Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Assistant Director, EK Services.

The Director of Shared Services presented the report on EK Services Face-to-Face Service Provision at Deal Area Office. The report contained additional information relating to questions raised by members at the meeting of the Committee held on 11 July 2017.

Members were advised that the Council provided a face-to-face customer service at Deal library on Monday, Wednesday and Friday (9.00am – 5.00pm). The office was staffed by 2 people.

The main transactions at the Deal Area Office were:

·         Benefits (33% of customer contacts);

·         Parking (21%); and

·         Council Tax (16%)

The area office also dealt with housing and waste enquiries as well as general enquiries that included matters unrelated to EKS or Council services.

The services provided could all be accessed via either post, telephone, online and appointments would remain available at Dover for those that wished to book or drop in for a face-to-face enquiry. The Director of Shared Services advised that the increasing level of internet access meant that many of the reasons for visiting the area office could now be dealt with on-line and those not able to access services on-line could do so via telephone through the contact centre or via post.

The closure of area offices across the three districts would contribute to the in-year savings requirements that EKS need to achieve to deliver the services within the budget provision allocated.  The closure of all outlying offices would save EKS a total of £200,000, with £45,000 coming from the closure of face-to-face services at the three area offices in the Dover District. It was intended that there would be no redundancies arising from the closure of face-to-face services at the Deal Area Office as the staff would be redeployed to the Call Centre to fill vacancies that already existed arising from staff turnover and vacancies that were being held open.

The posts at the area offices would be deleted out of base budget and the saving would be a ‘cashable’ saving. The Director of Shared Service explained that the EKS budget had already been reduced in year by £832,000 and therefore the funding for these posts had effectively already been taken. However, due to the turnover rate in Customer Services, the gaps created in the contact centre were delivering vacant post savings and the intention was to redeploy the staff from the area offices into these vacant posts to release the base budget savings from the Area Offices. This would also assist the call centre performance, as these two extra staff will provide much needed resource in the contact centre which should help improve the call handling and wait times.

For the most vulnerable people there was the option for EKS to send visiting officers to their homes to assist them with accessing services. These visiting officers already existed but currently provided work to support business rates activity. This would be an additional demand on these officers rather than creating new posts. However, the focus for this new enhanced service provision was to support the very vulnerable and it was expected that customers would only be assisted where there was an exceptional need and not as a routine service. 

A communication plan would be developed with input from the relevant town councils and key stakeholder groups to ensure that information on how to access services in the future was widely disseminated.

Members raised the following concerns relating to the decision:

·         That changes to the Stagecoach timetables meant that it was increasingly difficult for people to travel on public transport to the Council Offices in Whitfield. There were also concerns that vulnerable people would struggle with the journey.

·         That the current appointment only system in the afternoons at Whitfield meant that people travelling on public transport from outside Dover would not be able to make the appointments and get home again. Members pressed for appointments to be introduced in the mornings to accommodate with public transport timetables.

·         That vulnerable people would not be comfortable in asking for assistance and as a result would be denied access to Council services.

·         That from a public relations viewpoint the Council was expected to have a ‘face’ and that the closure of the area offices removed this.

·         That the savings of £45,000 was not sufficient to justify the closures.

·         The impact on Deal businesses through the reduction in footfall resulting from the closure of the area office.

·         There were concerns that the evidence provided as justification for the closure of face-to-face service provision was unsound and did not justify the conclusions reached.

·         That the increased calls resulting from the closure of face-to-face services would have an adverse impact on the performance of customer services.

There was also concern expressed that the matter had not been granted pre-decision scrutiny as originally requested and that there was no member of the Cabinet present to answer Members’ questions.

RESOLVED:     That the Scrutiny (Policy and Performance) Committee expresses its concern over the soundness of the decision in respect of the Deal Area Office as the evidence provided is not sufficiently strong enough to justify closure.