Loading
On 20 April 2026 the Community & Adult Services Scrutiny Committee heard background on Cardiff's wider Adult Services commissioning project and on the management of empty council homes, and it considered its draft pages for the Scrutiny Annual Report 2025/26. The committee agreed that the Chair should write to the Cabinet Member with its observations on both the commissioning project and the empty homes work. It approved the draft annual report pages with one suggestion added.
Apologies were received from Cllr Ahmed.
There were none.
The minutes of the 16th March meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information and context to aid their policy development scrutiny of the Adult Services Commissioning Project. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Leonora Thomson Cabinet Member for Adult Services and Public Health & Equality Jane Thomas Director of Adults, Housing & Communities Louise Bassett Angela Bourge Assistant Director – Adult Services OM Strategy, Performance & Resources The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, after which officers gave a presentation. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members thanked Officers for the presentation and asked about sufficiency of providers and willingness to allocate enough beds. Officers explained that Care Homes would not be expected to keep the beds open indefinitely but would be asked to commit to offering a set number of beds at the outset, and this will be tested out as part of this process. Members asked for information on how they will ensure enough providers will apply for the different lots explained in the presentation and agreed that the plan to offer longer term contracts and for new providers to come on board at set time was helpful. Officers agreed that the offer to providers needs to be more attractive and are using links with existing care homes to consult on pricing. Some care homes won’t be able to deliver on all lots as they are not registered to do so, so they need to ensure the relevant lots are applied for. Members agreed that an open framework is a better policy and offers more flexibility, and asked whether committing to a longer contract with an agreed number of beds to be paid for would help care homes to invest capital into the premises and develop staff so they can care for those with more complex needs and meets the needs of those contracts too. Officers explained that ‘block booking’ does happen in some areas but they do not always know what is needed and this is a costly approach but could work in some areas. It also limits choice for individuals, especially if it is a more permanent placement. By using the framework and setting prices, including cost of living uplifts, this can help providers attract investment and develop their businesses and increase quality. Members asked how the consultation process would include all demographics, and Officers explained that this is in the early stages, but there are some obvious groups to work with, such as network of unpaid carers, and they already have an established relationship. The plan is to link in with existing groups, as well as those identified by the Task and Finish group that happened recently. The use of an online survey would be the first option, and an alternative would be a telephone call to gather this information, especially around what people who have been through the process would like to change and what was missing, or for those about to embark on this journey, what they feel they need. There are also colleagues going into care homes completing quality assessments regularly, and these opportunities will also be used to gather views of staff. All this information can then be used to create the framework. Members asked whether there is a barrier causing a delay where individuals they own their own home and the limit of £50,000 in savings/assets is delaying access to care and if anything can be done to support this. Officers explained that most people want to stay in their own home for as long as possible and there is very good and specialised domiciliary care available to allow this to happen. Cost can be a barrier and Social Workers can support families with understanding this, but the thresholds are set by the Government and there is no local discretion. Members asked about the Central Digital Platform and if this could be signed up to quickly and easily by providers. Officers explained that this is a new system but is very light touch and completes some initial checks. It should be straightforward and not cause delays and will be explained to providers during the consultation period. Members asked if there was anything that could be done to involve underrepresented groups and communities in enhancing care provision, and Officers explained that the consultation and the findings and contacts from the previous task and finish group would be key to this. This information has been useful in creating the specification and they will be working with providers to further develop this before it goes out to tender. Members agreed that having a settling in rate with providers was a good idea and asked if there was any scope for reviewing this once the person has settling, after being released from hospital for example, as the care needs may change. Officers confirmed that this is part of the proposal. Members asked about working with other local to block book beds and using the same framework to reduce costs and competition, and if there is an easy way for families to look at what each care home offers and make a comparison. Officers explained that there will be some demand for places outside Cardiff but not many, and costs can vary between local authorities, but they will consider this point. They also explained that CIW publish scores and ratings against 3 categories, and this is used when working with families to make decisions. Officers are happy for feedback from Members on anything else they feel needs to be included in the specification and any other community groups that they should consider working with on this. Officers pointed out that the timeline needs to be looked at as there will be a pre-election period in May 2027, as well as the Easter bank holidays and school holidays being in March 2027 and raised this point so consideration could be made on availability of the committee members and decision-making timelines. Officers will review this and feedback where needed. Members asked about the anticipated impact the open system could have on attracting care home staff and the financial impact on the Council’s budget relating to this. Officers explained that the open framework system would only be in place initially and then there would be set times when it would be available to join, and that there is low capacity in the sector at the moment so this is not a concern. In terms of staff costs to monitor the framework, this has been factored into budget planning and will be part of the report. Members asked how the enhanced rate on a weekly basis will be monitored to prevent this being unnecessarily extended, and for more detail around the 23% figure of those on the standard rate. Officers explained that enhanced rate and how this is monitored is being discussed with social worker colleagues and this needs to be included as part of the process. They also explained that there are many reasons for someone being on an enhanced rate in a care home, and this is being unpicked to fully understand it and decide if the standard rate is set correctly. Members asked whether other Local Authorities outside Wales had been contacted when creating the framework and Officers explained that they had made contacts in Bristol and this has helped form the proposed framework as well as fed into the proposed rates. Members asked for more details on the point that it was only 10 or the 50 care homes in Cardiff that were bidding for these contracts and 37% of places required had no bids. Officers explained that some of the care homes are not registered for what is being requested or have no interest as they are private care homes. Others may have a mixed economy and work is being done with those on their business models to see if they could work with the Council long term. Another reason could be that a negative CIW review may have prevented them taking in new placements, and work is done in these situations by Officers to support those care homes and many have sustained this learning and had positive reviews going forward. Work is being done on the placements required with no bids as they have found that when Social Workers call the care home to request the same placement, they have been successful. Feedback from care homes on this is that they did not bid as they do not like the electronic system used, which is one of the reasons the Gateway process is being proposed. Members asked if the Council has a quality assurance framework that can be shared with families alongside that offered by CIW reports. Officers explained that having 2 systems would be confusing and that they work with families to support their understanding of the CIW reports and ratings. There is a separate programme of Quality Assurance reviews that the Council carries out. If concerns are raised, there is a process in place. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information and context to aid their understanding of the management of empty council homes within Cardiff. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Lynda Thorne Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities Jane Thomas Director of Adults, Housing & Communities Naomii Thomas OM Homes and Neighbourhoods The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, after which officers gave a presentation. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members thanked Officers for the presentation and asked about the 95-day target for new tenants to move into a home and asked for more detail on how long it takes for the team to go into a property and start work once the tenant has left. Officers explained that the process is monitored stage by stage and the target is 48 hours from when the tenant has left to completing a full assessment of what is needed. This is done well and the average figure for the pre work stage for 2025/2026 is 2.97 days. The unknown is how long the required work will take as this is unknown until the assessment is completed. Members asked whether other Local Authorities had been contacted to share best practice, mentioning Anglesey with 0.6% of their housing stock vacant. Officers explained that Anglesey is very small in comparison but that this were grateful for the suggestion and will take this forward. They explained that Swansea had been looked at previously, but that they were doing much less on void properties before re letting them than Cardiff and was not felt as appropriate. Members suggested looking at comparable Local Authorities outside Wales, which Officers explained will be part of this review, but needs to be carefully considered as the WHQS requirements need to be considered. Members asked about the cost of clearing vacant properties and whether tenants were responsible for these costs. Officers explained that this process has been reviewed and recharging tenants for these costs is part of the process, but is done reasonably, fairly and with discretion where needed. Members asked whether there is sufficient capacity for contractors to complete the 2/3rds of the work needed on Void properties and Officers explained that this has just been reviewed. There are 2 main contracts but also a pool of small contractors which increases flexibility and provides specific support. They have used lessons learned from previous contractor arrangements and feel this works better. Members asked about barriers for tenants from other areas, such as delays in applications for DAF support (Welsh Government Discretionary Assistance Fund) which could delay a tenancy starting or possible refusal of an offer, and if anything could be done to support this process and support house moves. Officers explained that the Money Advice Team can help but an address is often needed before some funds, such as DAF, can be applied for, but they would take this feedback back to the team. Help with moving costs can be considered but it would depend on the situation, as it is very costly. Members asked whether the increase in the number of Void properties in February 2026 was attributed to anything specific, and Officers explained that it could be several reasons included more house moves or people passing away over the Winter. Members asked for details on the number of properties that had been empty for over 6 months. Officers did not have this information to hand, but explained that this can sometimes be due to a long standing tenant passing away or moving out and no work has been done to that property for a number of years, so it takes much longer to bring it up to standard, there could be structural issues which will take longer to rectify or work being done to high rise buildings so floors can be used as a base to complete the works so show as longer term void properties, such as Nelson House and Chanel View. The situation is constantly monitored and Officers can bring this information to a future meeting. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the draft Community & Adult Services Scrutiny pages of the Scrutiny Annual Report 2025/26 attached at Appendix A be approved with the suggestion above added.
Members were provided with an update on the development of the Scrutiny Annual Report for 2025/26 and asked to note the draft Committee Pages at Appendix A, and to suggest topics for future scrutiny. The Principal Scrutiny Officer opened the floor to questions or comments from Members. Members asked about priorities for 2026/2027 and suggested including commissioning of contracts for domiciliary care and care homes as part of the pre decision scrutiny. AGREED: that the draft Community & Adult Services Scrutiny pages of the Scrutiny Annual Report 2025/26 attached at Appendix A be approved with the suggestion above added.
There were none.
Monday 11th May at 4:30pm.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
The minutes record no declarations of interest.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.