Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: December 9, 2025

Purpose:

Content: DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FOR THIS ITEM:   None   RESOLVED:   That Cabinet: Approved, pursuant to Contract Standing Order 2.01(b), the commencement of a procurement exercise to procure two contracts for the provision of repair works in connection with legal disrepair claims for an initial period of 3 years, with up to two further one-year extensions totalling a maximum term of 5 years at a contract sum stated in the exempt portion of the report. Reasons for Decision It was essential to maintain continuity of high-frequency repairs completions in disrepair cases, as this was the main action by which legal costs were reduced. If the service had stopped work for any period of time, increased legal expenditure would have been incurred. It was therefore essential to have adequate contractual provision to service this demand at all times. It was a strategic objective of the Council to ensure cases were managed within the required timescales and to reduce costs associated with this type of work. Previous work and investment had reduced case levels over previous years, and this procurement ensured Haringey Council could appropriately manage future caseloads. Approximately 35% of the previous year’s gross spend on works was attributed to capital works. Accordingly, this contract was conceived at a value which was expected to mitigate the disparity between required contract value and the budget position, by building in projected capital works values over the period. Residents would otherwise have remained living in properties which were in a state of disrepair, presenting a risk to health and wellbeing to residents, in addition to financial and reputational damage to the Council, for want of appropriate contractor resources. Further legal breaches would otherwise have arisen needlessly, attracting negative perception from the Courts and causing reputational damage to the Council. Alternative Options Considered Do nothing This option was rejected because it would have left ongoing legal cases without an appropriate facility to complete works in a compliant manner, at the required scale to meet the overarching strategic objectives to reduce claims and the costs associated with them. Utilise the Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) to deliver works This option was rejected as the DLO was already under significant pressure to deliver the Responsive Repairs Service, which performed a vital responsive function for residents. The nature and scale of the work required in disrepair claims was more appropriately delivered by contractors under existing operational practices. Accordingly, this option was not a viable proposition for either the short- or medium-term planning of the Council.