Transparency fears over city council’s huge contract

ONE of the biggest housing repair contracts in the country, estimated to be worth £1.4 billion, was slammed by councillors this week for a lack of transparency and voted in under a ‘seriously flawed’ report.

The contract, to deliver responsive repairs, maintenance services, gas services, and capital improvement programmes, including major repairs to council housing stock, affects 60,000 council homes in Birmingham.

Councillors who represent areas with a high proportion of social housing said their tenants should have more say in the contract.

Green councillors Julian Pritchard (Druids Heath) and Rob Grant (King’s Norton) both requested the decision to approve the repair contract to be ‘called in’. The contract was first agreed on November 8 by senior councillors and the leader of Birmingham City Council Ian Ward.

But councillors voted in a 3-2 split to write to cabinet airing their concerns over the contract, rather than a scrutiny meeting.

In his opening remarks, Councillor Grant said: “As the landlord for many of our residents providing maintenance services, council house repairs make up a high proportion of our case work. Heating and hot water breaking and not being fixed in a timely manner. Mould not being dealt with.

“The council and its contractors often say: ‘sorry, I just can’t find where the source of the problem is’. As the city’s biggest housing manager it’s important to get this right now with regard to the division of contracts.”

Details of the contract, to begin in April 2024, show its potential value to be worth £140 million over 10 years.

Councillor Pritchard questioned why cabinet members initially delegated council officers to approve the contract. He pointed to Birmingham City Council’s own procurement rules which suggest anything over £10 million should be agreed by cabinet.

He added: “The contractor should have political accountability in the same way the council would. I think at least our tenants deserve the same for this contract.”

The council approved only two contractors to be used to fulfil the contract.

Ark Consultancy, which provided advisory support to the council, recommended four contractors be used.

But while the council took on board 19 out the 21 recommendations by Ark Consultancy, Asha Patel, the interim head of repairs and maintenance for the council, admitted the contract had gone against market advice.

She said: “We do know with significant experience that competition with smaller companies, while positive for the local pound and social value, the big companies are the ones best placed to deliver the council’s aspirations and social value.

“Because it’s been agreed we are going to develop capital as well as repairs, when you have larger contracts you are able to have that oversight of all services being delivered within the customer area and it inevitably does lead to service improvement.”

Conservative Councillor Ken Wood (Walmley and Minworth) said there was “no doubt” the council ignored Ark Consultancy’s advice. He added: “Why bring in consultants at a lot of money who appear to have done a very, very good job and we are ignoring it?

“If one of the contractors starts to fail, where do we go? Yes, we can hit them with financial penalties, but that isn’t helping our tenants at all. With two contractors, there isn’t a lot of choice, is there?”