Confirmation of Notice to Vacate Sample Letter

							          REPORT OF THE SCRUTINY REVIEW GROUP
             ON THE MANAGEMENT OF CHALETS

1. DECISION REQUIRED:
                                                                             H
That the Community Regeneration and Culture Committee endorse the
conclusions of the Review Group and the recommendations for further action
detailed below.


2. RECOMMENDATIONS:

i That the Environment and Property Services Manager be requested to
prepare an action plan for the implementation of the suggested improvements
to the administration and management of the chalets as detailed in paragraph
4. a) of the report and that the situation be reviewed in October

Ii That the Head of Financial Services implement the changes to the financial
management highlighted in paragraph 4. b) of the report

Iii That a report on the alternatives for long-term management of the chalets
together with development options as detailed in paragraph 4 c) of the report be
presented to the Community Regeneration and Culture Committee by
November.
That the report contains information relating to:-

      The present state of general repair of the chalets and any immediate
       repairs and maintenance budgets anticipated for the next five years
      How other chalets in other parts of the country are managed and what is
       provided for any charges made


3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

a. Introduction

The Review Group consisted of Councillors David Harris, Jacqui Redfern and
Margaret Alsop, from the Community Regeneration & Culture Committee. The
purpose of the review was to examine the systems in place for the management,
maintenance and financial accounts for the chalets. The Review on Wednesday 25th
May 2005 took the form of interviews with staff, members of the chalet users group
and consideration of documentation as detailed below. The reason for the review
was that a number of concerns had been expressed by Chalet Users regarding the
administration of the waiting lists and planned maintenance for the Chalets. The
desired outcome was to reassure members that improvements to the administrative
systems for the management of the chalets were sound and the long-term
management options for the chalets were being actively considered.




                                        1
b. Evidence collected

i) Documentation

The following documents were provided for the Group:
      Constitution of the Chalet Users Consultation Group
      Minutes of the meetings of the Chalet Users Group meetings held on
       12th October 2004 and 1st February 2005
      A background covering report from Tony Beeson, Environmental Health &
       Property Manager
      Maintenance budget breakdown for 2005/06
      Greenhill chalets electrical report
      Chalet fees paid to 19th May 2005
      Chalet information (inc. resident/non-resident occupancy and number on
       waiting lists)
      Financial statement for 2004/05 and predictions for 2005/06
      Chalet income relative to performance indicator targets.
      A summary of correspondence between Council and chalet users and those on
       waiting lists.
      Sample letter sent to chalet users re: fees for 2005/06
      Sample letter sent to chalet users with 3-year agreement.
      Beach chalet 3-year licence agreement
      Sample letter sent to confirm chalet tenancy following receipt of signed
       agreement
      Sample follow-up letter sent to those not returning the signed agreement
      Sample letter sent to those on waiting list inviting viewing of chalet.
      Sample letter sent to those on waiting list asking if still interested in having a
       chalet
      Timetable for letting of chalets and performance indicators.

ii) Discussions with Officers

Tony Beeson, Environmental Health & Property Manager

General comments
Tony suggested that one of the critical issues to be considered was the future of the
chalets. Management of the chalets was now on a sound footing and future
administration of them should be much easier. The introduction of the requirement “to
give notice” to vacate a chalet was a big improvement. It was a small part of the unit’s
workload but had been a very time consuming one. The main difficulty in the job was


                                             2
dealing with people, i.e. the time factor of issuing deadline after deadline and chasing-
up on a small number of people again and again.

Maintenance
Staff sickness problems – there had previously been a F/T carpenter and a F/T
plumber. The carpenter retired on grounds of ill-health in February 2005 and the
plumber was currently on long-term non-work related sick leave. A general handyman
had recently been appointed to start shortly. This person would work on other Council
properties as well as chalets.

Future of chalets
A full condition survey was required whatever the future for the chalets and assuming
no unpredicted higher priorities or more staff sickness it was hoped to carry out the
survey during Autumn 2005. The long-term future of the chalets could not be decided
until the results of the survey were known.

State of accounts
    On 1st April 2005, 10 chalets were vacant but 8 had subsequently been let and
       1 was still in disrepair.
    Some tenants had not yet paid any fees - this was technically a breach of the
       agreement as invoices were issued after agreement was signed which
       requested payment in 21 days.
    Further invoice automatically generated after 28 days.
    The possibility to pay in 6-monthly instalments had complicated matters, as it
       could not be done until 2006.
    It costs the Council to keep sending reminders and having delays in payments.
       so one possibility was to add a management fee to the chalet charge when
       delays occurred.
    Systems were now in place to prevent the need for electricity surcharges in
       future.

Electrical safety/personal appliances
It was understood that several tenants had their personal electrical appliances
checked for safety and now that the rewiring had been completed Members asked
whether chalet users would be able to use such items as fridges etc. Tony advised
that the Agreement stated that fridges, or appliances with more than 13 amp fuse
rating could not be used. (what fuses are required for fridges?)Tony reported that
there was insufficient manpower to enforce the provisions of the Agreement. Should
the Council consider sending a warning letter to offenders, of possible termination of
the Agreement? Tony advised that the future of fridges would be raised at the next
Chalet Users Group meeting in October.

Waiting lists
Tony explained the background to the computer problem with the waiting lists’
databases and the delay in receiving the new computer system. Janis was working
her way through the waiting lists to check whether each person listed still wanted to
remain on a waiting list. This was a time consuming process.




                                           3
Beach tent sites
The sites were managed by the Council but the site tenant was responsible for
erecting their own wooden beach tent on the site and for dismantling and storing the
tent at the end of the season. For vacant sites, a web based advert was suggested as
well as posters being put up on the beach.

Janis Chalker, Administrative Officer, Property Services

Janis detailed the setting up of the new administration systems for the letting of
chalets. A tracking system had been introduced.

Waiting lists
Names on the waiting list database would not be transferred to the new system
unless there was confirmation that the person still wished to remain on the list. Those
who did not respond to letters or did not appear for viewing appointments were
automatically removed from the waiting list. It was hoped this task would be
completed within the next few weeks. A single waiting list would not work due to the
problem of matching customers to suitable chalets, i.e. most elderly applicants do not
want chalets with steps access or sluice gardens location. If there were still a great
many people on the waiting lists could consideration be given to a 3-yearly turnover of
tenants? i.e. no automatic assumption to retain tenancy at the end of the 3-year
agreement.

General points
Janis also dealt with tenants’ complaints. She received positive feedback from
customers on improved communications in respect of chalets. Could there be spot
checks to identify breach of agreements? Janis reported that chalet work had
dominated her time during March and April but that this should now reduce with
systems in place and a full residency situation.

A recent case was detailed whereby a non-resident (giving a local address) had
received a resident’s discount. This had been discovered and the situation rectified.
However to confirm eligibility for a resident’s discount, written proof of residency now
had to be provided.

Greg Northcote, Property Services Manager and Julie Strange, Group
Accountant, Financial Services

Maintenance
Greg outlined the procedures followed for different maintenance work. Work was
monitored by Council officers. Some work was carried out in-house. Once the survey
had been carried out, a programme of planned maintenance works for the chalets
could be developed and an estimated lifespan judgement made. It was likely there
would be relatively high maintenance costs over the next few years, due to a backlog
of maintenance work. All maintenance work planned for the current year should be
complete by the end of the month.

Future of the chalets
External management of the chalets may not be an attractive proposition if it were to
be only for a period of 3 years. Although rental evidence had been gathered from



                                            4
other resorts, it did not necessarily relate to the Weymouth situation. He outlined the
project to demolish and re-build chalets at Durley Chine. To carry out re-build or new
build of chalets in the Borough would require capital resources, prudential borrowing,
or use of reserves, unless other external agencies could be involved.

It was suggested that letting the chalets on the open market should be tried to
ascertain exactly what people would be prepared to pay for them.

Financial aspects
The chalets’ insurance charge was for public liability insurance. The buildings
insurance premiums relating to the chalets are included with the general purpose
property premiums.

The financial statement was considered and a request was made for further
information on other units where an Environmental Health charge was made. Central
support costs included accountancy, creditors, payroll and publicity.
Separate income from chalets and beach tent sites was requested as there were no
utility costs for beach tent sites. The effect of discounts in relation to rents and income
was also requested.

The following breakdown of costs for the 2005/06 current predictions was given:

     Budget                      £67,060
     Maintenance                     19,780
     Electricity                      1,750
     Rates *                         13,916
     Water                              517
     Insurance                        2,500
     Property recharge               17,573
     Other recharges                  5,024
     Environmental health             6,000

* Increased by inflation only as the new rateable value was not known at the time of
setting the budget.

Financial strategy considerations
The considerations in respect of the financial strategy were circulated to remind the
Group of options available:
Efficiency savings, Changes to service levels, Alternative service delivery, Financing
of activities, Asset disposal, Income generation.


c) Discussions with Chalet Users

Marcia Hands, Joy Stanley, Sue Bray and Pam Masters

The chalet users were not certain yet on how the Individual Response forms were
meant to be used; should they list all the needs of a chalet or just for new immediate
needs for security or safety?



                                             5
There were clear improvements in the communications and with the efficiency of the
repairs presently being undertaken. Some of the external work seemed to be a little
haphazard in its application – with contractors moving backwards and forwards and
not undertaking whole terraces at a time.

Users were please with the re-wiring that had been undertaken, but were not
surprised that the re-assurances from last year that everything was alright were not
fulfilled.

Both pairs of users raised concerns about the lack of reaction to deliberate breaches
of the contract by one or two chalet users and hoped that action would clearly be
seen to be taken. One chalet had left its fridge on for the whole of the winter, as well
as leaving other food around, attracting mice and possibly rats.

There was still concern about the status of BBQs on the beach, particularly on
Carnival night.

Almost half the chalet users had had a PAT done through the users group, but there
was a concern about the remaining users, and whether this would be followed up.

When we found chalets in a bad internal state, as we would have done during the
rewiring exercise, what steps had we taken?

Concern was still expressed about the contribution to the water and electricity bills,
and the fact that the water supply was used by many other people.

One administration issue that needed to be clarified for next year was the use of the
pin number to enable a bill to be paid in two parts. Some chalet users had received a
final demand because they had not quoted this at the relevant time. Instructions could
be included in the annual letter to licensees.

Relationships with Beach Control were good and the users wondered whether we
could have some signs that indicated this was a beach watch area. We also need to
make clear what we can expect from property services in supporting the conditions
laid down in the licence. One aspect was the overcrowding that sometimes occurred
outside a chalet.

Have we set up a mechanism for gathering exit data? If not, can this now be
established; if so, can we have the information gleaned from the recent departures?

Chalet users are happy to help us keep our costs down and could help by meter
reading at the relevant times, to save a journey fro the office. We need to recognise,
when we consider the long term future of the chalets the value of the “local support”
from the users who feel part of the Borough Community within the present set up, and
consequently contribute to the good name of the Borough.

4. CONCUSIONS

The management of the chalets was now on a much firmer footing and relationships
with the users were generally positive. Repairs and maintenance were being



                                            6
undertaken and communications with the office had improved considerably. The new
three year agreement is now in operation and gains in administration time should be
noticeable next Spring. There are still some outstanding operational issues to be
clarified or improved and these are identified below. During the next two years it will
be essential to review the long term future of the management of the chalets,
consulting fully with existing users and those presently on the waiting lists.


a) Outstanding Operational and Management Issues

i) That the User Group should be involved more effectively in planning priorities for
maintenance tasks and consider what we might allow them to do for themselves ( e.g.
could they save us money by reading electricity meters?)

ii) Review enforcement of the agreement; and its various clauses. i.e. the keeping of
fridges and the checking of electrical appliances for the PAT. Review the option of
fridges now that the wiring had been renovated.

iii) Establish a new, accurate data base for those on the waiting list before the end of
this calendar year.

Iv Explore where we might want to bring in management charges. Possibilities
include:
     A late payment of bill might invoke a management charge for the additional
       reminders
     An inspection after a breach of the rules could also be considered for a
       management charge

v) Implement procedures to deal with late payers in as effective a way as possible.

vi) Request Chalet users complete a checklist to help with the review of the state of
the chalets in the autumn, but in the meantime clarity was needed in the use of
Response job forms.

vii) As it was not possible to use Council Tax Data to establish residency request
Chalet Users provide proof of residency such as council tax bill.

vii) Set up a mechanism for gathering exit data if not already done.

b) Financial Issues

(i) Establish a budget which includes more detail regarding payments to other
sections.

(ii) That charges to the users be adjusted to reflect the greater cost of the non-
domestic rates and the lower costs for electricity.

(iii) Ensure that the method of payment, and timing of payments for next year were
clearly understood, and any default/management charges we might care to add are
also publicised properly well in advance.


                                            7
(iv) Identify an effective way of marketing the beach tent sites to generate more
income for the Borough.


c) Long Term Options

i) Consider alternative options for long term management of chalets, such as:

      Status quo, with either three or five year agreements
      Set up a trust to manage them, or ask the users to consider doing this, and
       then provide a longer term agreement with them
      Sell of a franchise to manage them for a much longer period, with built in
       safeguards for their upkeep and use.

ii) Explore opportunities to erect further chalets on site.

5. MONITORING AND REVIEW

That the Officers report to the meeting of the Community Regeneration and Culture
Committee on progress in implementing the recommendations so that consideration
may be given as to whether further scrutiny is required.

6. APPENDICES

Financial information.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Review Group would like to thank the following people who contributed to the
Review:-

Tony Beeson                 Environmental Health and Property Manager
Gregg Northcote             Property Services Manager
Janis Chalker               Administrative Officer, Property Services
Julie Strange               Group Accountant
Joy Stanley
Marcia Hands
Sue Bray                    Chalet Users
Pam Masters
Angela Pavey                Committee Services Officer
Jayne Vallance              Committee Services Manager




Councillor David Harris Councillor Margaret Alsop Councillor Jacqui Redfern
July 2005



                                             8
Other Issues raised to be explored elsewhere

ICT had given the database for users and the waiting list a low priority; this may be
correct but it was not clear who took these decisions and whether we had sufficient
capacity within IT to carry out all the developments necessary because of the weak
management in the past.

£6000 was earmarked from the chalet budget for the Environmental Health
Department. How did this fit with other budgets and the EHD’s own budget?

What details are kept of sickness and do these show any patterns? Are we sure that
we are wise to keep our own maintenance team?

We needed to consider where Beach Tent sites fitted into our tourism policy and
how/where to market them effectively.

Were we confident that our method of awarding and monitoring small repair contracts
was effective?

Can the two rafts be moved further apart as they attracted crowds outside a small
number of chalets at present?

Are BBQs allowed on the beach?

We also need to make clear what we can expect from the council in supporting the
conditions laid down in the licence.




                                           9