords is to minimise the time that a property is empty. 1.2 A key factor in helping to speed up the availability of a property is to complete any repairs as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is also important for landlords to attract prospective tenants to a property and one aspect that helps to do this is the appearance of a property including its surrounding areas such as the garden. 1.3 Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing (KNH) has developed a Quality Guarantee which outlines the standards of service that tenants can expect. These standards were agreed following consultation with Kirklees Federation of Tenants and Residents Association (KFTRA) and are designed to reflect what tenants and residents have said are important issues for them. 1.4 The Quality Guarantee states that it wants tenants to inform KNH if standards are not being met so that issues can be resolved and to help KNH to learn lessons from what has gone wrong. 1.5 The Quality Guarantee lists a number of standards that cover the inside and outside of the property and includes a commitment that all new tenants will be contacted within 15 working days of moving in to check they are satisfied with the tenancy. Page 4

2 AREAS OF FOCUS 2.1 When considering the areas of focus the Panel agreed that the grounds of the property would include everything contained within the boundaries of the property including fencing and outbuildings. 2.2 The agreed terms of reference of the review were: 1. To review the KNH policy and the procedures that are followed in the maintenance of the grounds of void properties including: Assessing the impact that the appearance of the grounds of a property has on potential tenants and residents living in the surrounding neighbourhood. Reviewing the procedures followed by KNH in dealing with the removal of bulky items and household waste left within the grounds of the property including: items and rubbish that have been left by a previous tenant; materials and waste that have been left following work undertaken on the property by builders contracted through KNH; the general accumulation of waste generated from other sources such as fly tipping. 2. To review the KNH Quality Guarantee that covers the condition of gardens for new tenants including: Reviewing the approach taken by KNH in fulfilling the guarantee and assessing the scope of the guarantee. Assessing the standards of the work carried out and the steps taken by KNH in dealing with new tenants who are dissatisfied with the conditions of their garden. 3 THE PANEL AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS 3.1 The Panel comprised its membership from representatives of a number of tenants, residents and leaseholders of KNH and included: Mr Keith Buckley Mrs June Cade (Chair) Mr Maurice Foster Mr Allan Hinde-King Mrs Julie Jagger Mr Christopher Jenkinson Mr Stephen Knight Mr Charles Woodbridge 3.2 The Panel was supported by Richard Dunne from the Scrutiny Office, Kirklees Council and Jill Long, Co-ordinator Kirklees, Federation of Tenants and Residents. Page 5

3.3 The Panel held a series of meetings between January 2012 and May 2012 in order to receive information and evidence from a range of individuals. A full list of attendees and witnesses are shown on page 35. 3.4 The review included evidence from panel members who visited the grounds of a number of void properties to observe the condition of the outside of the properties. Photographs taken by panel members during their inspections are illustrated throughout this report. Details of the number of properties visited and the approach taken is covered in section 4.3.59. 3.5 Panel members also visited the three Caretaker Teams that operate across Kirklees, in order to establish the processes and procedures followed in dealing with void properties and to observe the work carried out maintaining the gardens of empty properties. 3.6 The Panel acknowledges that the number of properties visited represents a relatively small sample and that the results will not necessarily represent an accurate picture of void properties across the district. However the Panel feels that the inspections have helped to highlight a number of issues that when taken with the other range of evidence it has seen provides a basis for identifying areas that require further investigation. 3.7 The grounds inspections were one method amongst a number of different approaches that the Panel used to help reach its views and recommendations that included verbal discussions with witnesses, written evidence and desk top research. 4 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE RECEIVED 4.1 This section of the report will set out for each area of focus, a summary of the key evidence that has been received, followed by an outline of the Panel s views and recommendations. 4.2 Area of Focus 1 To review the KNH policy and the procedures that are followed in the maintenance of the grounds of void properties including: Assessing the impact that the appearance of the grounds of a property has on potential tenants and residents living in the surrounding neighbourhood. Reviewing the procedures followed by KNH in dealing with the removal of bulky items and household waste left within the grounds of the property including: items and rubbish that have been left by a previous tenant; materials and waste that have been left following work undertaken on the property by builders contracted through KNH; the general accumulation of waste generated from other sources such as fly tipping. Page 6

4.2.1 Approach taken by the Panel 4.2.2 During this review the Panel recognised the difficulty in gathering sufficient enough evidence to be able to fully address the area of work that focused on assessing the impact that the appearance of the grounds of a property has on potential tenants and residents living in the neighbourhood. 4.2.3 The Panel felt that in order to satisfy this aspect of the review it would need to receive feedback from potential tenants and to speak to residents living close to neglected and overgrown gardens. This in itself presented a real challenge as it is almost impossible to identify potential tenants many of whom never formally put their names forward as having visited or viewed a property. 4.2.4 The Panel also felt that it would be problematic in identifying specific gardens of empty properties, particularly with the relatively quick turnaround times, and although some focus could have been given to assessing the state of gardens in long term empty properties the Panel did not believe that this approach would fully cover this element of the review. 4.2.5 The Panel has therefore decided that taking account of the timescales allocated in undertaking this review it will be unable to cover in any real detail this aspect of the review. However the Panel still believes that the overall appearance of the outside of a property and particularly the state of the garden remains an important factor in attracting prospective tenants. 4.2.6 The Panel also feels that there is sufficient enough evidence that supports the generally held view that properties with overgrown and neglected gardens: Can have a negative impact on the neighbourhood. Will make a property less attractive to prospective tenants. Attract rubbish dumping (fly tipping). Attract anti-social behaviour. Put individuals accessing the property at risk of injury. Can encourage vermin and infestations such as wasps. 4.2.7 The Panel is confident that by maintaining a focus on the policy and procedures that are followed by KNH in maintaining the grounds of empty properties that it will identify good practice and areas for improvement that will help to contribute to a strong policy that will benefit both tenants and KNH. 4.2.8 Void Properties 4.2.9 A primary objective of landlords is to provide good management of empty (void) properties which will include: minimising the loss of rental income by reducing the length of time that a property is empty; efficient repairs and Page 7

maintenance procedures; robust systems for monitoring the standards of void properties and focusing on customer satisfaction with their new home. 4.2.10 The number of void properties managed by KNH varies from week to week depending on a number of factors such as formal notice of termination, properties being abandoned, transfer of tenancies, death of tenants or planned improvement and regeneration works. 4.2.11 KNH informed the Panel that during the financial year ending 2011/12 that there were on average around 311 empty homes at any one time. In the current financial year of 2012/13 KNH stated that it had approximately 112 empty homes that were classed as long term voids which include homes that are waiting for major structural works or demolition. On average KNH receive 58 terminations a week. 4.2.12 Long term empty property awaiting work to be carried out 4.2.13 KNH informed the Panel that in most cases termination details are received by a tenant giving formal notice to leave a property. The tenant is required to give a minimum of 4 weeks notice in writing to end the tenancy and they are advised in the Notice of Termination documentation and by KNH Housing Officers of their responsibility to leave the property empty, secure, clean and tidy. 4.2.14 The Pre- Termination Inspection 4.2.15 The outgoing tenant is advised on how they can remove any accumulated rubbish including bulky items. KNH aim, wherever possible, to inspect the home during the notice period in order to identify any aspects of disrepair, agree on items of furnishing that can remain, check that any alterations made to the property are of a satisfactory standard and assess the general condition of the property including the garden. Page 8

4.2.16 The main aim of the pre-termination inspection is to identify what work is needed to be carried out on the property to ensure that it is ready for the new tenancy. This will include the property, garden clearance, repairs and cleaning. The Panel was informed that the target time for completing any identified work on the property was around 11 days. 4.2.17 During discussions with KNH officers the Panel was informed that the pretermination inspection is usually carried out by the local Estate Management Officer (EMO) who will complete a pre-termination form (see Appendix 1) that lists what is was required to be undertaken on the property. 4.2.18 The pre-termination form includes a section that provides the EMO with the opportunity to highlight work that needs to be carried out on the garden including: cutting the grass; cutting hedges; details of any rubbish removal; and a section to provide details of any other garden issues. 4.2.19 The Panel was informed that the completed form would be distributed to the Estate Caretaker Supervisors who have the responsibility for maintaining the gardens of empty properties. 4.2.20 During discussion with KNH officers the Panel questioned the practicality of the pre-termination form highlighting the limited space that was available for writing down the details of the work that needed to be done and the subsequent work once it had been carried out. 4.2.21 KNH officers informed the Panel that there could be some scope for providing a document at pre-termination stage that could capture more information on the work that was needed to be done in the garden. 4.2.22 The Empty Homes Process. 4.2.23 The Panel was informed that as soon as the keys had been received from the outgoing tenant an email would be sent to Kirklees Council Building Services who would aim to undertake an inspection of the property within 24 hours of being notified. 4.2.24 The Panel was provided with a flowchart that covered the Empty Homes process (see Appendix 2) which stated that the first inspection was undertaken by Building Services and included taking photos of any items left by the outgoing tenant and establishing whether there was a potential recharge against the tenant for clearing rubbish or items left in the garden. 4.2.25 The flowchart also highlighted the work of Kirklees Cleaning Service (KCS) who KNH commission to undertake internal and external cleaning of the property once Building Services has finished its work. 4.2.26 During discussions with KNH officers the Panel was informed that the outside clean undertaken by KCS would focus on tidying and cleaning most Page 9

of the outside areas including clearing small items from any outbuildings belonging to the property. The Panel was informed that KCS would not carry out any work that required the use of specific gardening equipment or skills such as the cutting or removal of tree branches or disposing of heavy bulky items and rubbish. 4.2.27 The Lettable Standard 4.2.28 The Panel was informed by KNH that the work carried out by contractors on empty homes had to meet the standards that are detailed in the document The KNH Lettable Standard. KNH stated that the Lettable Standard was aimed at providing consistency in the standard of housing that tenants could expect when moving into their new home. 4.2.29 The Lettable Standard is primarily an internal document that provides contractors, including internal KNH teams such as the Estate Caretaking Team as well as external contractors like Kirklees Council Building Services, with a breakdown of the agreed standards of work. 4.2.30 During a review of the Lettable Standard the Panel noted that the document only provides a brief overview of the work that is expected to be carried out by the contractors. Areas of the document that made specific reference to gardens and the outside of the property include the following statements: Gardens will be tidied and cut, paths swept and outbuildings cleared. All waste, rubbish and any of the tenants property will be removed from within the dwelling, from within the garden of the dwelling and from any outbuildings. (Subject to agreed exceptions). Paths will have been swept to remove loose dirt and rubbish. Gullies grates to be cleaned as part of the KCS garden clean. 4.2.31 In addition the Panel also noted the following statements in the document that highlighted work relating to the outside of the property: Outbuildings and door numbers and gardens Area teams should identify and ensure that all outbuildings are numbered at pretermination stage before being handed to the One Key Team. If there is no number on an outbuilding but it is clear that it belongs to the property, KCS will clear the property. If the outbuilding is not numbered and it is not clear which property it belongs to, it will not be cleared. Gardens Greater monitoring and maintenance of gardens to be actioned by the One Key Team. Multiple cuts to be carried out during the void period if necessary, in negotiation with the Area Housing Manager. Fencing If there is a front line fence and it is damaged, it should be repaired at empty stage. If major fencing is required it should be identified and highlighted to the Area Team for them to order. Page 10

4.2.32 KNH Estate Caretaking Team 4.2.33 The Panel was informed that the Estate Caretaking Team play an integral and important role in the maintenance of gardens of empty properties. The Estate Caretaking Team operate from three locations across Kirklees and cover the Neighbourhoods of Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley and Spen. 4.2.34 The Panel was informed that each team has a Supervisor/Team Leader who is responsible for the day to day work of the caretakers and that the job description of the Estate Caretaker includes : Carrying out environmental maintenance, caretaking duties and minor repairs on internal and external areas of Council properties in a designated area. Responding to the needs of tenants/residents and internal/external agencies, by using discretion and initiative when required, to ensure that those needs are met. 4.2.35 The Panel was also informed that at the discretion of the Area Housing Manager caretakers could assist tenants on a one off basis to get overgrown and unkempt gardens into a manageable position. Caretakers are also given the responsibility of monitoring the quality of work being undertaken by other contractors or agencies on garden and environmental maintenance. 4.2.36 The Panel was provided with a booklet that detailed the service provided by the estate caretakers and noted that as part of their role in improving the environment the caretakers would help to keep estates clean by clearing litter and glass from shared areas and gardens and removing bulky rubbish which had been fly tipped on shared land. 4.2.37 In addition the Panel noted that the booklet made specific reference to garden work which including highlighting the caretakers role in clearing and tidying the gardens of empty properties. 4.2.38 The New Process for Void Gardens 4.2.39 During discussions with KNH officers the Panel was informed of the processes followed in maintaining the gardens of empty homes. This included details of the new void gardens process that was piloted by the Dewsbury Caretaking Team during the early part of 2011 and has now been introduced to the other caretaking teams. 4.2.40 The Panel was informed that the new process had been introduced in order to improve the kerb appeal of empty properties, enhance the general appearance of the outside of the property and make an empty property more attractive to prospective tenants. Page 11

4.2.41 The Panel was informed that the new process was designed to: Ensure that all empty properties were visited once the outgoing tenant had left and that the garden was brought up to an acceptable standard before the new tenant moved in. Allow EMO s who undertake pre-termination visits to make more specific requests for what work is needed in gardens and be able to document this for the estate caretakers. Allow estate caretaker supervisors to see what requests were coming through and programme the work and support that was needed to deal with them. Focus on being proactive in the work on void gardens. Make the property more marketable. Reduce the need to undertake improvement works on the garden once a new tenant had moved in. 4.2.42 The Panel asked officers how successful the new process had been. The Panel was informed that the process was still in its early stages and the results had not yet been formally assessed. The Panel was told that the results of the new process were dependant on a number of factors including: The standard of communication between the estate based teams and the caretaking teams. The process for identifying void garden works being correctly used or alternatively identifying an arrangement that is designed to meet local need. The tenant s perception of what garden works can be reasonably carried out. The impact of the weather on garden maintenance. 4.2.43 The Approach to Maintaining Void Gardens 4.2.44 The Panel was informed by KNH officers that each of the neighbourhood caretaking teams approached the maintenance of void gardens differently with the aim of tailoring the service to meet the local need. The key objective of this approach was to provide a consistent outcome and standard. 4.2.45 KNH officers stated that the levels of resource that were deployed to deal with garden maintenance would alter depending on local demand and weather conditions. For example during the summer period ( the growing season ) the level of resource in dealing with garden maintenance such as lawn cutting significantly increased, whereas during the winter period the work on gardens tended to focus more on monitoring the state of gardens. 4.2.46 The Panel was informed that although the estate caretaking teams had the responsibility of carrying out the garden maintenance of empty properties there was also a responsibility for the Kirklees Streetscene Service to continue with its commissioned programme of maintenance works that Page 12

covered shared grounds. This would include empty properties with communal gardens. 4.2.47 Monitoring of Gardens 4.2.48 The Panel was informed by KNH officers that although KNH had introduced a new process for maintaining gardens of void properties there wasn t a standard process for monitoring and managing the work that was required for the ongoing maintenance of gardens. 4.2.49 The Panel was informed that KNH recognised the need to ensure that where works on the garden hadn t been possible, for example due to poor weather, that it developed a consistent approach to record keeping to ensure that garden maintenance was carried out at appropriate times, particularly on the longer term empty properties. 4.2.50 Panel Visits to the Caretaking Teams 4.2.51 As part of the evidence gathering exercise the Panel split into three groups with each group visiting one of the three caretaking teams that operate across Kirklees. 4.2.52 Each group discussed and reviewed the processes and procedures followed by the caretakers in maintaining the gardens of empty properties, established what work caretakers were able to undertake and where possible observed the work carried out on gardens. 4.2.53 Panel members found the visits extremely useful and were generally impressed with the attitude and the work being undertaken by the caretakers. A summary of the key findings for each team are detailed below. 4.2.54 Dewsbury Neighbourhood Team. 4.2.55 The Dewsbury team is based in Chickenley, Dewsbury. The team includes a specialist caretaker whose main role is maintaining the gardens of empty properties. The caretaker reviews the list of empty properties every week and adds new properties onto the forward work schedule. 4.2.56 The caretaker visits all new empty properties and takes a photograph of the garden and makes a note of the work that needs to be done. The work that is carried out is detailed on the pre-termination form which is then filed and kept as a record of the work that has been undertaken. 4.2.57 The caretaker keeps a manual record in his notebook of any ongoing work that is required. In most cases the routine maintenance work is handled by the caretaker however if required the Area Housing Manager will organise additional support or arrange for specialist assistance. Page 13

4.2.58 The Panel was informed that the caretaker is deployed to help out on other areas of work when poor weather prevents garden work being carried out or if there is a need to undertake urgent work elsewhere in the neighbourhood. 4.2.59 Batley and Spen Neighbourhood Team 4.2.60 All of the caretakers in the Batley and Spen Team get involved in maintaining the gardens of empty properties. Each week the Caretaker Supervisor reviews the list of empty properties and allocates the work to the team. 4.2.61 The Panel noted that the team did not have a central place of work and it appeared that the base that the supervisor worked from was not routinely visited by the caretakers. 4.2.62 The caretakers use the pre-termination form to identify the initial garden work that is required however they recorded the work that has been carried out on a Void Garden Work Sheet (see Appendix 3 ) which when completed is attached to the pre-termination form. The Panel was informed that pre-termination forms were not routinely issued for all new empty properties particularly if the EMO had recently visited a property prior to it becoming vacant. 4.2.63 The caretakers are able to carry out most elements of garden maintenance and have access to a range of equipment although the Panel did note that the equipment was stored across a number of different locations. The Panel was informed that some of the caretakers had received specialist training such as operating a chainsaw and caretakers had indicated that it would be helpful if everyone in the team was provided with specialist training in order to develop a multi-skilled team. 4.2.64 The Panel was made aware that the caretaking team were able to call upon the services of an Estate Improvement Team to deal with gardens that required the use of heavy duty machinery. The improvement team had been trained to operate bigger and specialist machinery and operated separately from the caretakers. 4.2.65 However the Panel was informed that it could take up to 6 weeks for the improvement team to respond to a request mainly because it followed a planned programme of works. The Panel was made aware that in urgent cases where work was needed, such as to resolve a health and safety issue, KNH would hire an external contractor at extra cost to undertake the required work. 4.2.66 The Panel was informed that the lists detailing empty properties changed on a regular basis and the Panel noted that it appeared that only the Caretaker Supervisor took the responsibility for monitoring the list. Page 14

4.2.67 Feedback from the caretaking team indicated that maintaining the gardens of empty homes was a continual challenge with issues such as fly tipping a constant problem. The Panel was informed that the team did undertake regular drive by inspections as a way of helping to identify and deal with rubbish. 4.2.68 Huddersfield Neighbourhood Team. 4.2.69 The Huddersfield area is served by two caretaker teams located in the Chestnut Centre, Deighton, Huddersfield and the Panel was impressed with the professional appearance and set up of the offices. 4.2.70 All of the caretakers use the pre-termination forms although the Panel noted that feedback indicated that the form wasn t particularly practicable. The Panel was informed that the caretakers use the form to document the work that had been carried out on gardens including those gardens that require multiple visits. The Panel also noted that caretakers took before and after photographs of the gardens as a way of evidencing the work that had been carried out. 4.2.71 The Panel was informed that the time between the key being handed in and the property being promoted through the KNH Choose n Move scheme was very quick. The Panel concluded from the discussions that this resulted in vacant properties coming onto the market in a poor state of repair including gardens in poor condition. 4.2.72 The Panel noted that there appeared to be two processes operating for empty properties. The first process was linked to the pre-termination form which is issued by email following notification of the formal 4 week notice. The second process is linked to those properties that become vacant with short notice. In these instances the Panel was informed that caretakers received a Works Order (see Appendix 4) issued by Kirklees Building Services following its first inspection of the property. 4.2.73 The Panel was informed that the caretaking teams have to operate two computer systems one which handles the pre-termination form and the other the works order issued by Building Services. The Panel noted that in both cases the teams only had the facility to operate a read only system which meant that they had no facility to electronically enter data or update the forms. Page 15

4.2.74 4.2.75 Estate Caretaking Action Plan Work gets started on a garden of an empty property 4.2.76 The Panel was provided with a copy of the Estate Caretaking Action Plan that had recently been developed by KNH. The plan covered a number of areas including: Efficiencies; Improved Service Delivery; Performance; and Service Profile. 4.2.77 The Panel noted that the three main areas of focus for efficiency savings were a reduction in tipping costs, vehicle fleet costs and travelling times. These efficiencies were also reflected in the performance indicators which included a number of other objectives including improving customer satisfaction through a focus on void garden cuts and increasing levels of recycling through an increase in green waste disposal. 4.2.78 Unfortunately as the Action Plan and performance indicators had only recently been introduced the Panel was unable to view any meaningful data or information in order to assess the effectiveness of this initiative. 4.2.79 Removal of Rubbish and Waste. 4.2.80 The Panel was informed that the removal of rubbish and waste from the grounds of empty properties was primarily covered in the Empty Homes Process followed by Kirklees Council Building Services. 4.2.81 The Panel noted that the Empty Homes Process put the emphasis on Kirklees Council Building Services during the first inspection to identify if there were any items or rubbish that needed to be cleared from the garden. Kirklees Cleaning Services (KCS) was commissioned to undertake the rubbish clearance and cleaning only after work on the property has been carried out. Page 16

4.2.82 During discussions with KNH officers the Panel was informed that KNH had identified that there was a need to have a more robust process in dealing with the clearance of rubbish. Officers stated that KCS didn t clear and clean the outside areas of the property until the end of the Empty Homes Process. The preference would be to have KCS undertake its work on grounds of the home as soon as the property became vacant and then again at the end of the process. 4.2.83 KNH officers stated the issue of garden debris and rubbish was a real challenge for the caretaking teams who spent a significant proportion of their time on either moving rubbish or liaising with the supervisors and EMO s regarding what arrangements had been made for clearing bulky items. 4.2.84 Rubbish and debris left outside in the garden area following work undertaken on the property 4.2.85 The Panel was informed that although KCS was commissioned to undertake the clearance and cleaning of the garden the Empty Homes Lettable Standard did include a list of exceptions that Kirklees Council Building Services is responsible for dealing with which includes: Removal of concrete blocks and builders rubbish. Disposal of cars, boats, caravans or large parts thereof which are too large or heavy to be manually handled. Dismantling and removal of garden sheds, greenhouses, decking and coal bunkers etc. 4.2.86 The Panel enquired about the approach taken by KNH in dealing with tenants who left behind large bulky items. The Panel was informed that KNH officers used the pre-termination visit to identify any potential issues relating to rubbish. In addition the Tenants were provided with information on how to organise the collection of bulk items and advised to Page 17

obtain a reference number and pass this to KNH as evidence that arrangements for collection had been made. 4.2.87 The Panel was informed that where necessary tenants would be re-charged for any costs incurred for the removal of rubbish or disposal of large and bulky items. 4.2.88 Fly- tipping 4.2.89 The Panel was informed that fly-tipping was an issue that KNH was determined to manage and it recognised that the gardens of empty homes did attract rubbish dumping. KNH officers stated that EMO s did try and investigate where the rubbish was coming from and would approach residents living nearby to see if anyone was able or willing to provide any information. 4.2.90 KNH officers stated that caretakers had also been briefed to keep an eye out for potential sources of evidence such as items that included an address. The Panel was informed that KNH would take appropriate steps in dealing with offenders including proceeding with any necessary enforcement action. 4.2.91 PANEL VIEW The Panel recognises the challenge facing KNH in determining the levels of resource that will be required to work on the gardens of empty properties due to the difficulty in accurately predicting the numbers and geographical locations of terminations. The Panel feels that if KNH are not already doing so that there should be flexibility built into the caretaking resource that would allow resource to be moved across the district in order to focus on areas that may experience an unexpected increase in demand. The Panel supports the principle of carrying out a pre-termination inspection. The Panel supports the use of a pre-termination form to document the work that is needed to be carried out on the garden but feels that the current form is not practicable to use. The Panel welcomes the use of photographic evidence as used by Building Services when inspecting the property and would wish to see this practice carried out consistently for all initial inspections including the pre-termination visit. The Panel agrees with the idea of having a document that sets out the agreed standards of work although feels that the standards described in the KNH Lettable Standard document need to be more detailed and explicit. Page 18

PANEL VIEW Cont d The Panel accepts that there is a need for each neighbourhood caretaking team to individually tailor their service to meet local need providing KNH ensure that the standards delivered are consistent for all tenants across Kirklees. The Panel notes the volume of work that is being dealt with by caretakers and acknowledges the hard work that is being undertaken by each neighbourhood team. The Panel likes the idea of a void garden work sheet such as that used by the Batley and Spen caretaking team to evidence the work that has been carried out and would like to see this practice adopted by all caretaking teams. The Panel agrees with the approach taken to provide specialist training to caretakers in order to increase their skills and ability to use different gardening equipment and would like to see this extended to all caretakers with the aim of developing a number of multi skilled teams located across Kirklees. The Panel notes the option for the caretaking teams to use the services of the Estate Improvement Team and is disappointed at the time it can take before it can respond to requests. The Panel has concerns over the cost implications of commissioning an external contractor to undertake urgent gardening works and would like to see KNH consider ways of improving the response times of the Estate Improvement Team. The Panel supports the use of before and after photographic evidence as undertaken by the Huddersfield caretaking team and would wish to see this practice adopted by all caretaking teams. The Panel believes that some vacant properties are being promoted too quickly and this results in properties of poor standard being shown to prospective tenants. The Panel notes that it appears that the caretaking teams are having to work with two IT systems and would wish to see KNH take steps to simplify this issue including providing the caretaking teams with the provision to input data onto the IT system. The Panel believes that the process covering the removal of rubbish does not fully meet the requirements of both Building Services and KNH and would wish to see this issue resolved as soon as possible. The Panel acknowledges and supports the work of KNH in trying to track down those responsible for fly tipping and would like to see KNH continue to take proactive measures in dealing with this issue and investigating initiatives to help identify offenders such issuing cards with a fly tipping hotline number. Page 19

4.2.92 AREA OF FOCUS ONE - RECOMMENDATIONS 4.2.93 1. That the following actions are taken to help improve the accountability of those who are involved in maintaining the gardens and outside appearance of empty properties and to make the process easier to follow: That Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing (KNH) adapt the pretermination form with the aim of making it more practicable to use. This should include: Improving the design of the form so it has clearly defined sections where details can be recorded covering the work that needs to be undertaken and the work that has been carried out. This should include the facility to capture details of multiple visits and the dates of each visit. Reviewing the size of each section of the form to ensure that there is sufficient space to fully capture the information. That the form takes account of where photographic evidence can be attached (see recommendations below). That consideration is given to incorporating similar information to that included on the void garden work sheet (as used by the Batley and Spen caretaking team). That KNH undertake a pre-termination visit including the completion of the pre-termination form for all empty properties, regardless of when it was last inspected, and that photographic evidence is recorded of the garden and outside appearance prior to any work being carried out. That all caretaking teams follow the practice of routinely taking photographic evidence of the gardens to illustrate the conditions of the garden before and after work has been carried out. 2. That KNH review the Lettable Standard with the aim of making the standards relating to gardens and the outside property more detailed and explicit so that contractors are clear about the standard of work they are expected to deliver. Page 20

RECOMMENDATIONS cont d 3. That KNH undertake a training and development programme for all members of the caretaking teams with the aim of increasing the level of expertise across all neighbourhood teams and developing multi-skilled units that are better placed to deliver a flexible and responsive service. 4. That KNH review the two systems that currently operate under the empty homes process with the aim of creating one single process that supports the work undertaken by Kirklees Council Building Services and the KNH caretaking teams. This should include: Developing a computer system that both Building Services and the caretaking teams can access including the facility to enter updates to scheduled work and where work has been carried out. Reviewing the process that is followed for the removal of rubbish and waste and developing an action plan that details initiatives to: improve the communication between Building Services and KNH; improve the co-ordination of arrangements for waste collection; and improve the working relationship between Kirklees Council Building Services and the KNH caretaking teams. 4.3 Area of Focus 2 1. To review the KNH Quality Guarantee that covers the condition of gardens for new tenants including: Reviewing the approach taken by KNH in fulfilling the guarantee and assessing the scope of the guarantee. Assessing the standards of the work carried out and the steps taken by KNH in dealing with new tenants who are dissatisfied with the conditions of their garden. 4.3.1 Background 4.3.2 The Quality Guarantee was introduced around 10 years ago in order to outline in an open and transparent manner the standards of service that prospective tenants could expect from KNH. 4.3.3 There is an expectation that social landlords who follow good practice should publish customer service standards that are usually done through Customer Care Charters. Page 21

4.3.4 Customer Care Charters should be designed to improve the quality and value of the services that social landlords deliver to their tenants. The standards should also provide a clear statement of what tenants can expect and include how enquiries and complaints are dealt with and the timescales for responding to them. 4.3.5 KNH officers informed the Panel that KNH believe that its Quality Guarantee goes beyond the standard remit of a Customer Care Charter by seeking to set out a much more comprehensive set of standards from the offer and early stages of tenancy and through the key services that will be delivered throughout the duration of the tenancy. 4.3.6 The Panel was informed that during the period of this review that the Quality Guarantee was being reviewed in partnership with Kirklees Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations. 4.3.7 New Tenants Survey 2011 4.3.8 Kirklees Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations (KFTRA) send out each year a survey to new tenants who take on a council tenancy in July and August. The 2011 survey was sent out to 422 tenants of which 29% replied. The Panel was provided with a copy of the survey results which included a question on the condition of the garden. 4.3.9 The Panel noted that just over half (56%) of tenants stated they were happy with the condition of their garden when they first moved in which was down from 64% recorded in 2010. For those tenants that weren t satisfied the Panel noted that 80% were offered assistance in bringing their garden up to the agreed standard although only 78% of tenants that were offered assistance actually received it. These figures were significantly down on the 2010 numbers where 93% of tenants that were offered help got assistance. 4.3.10 The Panel noted a number of general comments that had been made by new tenants relating to the gardens and outside appearance including: Still waiting for grass and hedges to be cut and new fence that was promised. All paving in garden is uneven and dangerous. The grass in rear garden was overgrown and not cut. They said it was my responsibility. 4.3.11 The Panel was mindful of these results when it started to review those elements of the KNH Quality Guarantee that related to the conditions of gardens. Page 22

4.3.12 The Quality Guarantee 4.3.13 The Quality Guarantee is an external document that is aimed at providing tenants with an outline of the standards they can expect to receive from KNH. It covers a number of areas including information on: contacting KNH; becoming a tenant; the standards the tenant can expect when moving to their new home; rent payments and debt advice; tenancy conditions rights and responsibilities; and the complaints process. 4.3.14 During a review of the Quality Guarantee the Panel considered those aspects of the document that were relevant to this review and noted that the section called Your new home provided a brief explanation of the standards relating to the condition and appearance of gardens. This included the following references: All rubbish cleared from your home and garden. Gardens tidied and cut, paths swept and outbuildings cleared. 4.3.15 The Panel noted that in another section of the document called Looking after your estate KNH had included a commitment that stated it would: Make sure that empty houses have clean and tidy gardens. 4.3.16 During the discussions with KNH officers the Panel questioned whether the descriptions of the garden standards were too brief and the areas covered by the Quality Guarantee too narrow. 4.3.17 The Panel highlighted to officers the absence of any reference to the condition of garden gates and fences in the Quality Guarantee which the Panel felt were important aspects of the garden and a major influence on how satisfied tenants were with the condition of the garden. 4.3.18 An example of fencing broken and in disrepair. Page 23

4.3.19 KNH officers stated that they recognised that the points that related to the garden and the outside of the property could be considered as being ambiguous. KNH officers accepted that the standards did not cover all situations such as how to deal with garden weeds, overgrown plants etc. 4.3.20 The Panel was informed by KNH officers that the Quality Guarantee was about showing the headline standards to tenants but there was no reason not to have a more detailed description of the standards sitting underneath the document. 4.3.21 The Panel was provided with a copy of the draft revised Quality Guarantee and noted that there had been no changes made to the description of the standards relating to the condition and appearance of the garden. 4.3.22 KNH Approach to meeting the Quality Guarantee Standards. 4.3.23 During discussions with KNH officers the Panel was informed that the Quality Guarantee was not just about meeting a required standard but also about making KNH accountable and providing a commitment to tenants. 4.3.24 KNH officers stated that although they recognised that there were differences in the way that each neighbourhood team organised itself in relation to undertaking the function of maintaining void gardens the objectives of meeting the standards as stated in the Quality Guarantee remained consistent across all the teams. 4.3.25 The Panel was informed that improving the satisfaction levels of new tenants was a priority and that resources had been allocated in order to achieve this objective. 4.3.26 KNH officers stated that until recently each caretaking team had been individually managed which KNH believed had led to inconsistencies in the approach being taken and different standards being delivered across Kirklees. 4.3.27 In response to overcoming these inconsistencies the Panel was informed that one KNH officer had now been appointed to oversee all of the caretaking teams and take on the responsibility of all operational matters relating to the teams. 4.3.28 During discussions with KNH officers the Panel was made aware that the numbers of caretakers had been reduced and questioned the impact that the reduced resource would have on the standards of work being delivered by the various neighbourhood teams. 4.3.29 KNH officers stated that the re-designed processes meant that the caretaking teams were operating more efficiently and KNH was confident that standards could be maintained. Page 24

4.3.30 The Panel was informed that KNH research appeared to indicate a trend showing that the numbers of properties becoming vacant was dropping. KNH officers stated that should this trend continue KNH did not envisage a major issue with managing empty properties with a reduced resource. 4.3.31 The Panel was informed that the empty homes process provided KNH with an opportunity to involve a number of different people in monitoring the standard and condition of the gardens. This includes: The Estate Management Officer and Service Management Officer at the pre termination visit. Kirklees Council Building Services at the first inspection. The Estate Caretakers carrying out the maintenance work. Kirklees Cleaning Services carrying out the final clean and tidy up. The Estate Caretaker Team Leader as part of the sample quality check. 4.3.32 The Panel asked for details that covered the findings of any quality checks that had been undertaken. The Panel was informed that the process supporting the monitoring of standards had not yet been fully developed. Future plans included capturing feedback from tenants as a way of helping to improve standards and to identify areas where caretakers required further training or support. 4.3.33 During discussions with KNH officers the Panel was made aware that poor weather conditions had a significant impact on the caretakers ability to carry out certain aspects of garden maintenance such as lawn cutting. The Panel was informed that the heavy rainfall such as that experienced during the period April to June would result in a higher number of complaints being received from tenants. 4.3.34 Monitoring Standards 4.3.35 During discussions with KNH officers the Panel questioned whether KNH had developed a strong enough process that enabled it to regularly check and monitor the standard of work being carried out on the gardens. 4.3.36 KNH officers informed the Panel that although the system appeared on the surface to be robust they recognised that it could be improved as quality checks were not consistently being carried out and feedback on inspections were not being adequately captured. There was also work to be done to ensure that the outcomes of the new tenancy visits undertaken by the EMO s were included in the feedback. 4.3.37 KNH officers stated that they accepted that they needed to do more to ensure that quality checks were routinely carried out and part of the plans to address this issue was to regularly publish details of the quality checks that had taken place. Page 25

4.3.38 KNH officers stated that they planned to introduce a process that would ensure that feedback from new tenants was captured and would form part of a new performance measure that would be used to help drive an increase in the standards being delivered by the caretaking teams. 4.3.39 The Panel was informed photographic evidence was another area that KNH was looking to develop and stated that future plans included issuing all caretaking teams with cameras. KNH was aware that some caretaking teams already took photographs of work carried out in gardens although this practice wasn t routinely carried out. 4.3.40 The Panel asked if KNH had developed a definition of what it considered to be an acceptable standard to help KNH when inspecting the garden maintenance work. The Panel was informed that KNH accepted that defining what was an acceptable standard was difficult particularly as the assessment of gardening work was very subjective. 4.3.41 The Panel was informed that KNH was willing to try and design a process that could involve input from a number of stakeholders to establish an agreed baseline on what was deemed an acceptable standard. 4.3.42 Lessons Learned 4.3.43 The Panel was informed that KNH had started to review its existing processes and a working group had been set up to identify lessons learned and ensure that any changes to the processes and procedures would be implemented in a consistent manner. 4.3.44 The Panel was informed that areas of work that were currently under review included: Publishing details of the quality checks undertaken by the Caretaker Supervisors to include addresses of empty properties, the number of times visited by caretakers. Working with Kirklees Council Building Services to look at the work undertaken by the Kirklees Cleaning Service. Monitoring the process by which Service Management Officers and Estate Management Officers communicate details of empty properties to the caretaking teams. 4.3.45 During discussions with officers the Panel was made aware of the different work priorities of Kirklees Building Services and the caretaking teams. KNH officers stated that the caretakers priority was to carry out the maintenance of the garden at an early stage while Building Services priority was undertaking repairs and adaptations to the property with much less focus on the condition and state of the outside areas. 4.3.46 The Panel was informed that caretakers were often unable to carry out the work due to the rubbish left by Building Services as it carried out work on Page 26

the property and which wasn t scheduled to be cleared by Kirklees Cleaning Services until after the work had been completed. 4.3.47 The Panel was informed that KNH was aware that Building Services and its sub contractors were carrying out work at different times and stages and KNH were mindful that the process supporting the work carried out by the caretaking teams needed to take this into account. 4.3.48 KNH officers stated that they were currently reviewing the process to see how this issue could be resolved. This would include looking more closely at the working relationships between the various parties involved in the empty homes process. 4.3.49 Complaints handling 4.3.50 The Panel was informed that KNH measures the levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction on the standard and condition of the garden for new tenants by conducting a quarterly satisfaction survey. The survey includes a specific question on how the tenant found the condition of the garden when they moved into their new home. 4.3.51 KNH officers stated that the response rate for the survey averages around 25% and based on previous surveys the most common complaints received are: State of the garden particularly overgrown back gardens, glass and rubbish left behind. Delays in getting remedial work carried out on the garden after raising the issue with the neighbourhood team. Tenants resorting to clearing up and tidying the garden themselves. Some tenants being advised to clean up the garden themselves. 4.3.52 An example of an overgrown garden Page 27

4.3.53 The Panel was informed that complaints about new gardens that are received centrally are logged onto the KNH Customer Management System and then referred to the relevant EMO to follow up. 4.3.54 The Panel was informed that complaints referred direct to the Estate Management Officer are not centrally recorded and so KNH are not able to accurately quantify the overall number of complaints relating to the condition of gardens. 4.3.55 KNH officers stated that there was currently no specific system in place to check that any required remedial work on new gardens has been carried out. It is the responsibility of the EMO to ensure that the remedial work has been done and the complaint satisfactorily resolved. 4.3.56 The Panel asked whether KNH had identified any trends regarding complaints such as particular issues that continued to crop up or geographical hotspots where there was a high concentration of complaints. 4.3.57 KNH officers stated that the current computer system did not adequately capture the information relating to the complaint and so KNH was not currently able to analyse complaints. 4.3.58 The Panel was informed that KNH recognised the need to improve the recording and classification of complaints in order to provide more specific information about the type and location of complaints. 4.3.59 Panel Inspections 4.3.60 As part of the evidence gathering exercise panel members visited a number of empty homes in order to observe the condition of gardens. The aim of the inspections was to assess the general condition of gardens, how they were being maintained and to understand the types of challenges facing the caretaking teams. 4.3.61 Some panel members were also keen to undertake follow up visits to the properties in order to observe how gardens were maintained over a period of time rather than making a one off judgement. Panel members realised that this decision would have an impact on the overall number of properties they could visit and they recognised that the relatively small sample of properties visited would not represent an accurate picture of empty properties in Kirklees. 4.3.62 However panel members did feel that this exercise would be particularly useful in helping them to understand the issues and challenges of maintaining a garden and would help to support the other sources of evidence they would hear during this review. Page 28

4.3.63 KNH provided the Panel with a list of long term voids and properties that had recently become empty and the Panel used this list to randomly select properties to inspect. The visits were undertaken during the months of April to June 2012. 4.3.64 The Panel devised a checklist in order to ensure consistency in the approach to inspecting the gardens. The condition of various aspects of the garden was assessed using a ranking system based on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 was deemed as extremely dissatisfied and 10 extremely satisfied. A summary of the inspections and scores can be found in appendix 5. 4.3.65 The Panel visited a total of ten empty properties of which six were long term voids. Seven of the properties were located in the north of Kirklees and three in the South of Kirklees. Out of the ten properties visited six received multiple visits ranging over a period of up to eight weeks. 4.3.66 Areas of the garden that the Panel assessed included: Quality of grass cut; weed control; condition of hedges, fencing and pathways; signs of graffiti; levels of rubbish; condition of outbuildings/garden furniture. 4.3.67 Key areas that were highlighted included: Signs of graffiti 9 out of 10 properties were scored as extremely satisfied with no signs of graffiti showing on the outside areas of the property. Condition of Pathways Generally considered to be good with 7 out of 10 ranked at 6 or higher. Quality of grass cut - received some poor scores with 6 out of 10 properties receiving a score of 5 or lower with 4 being ranked as 3. Quality of weed control 6 out of 10 were assessed as being less than satisfied with 6 properties being ranked at 4 or lower. 4.3.68 Example of a well maintained pathway Page 29

4.3.69 Multiple visits that were undertaken at six of the properties highlighted the difficulties that the caretakers can face if they don t or are unable to regularly maintain the gardens. The visits highlighted: The appearance of the lawns in five out of six properties had got worse with no signs that the grass had been cut. Three out of six properties showed deterioration in weed control and in the condition/appearance of hedges. 4.3.70 However the visits did highlight that it was noticeable when work had been carried out on undertaking repairs with the Panel commenting on the improved appearance of three of the properties where fencing had been repaired. 4.3.71 The Panel did raise some concerns regarding two of the properties visited where over a four week period of inspections there was clear evidence that work had been carried out in the gardens but not finished off resulting in unnecessary waste/rubbish being left in the gardens. This included: 4.3.72 Tree branches being left in a back garden preventing further maintenance work being carried out. Decking being pulled up and left with exposed nails creating a potentially dangerous hazard. Tree branches left abandoned in a back garden Page 30

4.3.73 PANEL VIEW The Panel supports the idea of having a Quality Guarantee that comprehensively covers the standards of service that tenants can expect to receive throughout their tenancy with KNH. The Panel believes that the standards in the Quality Guarantee that relate to the condition and appearance of gardens are too brief and would wish to see a more detailed explanation. The Panel believes that the scope of the standards relating to the condition and appearance of gardens is too narrow and would wish to see the areas covered by the standard widened to include the boundaries of the property including hedges, gates and fences. The Panel notes the reductions in the numbers of caretakers and would wish to see KNH monitor the impact of these changes on the standards of work being delivered. The Panel notes the process being developed by KNH to routinely capture feedback from new tenants and use the information to identify improvements to the garden maintenance standards and looks forward to monitoring progress on this new process. The Panel supports the approach being taken by KNH to provide all caretaking teams with cameras that can be used to evidence the work that has been carried out and looks forward to monitoring progress of this initiative. The Panel notes the willingness of KNH to establish an agreed baseline for an acceptable standard of work relating to garden maintenance and acknowledges that the subjective nature of this issue will make achieving this objective difficult. The Panel notes that complaints referred direct to EMO s and/or other front line staff are not centrally recorded and the Panel would wish to see KNH develop a system that allows all complaints regardless of where they are received to be entered onto a central database. The Panel would wish to see steps taken to improve the recording and analysis of complaints. Page 31

4.3.74 AREA OF FOCUS TWO - RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That KNH review the Quality Guarantee with the aim of providing a more detailed explanation of the standards relating to the condition and appearance of gardens and extending the scope of areas that are covered. This should include: A clearer explanation of what tenants can expect including guidance on what steps are followed should adverse weather conditions prevent maintenance work being carried out. More explicit information on the approach KNH will take to deal with garden weeds, overgrown plants or trees and general appearance of garden beds. Extending the areas covered to include references to the condition of hedges, fencing, garden gates and outbuildings and the process that KNH follows for completing repairs or replacements. 2. That KNH review the processes followed in handling complaints. This should include developing a system that will: Centrally record complaints and provide the facility to classify and analyse complaints in order to help identify areas for improvement. Ensure that all complaints, including those received verbally, referred directly to front line KNH staff are centrally recorded. Page 32

5.0 SUMMARY OF ALL RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 That the following actions are taken to help improve the accountability of those who are involved in maintaining the gardens and outside appearance of empty properties and to make the process easier to follow: That Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing (KNH) adapt the pre-termination form with the aim of making it more practicable to use. This should include: Improving the design of the form so it has clearly defined sections where details can be recorded covering the work that needs to be undertaken and the work that has been carried out. This should include the facility to capture details of multiple visits and the dates of each visit. Reviewing the size of each section of the form to ensure that there is sufficient space to fully capture the information. That the form takes account of where photographic evidence can be attached (see recommendations below). That consideration is given to incorporating similar information to that included on the void garden work sheet (as used by the Batley and Spen caretaking team). That KNH undertake a pre-termination visit including the completion of the pre-termination form for all empty properties, regardless of when it was last inspected, and that photographic evidence is recorded of the garden and outside appearance prior to any work being carried out. That all caretaking teams follow the practice of routinely taking photographic evidence of the gardens to illustrate the conditions of the garden before and after work has been carried out. 5.2 That KNH review the Lettable Standard with the aim of making the standards relating to gardens and the outside property more detailed and explicit so that contractors are clear about the standard of work they are expected to deliver. 5.3 That KNH undertake a training and development programme for all members of the caretaking teams with the aim of increasing the level of expertise across all neighbourhood teams and developing multi-skilled units that are better placed to deliver a flexible and responsive service. 5.4 That KNH review the two systems that currently operate under the empty homes process with the aim of creating one single process that supports the work undertaken by Kirklees Council Building Services and the KNH caretaking teams. This should include: Developing a computer system that both Building Services and the caretaking teams can access including the facility to enter updates to scheduled work and where work has been carried out. Reviewing the process that is followed for the removal of rubbish and waste and developing an action plan that details initiatives to: improve Page 33

the communication between Building Services and KNH; improve the co-ordination of arrangements for waste collection; and improve the working relationship between Kirklees Council Building Services and the KNH caretaking teams. 5.5 That KNH review the Quality Guarantee with the aim of providing a more detailed explanation of the standards relating to the condition and appearance of gardens and extending the scope of areas that are covered. This should include: A clearer explanation of what tenants can expect including guidance on what steps are followed should adverse weather conditions prevent maintenance work being carried out. More explicit information on the approach KNH will take to deal with garden weeds, overgrown plants or trees and general appearance of garden beds. Extending the areas covered to include references to the condition of hedges, fencing, garden gates and outbuildings and the process that KNH follows for completing repairs or replacements. 5.6 That KNH review the processes followed in handling complaints. This should include developing a system that will: Centrally record complaints and provide the facility to classify and analyse complaints in order to help identify areas for improvement. Ensure that all complaints, including those received verbally, referred directly to front line KNH staff are centrally recorded. Page 34

6.0 ATTENDEES AND WITNESSES- The review was carried out between January and May 2012 and included receiving and reviewing a variety of information and holding interviews with: Noreen Beck Assistant Neighbourhood Operations Manager, KNH Seetal Patel Senior Estate Management Officer, KNH Andrew Ross Area Housing Manager, KNH Christine Shaw Senior Estate Management Officer, KNH Philip Swithenbank Estate Caretaker Supervisor, Dewsbury, KNH Steve Wilkinson Head of Community Support Services In addition to meeting with officers from KNH the Panel met with representatives from each of the KNH Caretaking Neighbourhood Teams. The Panel is grateful for everyone who has given their valuable time to help contribute to this review and found everyone to be extremely helpful and cooperative. 7.0 SOURCES OF EVIDENCE Empty Homes Process for Building Services in the One Key Team Estate Caretaking Action Plan Summary Estate Caretaking Service Performance Indicators KFTRA New Tenants Survey 2011 KNH Empty Homes Lettable Standard (revised November 2007) KNH Quality Guarantee ( revised June 2010) KNH Quality Guarantee ( revised draft April 2012) List of Terminations (25 March 2012) Non Management Voids (as at March 2012) Visual Management System (VMS) report New Tenants (January 2012) Page 35

Page 36 APPENDIX 1

Page 37 APPENDIX 2

Page 38 APPENDIX 3