Southwark Council’s Cabinet yesterday confirmed that it will start using a platform called Plentific, which has been called an “Uber for repairs”, to carry out repairs jobs on council owned homes.
Southwark Liberal Democrats have raised concerns about the decision, questioning whether this will genuinely deliver value for residents and improved service. They’ve also highlighted that the service might not be appropriate for digitally excluded residents.
Going forward, the council will post repairs jobs on the platform, which contractors can then bid for. It will cost the council an initial £1.5 million to secure the use of the platform, and plans to spend an estimated £25 million on contracts through it.
However, Plentific, which made a £17 million loss last year, can take as much as a 10% commission on these jobs, and the commission is subject to increasing at any time. In 2021 residents on estates that used the platform received phishing emails after it suffered a data breach.
The cabinet report considers these factors to be either medium or high risk.
Plentific currently is used by a number of housing associations, and Lambeth for other services. No other council is known to use Plentific for repairs.
Commenting, Cllr Victor Chamberlain said:
“Southwark Labour’s poor contract management and engagement with residents led to recent housing scandals. It’s alarming to see the Council now proposing to spend £25 million via high-risk, short term and untested solutions, especially when housing finances are already under such strain.
A Labour council shouldn’t be outsourcing essential housing services to private contractors. Especially when we can’t guarantee it will even go to help local tradespeople. They haven’t even asked residents what they think.
Liberal Democrats want to see housing service desks and officers brought back into communities and for the council to train up a new generation of skilled repair workers. This is what we need to improve housing in Southwark and get value for money, not more of Labour’s expensive, high-risk gimmicks.”
