National Housing Maintenance Forum

Notes on meeting of contractors at NHMF conference

The NHMF invited contractors attending the NHMF conference at Stratford upon Avon in January to a fringe meeting to discuss the setting up of a Contractor Forum.

It was well attended, including by (please excuse us for any names we missed):

• Warren Goodall, City Response
• Ian Cullen, City Response
• Andy Plant, City Response
• Mark Coogan, Vinci Facilities
• David Collis, Vinci Facilities
• Paul King, Lakehouse
• Mike Gammack, Mears Group
• Keith Stone, DR Jones
• Brian Leech, Morrison
• Emma Shepherd, Morrison
• Paul Reader, Mitie
• Jyoti Madlani, Frank Haslam Milan
• Mike Turner, Ian Williams

Here is the agenda from that meeting with brief notes on the conclusions:

1 How much support is there for the idea of a contractor’s forum?

The discussion began by looking at what a forum might do.

It would be a meeting of contractors who work in the maintenance of social housing, to advise the NHMF on promoting good practice in maintenance, and in developing the range of products related to the M3NHF Schedule of Rates.

The meeting was well attended, and the contractors present all thought this was a worthwhile proposal.

2 Should it be open to any contractor who wants to come along, or should we set up a form of “membership” and encourage certain people to represent the views of contractors in the sector?

The general view was that we should begin with a meeting open to any contractor, and that we should publicise this as widely as possible. After that it probably made sense to have a form of membership, and for the members to elect a committee to represent the interests and concerns of contractors. Ideally the meetings should be in various parts of the country.

An initial membership fee of around £250 to £300 was thought reasonable, to pay for the servicing of the Contractor Forum. Once we have a better idea of the scope of its activities and the costs it must cover, and the extent of the membership we can review the level of fees.

The first “open” meeting should adopt Terms of Reference which the NHMF will draft and circulate ahead of the meeting so that people can comment on them.  These will initially be adapted from the NHMF’s terms of reference, and can evolve from there.

3 How often should it meet – once a year at the conference, or at a different time and place when there are less distractions?

The first meeting should be in London, within easy reach of the Euston and other main line stations.  It should be towards the end of April, so that the conclusions can be reported to the NHMF Committee meeting in May, and widely circulated in the NHMF Bulletin that gets circulated in May.

It was thought better to have most meetings separate from the NHMF conference.

We are thinking that the chair of the Contractor’s Forum would join the NHMF Committee to represent contractors in their discussions, and that the chair of the NHMF would join the Contractor’s Forum. It would be serviced by M3 just as the NHMF Committee is.  But this is open to debate.

Paul Reader of Mitie is the current contractor’s representative on the NHMF Committee.  The meeting agreed with the suggestion that once the Contractor Forum is up and running it might be better if its chair sat on the NHMF Committee. They were happy for the chair of the NHMF to sit on the Contractor Forum. They were happy for M3 to service the Forum, just as they service the NHMF.

4 What topics would be of most interest?

A number of topics of common interest were raised, as examples of the things we could usefully discuss in a Contractor Forum, such as:

• Developing better guidance on implementing a repairs contract using the schedule of rates
• Payment terms, where the main contractor gets paid weeks after they are due to pay their sub-contractors

Dave Treanor

31st Jan 2012