Seguridad pública Policía Nacional Civil

Social housing maintenance management in the UK has become a key performance measure used by politicians, tenant groups, and RSLs in arguing for fairness and justice in the delivery of efficient public services. The Construction Industry accounts for over 5% of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP); in fiscal terms, over £30 billion per year, making it one of the largest public sector service and revenue expenditure in the UK economy. Housing public service supports and enhances the quality lifestyle and livelihood of two thirds of the UK households; and which maintains the considerable asset value of the country’s property stock, worth about £2,000 billion (i.e. 1.5% of GDP) at current prices ODPM (2003), equivalent to over half the nation’s total wealth. However, in April 2013 social housing maintenance represented 1.7% of UKs’ GDP (HCA 2012). Yet, because it is a ‘diffuse operation’, taking place incrementally through time, in many locations and by many different organisations, the scale and importance of property maintenance work is frequently undervalued in comparison with higher-profile and more visible new construction (Teo and Harikrishna 2005).

Property maintenance management is also a highly complex sphere of operation, involving the interaction between the technical, social, legal, political, and fiscal determinants, which govern the use of property (Lam, 2008a). Lam (2008a) also argues that it is increasingly true that property maintenance management is as much about providing a level of service to property users than about the property themselves. In this respect the modern maintenance manager will have to rely as much on knowledge of the managerial and social sciences as on the traditional technical knowledge base of property construction and deterioration. According to Wordsworth (2001) given the size and complexity of property maintenance management as an industry, it is perhaps surprising that its public profile as a profession and career remains comparatively low. This perception may change as a result of the new orthodoxies of health and safety, conservation and environmental protection, which may serve to focus and heighten the positive role good maintenance management may play in these areas.

56

Wordsworth (2001) also recognises that the condition and quality of property are fundamental components of the quality of life. The vast majority of social residents spends circa 95% of their time in or next to a property of one kind or another, so in this sense the built environment has become our ‘natural and social’ environment. The condition and quality of property reflect public pride or indifference, the level of prosperity in the area, social or anti-social values and behaviour and all the many influences both past and present which combine to give a community its unique character. Wordsworth (2001) further explains that there can be little doubt that dilapidated and unhealthy property in a decaying environment depress the quality of life and contribute in some measure to anti-social behaviour and crime. Unfortunately, these social consequences are difficult to quantify on a balance sheet and as a result are rarely given proper consideration.

It is common for maintenance and business decisions to be based on political expediency, and over a period of time represents a series of ad-hoc and unrelated compromises between the immediate physical needs of the property and the availability of finance. There is a lack of precise knowledge of the benefits which accrue from different levels of maintenance expenditure. Little attempt has been made by RSLs to forecast the overall long-term effects of doing or forbearing to do work in this field. The reason may be that from the standpoint of the individual firm the amount spent on maintenance appears small in comparison with other operating costs (Teo et al. 2005; Al-Khatam 2003). But when viewed on a national scale it is quite clear that maintenance as an activity is key driver of public services management and local community importance.

3.2.1 Housing Maintenance Management

According to DETR (2001) the principal aim of local authority housing management is to ensure that tenants enjoy a good quality of life via the provision of a range of services which meet their aspirations, and which represent value for money, all delivered in a manner which is consistent with the New Financial Framework and contributes to the pursuit of BV. Services must therefore be justifiable in terms of the fact that they enable the authority to:

• Meet its statutory obligations, including those involving the health, safety and wellbeing of its tenants;

• Support or comply with Government policy; • Function as a provider of social housing; • Ensure value for money;

57

• Mitigate the risk of disproportionate costs occurring in any part of the service, including the maintenance services.

Any service that is ultimately included in the cost matrix must score positively in respect of at least one of these criteria. However, the resources needed to deliver these services will vary considerably according to the circumstances of the local authority, a fact that must be reflected in any estimation of the need to spend. Housing management – like maintenance – can be planned or unplanned. However, there are some important differences that must be taken into account when formulating any management strategy Wordsworth (2001):

• All business management activities could in theory be part of a planned programme, however this would be very costly. It is therefore better value for money to deal with some activities on a responsive basis;

• Responsive housing management is needed to ensure prompt action to prevent situations deteriorating or incurring further expenditure.

That said, it is recognised that well-planned management will often result in a far more efficient use of resources (and hence expenditure) on responsive management and maintenance (e.g. a planned approach to void control can help reduce re-let times and reduce the likelihood of squatting or vandalism). Even with purely responsive tasks, basic prevention, timely intervention and clear procedures can save resources in the long term. Housing management is a wide-ranging subject, the limits of which are not easy to define. The research into the costs of local authority housing management carried out on behalf of the DETR (1999) concluded that ‘the development of a universally agreed, comprehensive,

detailed and unambiguous decision support system in housing management is extremely difficult and unlikely to be wholly achievable’. The following basic options for defining the

scope of housing management are considered in turn, each building upon the previous: