Agenda item

To consider the 12 month update on the services provided by Ubico and to agree that the annual report for 2017/18 be brought to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting in July 2018 in order to align with the financial year.

101.1         Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 96-104, which provided an update on the Ubico contract for the waste and recycling service, street cleansing and grounds maintenance services following transfer of the services to Ubico in April 2015.  Members were asked to consider the 12 month update on the services provided by Ubico and to agree that the annual report for 2017/18 be brought to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in July 2018 in order to align with the financial year.

101.2         The Head of Community Services explained that this was a high-level report looking at overall performance and, whilst there had been some operational issues, he provided assurance that they were being addressed.  It was intended to hold a seminar in June to afford Members an opportunity to discuss the problems with Ubico in more depth and the date would be confirmed later in the month.  Rachel Capon, the Contracts Manager (Collection and Street Scene West) from the Joint Waste Team, reminded Members that contract monitoring was split between two different parties: the Joint Waste Team, for monitoring waste and recycling and street cleansing, and Tewkesbury Borough Council for grounds maintenance.  The Joint Waste Team held six weekly contract monitoring meetings with Ubico on behalf of the Council to monitor against contract specification, targets and legal compliance; resolve complaints and service delivery issues; develop communications with residents if opportunities arose from information on the ground; and to review health and safety compliance and implement best practice across the contract.  The Joint Waste Team was also responsible for carrying out health and safety checks on the waste, recycling and street cleansing crews with any issues identified being reported back to the Ubico supervisors.  Health and safety information was then reported quarterly to the Council’s ‘Keep Safe, Stay Healthy’ Group to ensure a closed-loop process was in place.  In addition, fortnightly meetings were held between the Council’s Customer Services Team and Ubico to resolve day to day issues and make continual improvements to the Achieve system (Report It online) which was used to log service requests; this helped to improve customer service and communication with residents.  There was also an Environmental Services Partnership Board - which met on a quarterly basis and included representatives from the Council, Joint Waste Team and Ubico - to look at performance and development on a strategic level.

101.3         In terms of performance, Members were informed that there were only six performance indicators within the Ubico contract - which were standard across all Ubico contracts - the details of which were attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  In November 2016, the Council’s Internal Audit team had recommended that the performance indicators be reviewed to ensure they were fit for purpose and measurable for service delivery and a Working Group had been set up to develop a standard set of performance indicators across all contracts with the intention of putting them in place by July 2017. The Joint Waste Committee had delegated responsibility for diverting waste from landfill and it worked in partnership with Ubico to deliver campaigns to reduce waste and improve recycling performance.   She confirmed that the figures for 2016/17 had now been received and showed 411kg of residual household waste per month which was a reduction from 2015/16 and in line with the projected outturn for the year.  The food waste stickering campaign, which had been implemented over the full year, had had a positive impact on these figures.  In terms of the percentage of household waste reused, recycling and composted, the projected outturn for 2016/17 was 53% which was an increase of almost 3% compared to 2015/16 and was positive given the backdrop of declining recycling rates nationally.  The contract set a target of 99% household collections completed on schedule and it was noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had previously discussed the possibility of increasing this target given that it was being achieved month on month; this was being considered as part of the review of performance indicators.  It was recognised that there had been some issues as a result of changes to the collection rounds, new drivers and new crews and, whilst some of those issues did come down to Ubico, others were a result of residents not reacting to the information which they had been sent.  The majority of repeat missed bin collections were due to a smaller vehicle not having enough capacity and this had been resolved by moving properties which did not need to be serviced by that vehicle back to a larger vehicle.  In terms of general service delivery issues, there had been improvements in bin delivery and bulky waste collections over the last year, largely due to the increased number of properties and promotion of the scheme.  Waiting times had also been reduced as a result of system redesign which created more delivery slots whilst maintaining existing resource levels.  Members were advised that new health and safety guidance had been published in respect of highway cleansing which had implications for Ubico when carrying out litter picking on high speed roads and on roads where there was less than 1.2m of clearance from the roadside; this had meant that some roads could not be litter-picked without road closures in place.  Ubico had identified the affected roads and was developing a proposal for a safe system of work to present to all shareholders.  She reiterated that the Joint Waste Team was not responsible for grounds maintenance and different local authorities had different arrangements in place for managing and monitoring that particular aspect.  The Head of Community Services had identified a shortfall in that area and was developing an action plan to ensure that it was monitored more effectively. 

101.4         The Environment and Waste Policy Officer, Julie Davies, drew attention to Page No. 100, Paragraph 4.5 of the report, which related to formal complaints.  The table set out the complaint type and the number of complaints received.  During 2016/17 there had been six complaints regarding the attitude of a member of staff, for example, if litter was left around a bin when it was emptied; 14 complaints regarding the standard of a service e.g. repeat missed bin collections; 15 complaints about failure to provide a service, for instance, there had been issues with stock control and bulky waste collection and bin delivery waiting times; and three complaints in respect of damage e.g. spillages, or if a vehicle clipped another car.  In terms of health and safety performance, waste and recycling and grounds maintenance services were significant risks and, in the last 12 months, Ubico had demonstrated a commitment to work to high standards through: developing a Health and Safety Strategy and Policy; Contractors Health and Safety Assessment Scheme (CHAS) and EXOR accreditation; all managers and supervisors attending a four day Institute of Safety and Health (IOSH) training course; and a trial of on-board vehicle cameras which monitored the perimeter of the vehicle to allow hazard spotting – it was noted that this technology had been specified for the new Tewkesbury Borough vehicle fleet.  All health and safety statistics were reported to the six weekly meetings and quarterly board meetings where any accidents or near misses were discussed.

101.5         In relation to financial performance, the Contracts Manager explained that Ubico had delivered the targeted efficiency savings in 2015/16 and there had been an underspend of £71,000, largely due to the drop in fuel prices.  In the original business plan, the second year efficiency savings were to be delivered by standardising the terms and conditions of all staff; however, due to the complexities of this process, this had been delayed until 1 April 2017 and was not expected to deliver the original savings that had been identified.  As such, Ubico had tried to deliver the savings through other means and the quarter three forecast showed a £28,000 overspend.  The Environment and Waste Policy Officer advised that a waste services review had been carried out in November 2015 and a report had been taken to the Executive Committee in February 2016 in relation to the procurement of a new vehicle fleet; Ubico had been involved throughout the whole process and the fleet had now been purchased.  On 14 April 2017, Ubico had taken on a transfer facility arrangement for the new Material Recovery Facility (MRF) contract and she had received an update earlier that day that there had been a seamless transition and it was working well.  More projects had been started in 2016/17 which would continue throughout the year.

101.6         A Member indicated that she had concerns regarding crews not wearing gloves and the Interim Managing Director of Ubico assured Members that health and safety was a priority for Ubico.  Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including gloves, was issued to staff and the Environment and Waste Policy Officer confirmed that crews were wearing the PPE when inspections were carried out.  The Ubico Operations Manager recognised that this had been a particular problem in the past but there had been a lot more handling of waste at that time; since the recycling had changed from boxes to bins this was not such an issue.  Notwithstanding this, he reiterated that surprise inspections were carried out throughout the month and PPE was very high on the agenda for checking.  In response to a query regarding assisted bin collections and the potential for misuse, Members were informed that the Joint Waste Team was working with Ubico to develop a new assisted collection list which would be reviewed periodically.  Family or neighbours tended to report when someone using the service passed away but sometimes new residents did not realise they should be putting their bins on the street rather than the crews coming down driveways to collect them.  A Member queried whether drivers received adequate training before going out with a team and he referred to an incident where a driver who was unfamiliar with his route had reversed into a wall.  The Interim Managing Director of Ubico explained that Ubico had struggled to recruit drivers for large vehicles and this was a problem experienced nationally; however, following work with colleagues in Human Resources, a recent recruitment exercise had been successful and in-depth training had been provided for all new drivers, particularly in terms of the new rounds and the new vehicles - the vehicle manufacturer had worked with Ubico for a period to ensure that drivers were familiar with the vehicles.  The Ubico Operations Manager pointed out that in-house drivers tended to have a lot of experience and training; however, this was not always the case with agency drivers and nothing was taken at face value in those instances.  In line with the introduction of the new contract on 1 April, agency staff had been brought in for an induction which had covered health and safety, site rules etc.  Supervisors were licensed Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) drivers and were also assessed. 

101.7         With regard to Appendix 1, a Member pointed out that the target for the number of service complaints received against weekly collection was 1% which, for 86,000 collections per week, equated to 44,720 complaints over the year and he felt this needed to be reviewed and made into a realistic target.  He also expressed concern regarding the lack of detail in terms of financial performance and requested that a breakdown be provided so that Members could establish what the issues actually were.  The Contracts Manager indicated that this information was included as part of the financial report which was taken to the Executive Committee and it could be included in the Overview and Scrutiny Committee update in future.  Another Member raised concern over the level of detail within Appendices 1 and 2 and she drew particular attention to the annual targets for performance indicators 1-3 which stated ‘target to be set following baseline’.  Another Member questioned why the notes against certain sections of Appendix 2 stated ‘Tewkesbury data not available in this format’.  Members were advised that Appendix 1 was taken directly from the contact originally formulated with Ubico and it was accepted that there was a lot of work to be done to improve that.  Appendix 2 was the template taken from Ubico as the standard performance management report and other local authorities had different reporting mechanisms, for instance, Cheltenham Borough Council categorised things differently from Tewkesbury Borough Council.  There were concerns that sufficient data was not being captured and a project was underway to make it more realistic and achievable.  The new template would contain all of the data for Tewkesbury Borough.  The Member questioned when the revised performance indicators would be brought back to the Committee and was informed that, once they had been implemented, it would be necessary to have a period of data-gathering in order for the information to be meaningful, as such, the report recommended that the annual update for 2017/18 be brought to the Committee in July 2018 when a full year of data would be available.  Several Members expressed the view that this was too long and it was suggested that six months was enough time to establish and react to trends.  The Contracts Manager indicated that the Joint Waste Team had an idea of which performance indicators worked better than those in the contract and reiterated that there was a meeting the following day to determine how data could be collected.  Performance meetings were held on a quarterly basis and the next one was later in the month so, although the performance indicators were likely to be in place by the next Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting in June, there would only be one month of data to report on and it would be more beneficial to bring an annual performance report to Members.  In terms of the baseline targets relating to residual household waste per household, recycling and collections, included at Appendix 1, this would be addressed in the report received by the Joint Waste Committee report in October; however, it was not down to Ubico to drive that forward.  This only left the indicator in relation to improved street and environmental cleanliness, a national indicator which had now been scrapped - monitoring of this indicator had taken a disproportionate amount of Officer time so it was not intended to bring this back; notwithstanding this, assurance was provided that work was being carried out on street cleansing over the next six months.  In response to a query regarding the legislation around street cleansing, the Ubico Operations Manager explained that the regulations were very new and the proposal being developed by Ubico would provide a number of alternative delivery models to address this.  In terms of the cost implications, the various options would be put forward for the Joint Waste Team to consider. 

101.8         With regard to grounds maintenance, a Member drew attention to Paragraph 4.4.4 of the report which stated that this was not managed or monitored by the Joint Waste Team and was delivered by Ubico.  Whilst she noted that an action plan was being developed, she pointed out that this was not acceptable to members of the public who wanted an efficient response to complaints such as long grass that needed cutting.  The Head of Community Services provided assurance that this was a priority for him; the Officer responsible for monitoring this element of the contract was not currently at work and he intended to carry out a service review of the area to develop a plan for more effective monitoring.  He accepted that the Council was currently being reactive rather than proactive and that was something which must be addressed.

101.9         A Member raised concern that there was a lot of flexibility in the report in terms of target dates.  She indicated that she would like to see expected deadlines for meetings, decisions and agreements so that they could be scrutinised by Members and it was established that this would be addressed within the next month.  Another Member continued to express the view that it was unacceptable to wait until the July 2018 meeting for the next Ubico report.  In response, the Head of Community Services agreed that he would be happy to produce an interim report to bring back to the Committee as a “one-off” due to the issues that were currently being faced.  It was subsequently

RESOLVED          1.   That the 12 month update on the services provided by Ubico be NOTED.

2.   That an interim report be brought back to the Overview and  Scrutiny Committee meeting on 5 September 2017 on a one-off basis, with the annual report being taken to the meeting in July 2018 in order to align with the financial year.