Decision

1. 1

The Committee considered a report which proposed to increase the service charge to OPIL tenants to introduce a consistent charging approach for all customers of the City Wide Alarm Service, ensuring that income from the service charge covered the cost of providing the service.

1. 2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Housing Policy Committee:-

a)    Approve the service charge increase as detailed at section 2.2 of the report for the City Wide Alarm Service accessed by customers in Older Persons Independent Living (OPIL)

b)    Agree that the OPIL City Wide Alarm Service charge increase will take effect from 4th January 2027, and that from April 2027 onwards subject to full Council approval, this service charge will increase annually in line with the Customer Prices Index (CPI) to bring it in line with other City Wide Alarm Service Charges made by the Council.

1. 3

Reasons for Decision

1. 3.1

The current charging arrangements do not fully reflect the cost of delivering the City Wide Care Alarm service and are resulting in a continuing financial pressure for the Housing Revenue Account.

1. 3.2

The proposed increase would establish a consistent charging approach for all customers accessing the City Wide Care Alarm service, reduce financial pressures and support the continued delivery of a service that is fundamental to maintaining customer safety, wellbeing and independence.

1. 4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

1. 4.1

Alternative Option 1: Take no action to recoup the costs This would mean the City-Wide Care Alarm Service to OPIL tenants would continue to cause a pressure and the difference between payments for OPIL and non-OPIL residents would be £2.85 per week and £167,000 per year. SCC would effectively be subsidising the tenants which is not sustainable. It would not be justifiable for this pressure to continue to be met from the Housing Revenue Account. It would mean there is no risk of complaints from OPIL tenants but could result in complaints from general needs tenants.

This option was not recommended.

1. 4.2

Alternative Option 2: Introduce an incremental increase of £1.00 per year for 3 years to bring the charges paid by OPIL tenants to be the same as other residents commencing in early 2027. This would start the process of bringing additional income in allowing all tenants to adjust to the new charges, but it lengthens the time during which OPIL tenants are treated differently to all other residents who have had to pay the increase from 2025. This could be seen as unfair and would have additional administration costs. The financial pressure would take longer to reduce and would be further complicated if increases are made to the charges over the next 3 years either to citywide alarms or other charges. This could be seen to set a precedent for incremental increases that would not be sustainable going forward either for OPIL or general needs tenants.

This option was not recommended.