Agenda item

To consider the Ubico performance report for the first six months of 2018/19.

70.1          The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 36-83, provided an update on the performance of the Ubico contract for the waste, recycling, street cleansing and grounds maintenance services for the first six months of 2018/19.  Members were asked to consider the report.

70.2          The Head of Community Services advised that the level of information provided to monitor the Ubico contract had increased significantly compared to previous years to allow greater oversight of services and he felt this was demonstrated by the openness and transparency of the Ubico performance report, attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  He advised that the amount of residual household waste per household was very similar to the previous year and there had been a small increase in the percentage of household waste reused, recycled and composted from 54.07% to 55.57% which was positive.  In terms of missed bin collections, the Key Performance Indicator had been revised significantly from 1% in previous years - meaning that Ubico would have been well within the target of 42,000 missed collections for the year – to 0.1% as part of the improvement plan and had since been further revised to a 0.05% stretch target.  The graph at Page No. 50 of the report gave a visual representation of the pattern of missed bin collections between April and September 2018 and showed a drop between July and August with a slight increase in September.  It was now possible to track missed bin collections per waste stream and the graph at Page No. 48 of the report showed that recycling and refuse was broadly within target but food caddies, which were often hidden behind large bins, were missed more frequently.  The Managing Director of Ubico advised that a common question he was asked was how Ubico compared with other contractors.  He had investigated the reporting profiles for the South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse District Councils - which had contracts with Biffa and were first and second in the country in terms of recycling with a rate of approximately 61% - and they had a missed bin rate of 0.11% in 2017 which was outside their stretch target of 0.04%.  It was noted that the service was very similar to Tewkesbury Borough Council’s with two weekly refuse and recycling collections, and the most interesting finding was the suggestion that the stretch target had not been attained because of additional food waste, which had been introduced mid-2017, and the fact that rounds were bigger therefore there was a higher level of human error.  The Forest of Dean District Council, which had a kerbside sort service operated by Biffa, had a missed bin rate of 0.06% in the last quarter; the latest available data, for October and November 2017, showed that Tewkesbury Borough Council was comparable with a missed bin rate of 0.07% which was getting closer to its own stretch target.  Biffa was recognised nationally as a good provider in terms of its systems and internal processes, for instance, it used in-cab technology so was able to log addresses where bins had not been presented for collection etc. therefore he was content that Tewkesbury Borough Council’s weekly missed bin collections were currently at 45-65 per week and that the target would deliver continuous improvement.

70.3          With regard to garden waste, the Head of Community Services indicated that garden waste subscriptions had continued to increase with over 2,200 since April.  Requests for new bins remained high with an average of 117 refuse bins and 125 recycling bins requested per month and it was noted that the stock control system introduced by Ubico as part of the improvement plan had meant that stock had been maintained at an appropriate level.  Bulky waste collections remained consistent with an average of 233 requests per month; there was currently a charge of £82 for this service, with a 50% discount for those in receipt of benefit, but this was being reviewed.  Members were informed that the street cleansing review would be completed shortly; this had been delayed by the issues in relation to the Energy from Waste site at Javelin Park which had required a lot of resources from both the Council and Ubico.  The graph on the left side of Page No. 62 of the report showed the number of street cleanliness complaints, for example, requests for litterbin and dog bin emptying, which had a target of two working days for completion; this was not currently being achieved and was an area that needed more work.  It was noted that the graph on the right related to ‘special circumstances’, for example, requests for litter picking on an A road, which had a target of 14 working days for completion due to the more complex nature.  Similarly, fly-tipping was not consistently achieving its two-day target which could be an issue with recording - for instance, multiple reports of the same fly-tip might be recorded separately - in addition, whilst all fly-tips were recorded, some were on private land and therefore not the responsibility of Ubico to collect.  As such, this indicator needed to be reviewed in order to better reflect what was being collected and what Ubico was being monitored on.

70.4          The Head of Community Services indicated that he had been surprised to see an increase in the number of formal complaints about waste and recycling, with 68 in the first half of 2018/19 compared with 82 for the full year 2017/18, particularly considering the significant changes to the service in the last year.  It was thought this could be attributed to complainants responding because of past service failures i.e. if a customer’s bin had been missed five times in 2017/18, a single missed bin in the current year could prompt them to make a formal complaint.  In terms of financial performance, the report set out that Ubico had forecast an overspend of £140,000; the latest data meant that had increased to £153,000.  Whilst this was significant, it needed to be considered in the context of the £3.7M contract; nevertheless, assurance was provided that the Council was impressing on Ubico the need to bring the services within budget.  The national driver shortage had been particularly challenging, and had resulted in an over-reliance on agency staff, as such, consideration was being given to increasing the current 5% market supplement in order to attract and retain drivers as well as using the apprenticeship levy to help Ubico to ‘grow its own’ drivers.  The Head of Community Services recognised that Members had been frustrated with the lack of detail contained within previous reports so he hoped this report had helped to address that; he pointed out that this report was more in line with the level of information needed by Officers in order to monitor the Ubico contract in a meaningful way and he confirmed that all partners received broadly the same information so it could be more easily compared with other contracts as and when necessary.

70.5          A Member raised concern that some of the graphs contained within Appendix 1 to the report were difficult to understand, not least because of the use of similar colours.  He felt that Members needed an indication of whether performance was good, bad or indifferent rather than just giving a percentage or a figure.  Ubico had promised to provide economies of scale and he sought clarification on the likely impact of Cheltenham Borough Council’s decision to leave the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee.  The Head of Community Services explained that the graphs used within the report did include targets so Members could see if they were being achieved, for example, Page No. 44 set out the number of missed recycling collections with the target clearly shown as a red line - anything below the line was within target and anything above the line was outside the target.  He recognised that the Committee was used to seeing smiley faces to show performance but this report was of such importance he wanted to ensure that it was very clear what each indicator was; notwithstanding this, he would be happy to add a traffic light /speedometer system for future reports.  He went on to confirm that Cheltenham Borough Council would remain in the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee until later in the year; it was unclear at this stage what would happen after that time but this was being considered by the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee and the Joint Waste Team.  In the interim, Tewkesbury Borough Council was contributing towards the management of the Joint Waste Team which was costing approximately £1,000 until September 2019.  He confirmed that Cheltenham Borough Council would still be part of the Ubico contract.  The Managing Director of Ubico thanked the Member for the feedback on the report format and indicated that this was a learning process for the organisation as there had been no meaningful reporting until recently.  Every effort was being made to improve transparency and openness given that Ubico was a teckal company, and therefore a shared endeavour.  His overall view was that performance was good but there was work to do.  In terms of governance, the partners were all equal shareholders, including Cheltenham Borough Council.  Ubico now operated a number of contracts and liked to focus on the similarities between them rather than the differences - for example, two weekly refuse collections and two weekly garden waste collections - in order to begin to model what an integrated service might look like; it would be the Council’s right as a stakeholder as to whether it took that option when the business plan was presented for approval.

70.6          With regard to the national driver shortage, a Member questioned whether drivers left employment with Ubico and returned as agency drivers as that was a way they could earn more money.  The Managing Director of Ubico advised that drivers realised there were preferential deals available, and some would take whichever contract was more favourable; whilst it was not uncommon, he did not have exact figures for drivers who left and were subsequently re-employed.  Recruitment was a genuine national problem; however, he was able to have open and honest conversations with the Head of Community Services around how this could be approached which meant that Tewkesbury Borough Council was in a good position to address this issue.  A Member indicated that she was struggling to understand the graph at Page No. 76 of the report in respect of reasons for absence and clarification was provided that that particular indicator was a global one for the whole company rather than one which related solely to Tewkesbury Borough Council.  A Member queried why there were two ‘other’ categories within the percentage spilt chart at Page No. 76 and the Managing Director of Ubico explained that it had been difficult to extract this data from the nurse-led absence system so this was a work in progress; however, he confirmed that one of the ‘other’ categories covered a whole host of individual reasons for absence which could not be mapped but added up to a significant amount.

70.7           A Member drew attention to Page No. 69 of the report which showed near miss reporting and he questioned what the reason was for the increase in the ‘struck by moving vehicle’ category in July, August and September.  In response, the Managing Director of Ubico indicated that he would need to look back at the previous submissions but it could be that there was no particular reason – near miss reporting had historically been low as drivers tended to consider it as part of the job and they had to be sent constant reminders about reporting so it could be that they were more likely to report incidents if they had recently been prompted.  The Member indicated that it would have been helpful to have that commentary in the report and the Managing Director of Ubico thanked him for that feedback.  In response to a query as to when the analysis of the vehicle fleet could be expected, the Head of Community Services confirmed that the fleet had just been valued which would give an indication of its condition and he undertook to ensure this was included in the annual report in future.  The Managing Director of Ubico advised that the spend on maintenance and repair was also an indication of performance; that was likely to increase as the vehicles got older.  A Member questioned whether vehicles were checked regularly, and the Head of Community Services confirmed that checks were undertaken on a daily basis in line with the scoring system set out at Page No. 82 of the report.  The Managing Director of Ubico explained that the fleet compliance score was an assessment following a set of standards to satisfy the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) - should it carry out a spot-check - that vehicles were being maintained correctly and that drivers were compliant with the operator’s licence; Ubico set itself a 90% benchmark in that regard. In response to a query as to whether drivers used the same vehicles, Members were informed that rounds were kept consistent, where possible, and drivers preferred to use the same vehicle.

70.8           A Member congratulated Ubico on a successful Christmas period in terms of bin collections as he understood that had gone very well from the feedback he had received.  The Managing Director of Ubico advised that Ubico was always looking to make improvements but the fact that there had been no severe weather conditions had helped.  Notwithstanding this, a lot of material had been collected during that period and there had been a couple of pinch points which would be subject to an internal review.  A Member noted that there had been some concern regarding street cleansing and he sought clarification as to when the review would be concluded.  In response, the Head of Community Services confirmed that it was in the Joint Waste Team business plan for 2018/19 but the review had been slightly delayed so it may not be delivered by March; he undertook to come back to Members with a fixed date following the meeting. 

70.9          The Chair thanked the Head of Community Services and Managing Director of Ubico for their report and it was

RESOLVED          That the Ubico performance report for the first six months of 2018/19 be NOTED.