Agenda and minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein’.

Apologies for Absence were received from Cllr Barnes.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business (late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with as noted below).

There were no items of Urgent Business

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

None.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting. 

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting on 23 June 2025 were agreed as a correct record.

The Panel received a presentation which provided an update on a number of key performance indicators relating to the Housing Service. The data related to performance as of July 2025. The presentation was introduced by Jahedur Rahman, Director of Housing; Scott Kay, AD Repairs and Compliance; and Christian Carlise, AD Asset Management, as set out in the published agenda pack at pages 13-42. Cllr Williams, the Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning was also present for this item. The following arose during the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel sought assurances around the fact that it appeared that the organisation was failing to meet the targets on nearly all of its KPIs, and queried the extent to which this was a significant problem. In response, officers commented that was one way of looking at. Officers clarified that there were a number of KPI’s which had a 100% target. These were statutory targets for compliance areas. It was suggested that there were legitimate reasons for not being able to achieve 100%, such as not being able to get access to a property to undertake gas safety inspections. The Director of Housing set out that whilst the service aspired to achieve 100% every month, there were practical challenges to achieving it. The Panel were advised that the service undertook benchmarking of its performance against a range of other landlords and Haringey tended to be in the upper quartile when measured against other providers.
2. The Panel raised concerns about the fact that Haringey had come last for two years running in relation to the number of Ombudsman complaints per head of population. It was suggested that his painted a different picture to some of the information provided in the presentation. In response, officers commented that context was important when reviewing performance against Ombudsman complaints. It was commented that, last year, Haringey had just over 1500 Stage 1 complaints, and of these, 55 complaints ended up being referred to the Housing Ombudsman. Officers set out that the service undertook 60k repairs a year, including gas safety and mechanical works, of which 1500 residents raised a complaint. It was suggested that in this context, the proportion of repair work delivered that resulted in a complaint being raised was relatively small.
3. As a follow up to the above question, the Panel sought assurances that performance on Ombudsman complaints would improve. In response, officers advised that they were not entirely clear about the methodology of the measure being referred to. It was commented that these figures did not relate specifically to the presentation and that Ombudsman referrals related to complaints, rather than repairs performance specifically. Officers set out that that the service benchmarked their outturn with the Housing Ombudsman with similar authorities like Hackney and Southwark. It was reported that both of these authorities had a higher maladministration rate to Haringey. It was commented that a lot of London local authorities did share a commonality around an ageing stock profile, and a lot of the complaints that were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 254.

The Panel received report which provided a Q1 Finance update for 2025/26. The report covered the position at Quarter 1 of the 2025/26 financial year including General Fund Revenue, Capital, Housing Revenue Account and Dedicated Schools Grant budgets. The forecast total revenue outturn variance for the General Fund was £34.1m comprising £24.9m base budget pressures and £9.2m non delivery of savings. The report was introduced by Kaycee Ikegwu, Head of Finance and Jahedur Rahman, Director of Housing as set out in the agenda pack at pages 43-186. The following arose as part of the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel noted the projected overspend of £11.4m in Housing Demand and the fact that this was related to Temporary Accommodation and the rising costs of Nightly Paid & B&B accommodation.
2. The Panel questioned the fact that there was a significant overspend, given the amount of scrutinising of the budget that took place last year. The Panel queried the extent to which there were contingencies built into the budgets. In response, officers advised that within the HRA there was a reserve balance, which was effectively a contingency. The guidelines suggested that this should be equivalent to 10% of annual rental income. Officers set out that Haringey’s reserve balance was set at a higher level than was set out in the guidelines, and that there was a significant contingency in place.
3. The Panel sought clarification around the reasons behind the slippage in the capital programme. In response, officers advised that 55% of the allocated capital spend was spent last year. There were two key areas where there were slippages. The first was delays to work in two major blocks, which were awaiting approval from the Building Safety Regulator. The second area of slippage related to phase 2 works coming in at an increased cost. This required external assurance around the additional cost, which caused delays.
4. The Panel queried whether there was some learning to be taken forward about factoring in delays arising from legislative changes of from the creation of a new regulatory framework. In response, officers commented that it was difficult as it depended on the body or regulator in question. The delays in this instance were caused by a lack of qualified surveyors to carry out the works. The Cabinet Member commented that it seemed as though there had been no workforce plan put in place by the government to accompany the legislative changes.
5. The Panel queried the personal financial limit that would make someone ineligible for social housing. The Panel also raised concerns about checks on ownership of foreign homes not being adequately undertaken and queried what checks were done in relation to owning a home overseas. In response, officers agreed to come back with a written response. (Action: Jahed).
6. The Panel queried the relationship between the projected £34.1m overspend and the £37m EFS loan that was secured from the government. The Panel requested clarification about where the £37m loan was reflected in the overall budget position. (Action: Corporate Finance).  ...  view the full minutes text for item 255.

The Panel received a report which provided an update at Q1 on the Council’s progress against the actions outlined in the Corporate Delivery Plan (CDP) 2024-2026. The report was introduced by exception by Jahedur Rahman, Director of Housing and Christian Carlisle, AD Asset Management, as set out in the report at pages 187-245.

The Panel noted that there was one indicator that had a red RAG rating for Housing and this related to delivery of retrofitting improvements to the Council’s Housing stock, which was red in relation to the budget, due to reliance on external funding. The Panel sought clarification about whether there were going to be improvement works carried out to blocks, some of which had not had any works done in a generation. In response, officers advised that works would be carried out where there was a dedicated programme in place i.e. if there was decency work being done or works to high rise blocks, but other than that, not at this stage.

RESOLVED

That the high level progress made against the delivery of commitments as set out in the CDP 2024-26 at the end of June 2025, was noted.

The Panel received a presentation which provided an update on the Housing Improvement Programme which included; the voluntary undertaking to the Regulator of Social Housing, safety and compliance, Decent Homes, and damp and mould. The presentation was introduced by Jahedur Rahman, Director of Housing as set out at pages 247-279 of the agenda pack. Christian Carlise, AD Asset Management and Scott Kay, AD Repairs and Compliance were also present for this item, along with Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning. The following arose in discussion of this item:

1. As part of the voluntary undertaking to the Regulator of Social Housing, the Council undertook a commitment to improve in ten key areas. The Director of Housing advised the Panel that the Council had met those ten commitments and the next step was for this to be validated by external auditors. 
2. The Panel sought clarification about the extent to which the service was affected by delays within the courts, in relation to getting a Court Order to access a property. In response, officers advised that it varied from month to month. There was no permanent backlog, but some months there were more cases that the service would like to put through than the courts were willing to accept.
3. In response to a question about whether going through the courts was expensive, officers advised that it depended on the type of order that was being sought. This varied from a few hundred pounds for an EPA warrant to very expensive for an injunction. Officers also commented that for gas safety certificates and electrical safety certificates, they undertook warrant applications were possible as this was quicker and more cost effective. A trial of electrical warrants had resulted in 40 warrants, which resulted in 19 being enforced to date.
4. The Panel queried the table of FRA Overdue Actions and questioned what the Pennington’s figure related to. In response, officers advised that Pennington’s were an external company that the Council brought in to conduct a review of it’s housing stock, following the ALMO being brought back in-house. Following that review, the Council self-referred itself to the Regulator of Social Housing in January 2023. The table showed the number of fire safety actions that were outstanding at the point of Pennington’s completing an internal review, the point that the Council referred itself to the Regulator and the current position as of 2^nd September.
5. The Panel was advised that the achievement of 100% homes being brought up to the Decent Homes Standard was part of a five-year plan and the profile of the number of homes being brought up to decency each year was agreed with the regulator. In year one, the target was for 1000 homes to be made decent and the Council achieved 1600. In year two, 719 homes were made decent against a target of 700. The current position was that 80.65% of council homes were at the decency standard. Since the ALMO came in-house the non-decency position had gone from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 257.

RESOLVED

That the work programme was noted.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

·       17 November

·       15 December

·       9 March 2026

·       17 November

·       15 December

·       9 March 2026