Agenda item

[Report of  the Director for  Housing, Regeneration and Planning. To be introduced  by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal.]

The Council is proposing to reassess its housing management and housing demand services, and consider whether a review of the use of an ALMO as the preferred option is justified at this stage.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal introduced the report, which was an information report only. It sought Cabinet to note the contents of the report, and in particular, the options for the future provision of the Council’s housing management and housing demand services. It also sought Cabinet to agree to further consider whether a review of the Council’s housing management and demand services should take place, and if so one which would be consistent with the terms set out at paragraph 6.23 of the report.

The Cabinet Member highlighted the commitment of the Labour Administration to ensure that Council tenants, leaseholders and anyone who was at risk of homelessness, received the best service possible from the Council. The review was sought to ensure that the operating arrangements for delivering housing services were fit for purpose.

The Cabinet Member noted there were 20,000 households in the borough that lived in a property where the Council was the landlord. Those residents had a right to a service that would maintain the quality of their homes and would deliver excellent housing management. Due to the pressures of the London housing market, many other residents needed help to prevent them from becoming homeless or to find a new home. The Cabinet Member stated it was the Council’s responsibility to ensure people were offered the best service possible.

It was the intention to consult both Labour and Liberal Democrat Councillors within the next six months to discuss the way forward on the Council’s housing management and demand services. Following those discussions, the decision whether to commission a formal review of HfH (Homes for Haringey) would be taken.

In response to questions from Cllr Palmer, the following information was noted:

• The Cabinet Member confirmed that one of the possible potential options would be to bring HfH under direct Council management, but reiterated that no decision had yet been taken and that all options were available for consideration.
• The Cabinet Member accepted that there were mixed views on the way forward and councillors would be consulted within the next six months in order to ascertain what the most popular options were.
• The Cabinet Member stated it would be right for any future decision regarding HfH to be balloted, in light of the fact that HfH originally being set up through a ballot.
• The Cabinet Member was committed to increasing the voice of tenants and they would be also be involved in any future decisions regarding the future of Housing Management and Housing Demand services.
• The Cabinet Member advised that the current management arrangement with HfH continued until 2021, where there was a break clause. If a return to direct management were to be selected as the preferred option, then a gradual change over of management would limit potential issues arising by ensuring a smooth transition.
• Officers noted that consideration of a review of Housing Management and Housing Demand was at an early stage and there was an opportunity to learn from other Councils that had instigated reviews and changes to their housing services.
• In relation to other Councils that had brought housing management services in house and experienced an impact on performance relating to void properties, officers would seek for any review, which had the recommendation to bring HfH under direct management, to clearly outline the ways in which the Council could mitigate against any issues such as performance on voids and also consider risks other Councils had considered.

RESOLVED

1. To note the contents of the report, and in particular the options for the future provision of the Council’s housing management and housing demand services.

2. To agree to further consider whether a review of the Council’s housing management and    demand services should take place, and if so one which is consistent with the terms set out at paragraph 6.23 of the report.

Reasons for decision

The Council has a housing stock of c.20,000 homes across the borough. Since 2006, these have been managed by HfH, the Council’s ALMO. HfH has also managed the Council’s statutory housing demand service since 2014. There are, however, other options for the management of the stock and the housing demand service.

This decision is to consider a review of the most appropriate option for housing management and housing demand services in Haringey, and (if that review is to proceed) on what terms that review should take place. If a  review is to be carried out, the options would be to retain the ALMO or to make further decisions to enable alternative management options for its housing stock and housing demand service.

With a new administration in place since May 2018, which has pledged to both reassess the Council’s role in delivering and managing housing in the borough and to reconsider the Council’s role as a service provider – both of which are priorities in the new Borough Plan – this is an appropriate time for such a consideration to take place.

Alternative options considered

One alternative option would be to decide without further consideration not to undertake a review of the Council’s housing management and demand services and for HfH to continue to deliver this. This was rejected since this is an appropriate time to reconsider the Council’s housing management and demand services, in particular given the 2021 break clause in the management agreement.

Another alternative option would be to change the way the Council’s housing management and demand services are provided without a review. This was rejected to ensure that any decision made by the Council on this matter is based on all the relevant considerations, input from all relevant stakeholders, and independent expert advice from external sources.

Another alternative would be to proceed immediately to a review without further consideration.  This was rejected on the basis that – with no review formally required at this stage in the management agreement, and given the resource implications of conducting a review – it would be important to give further consideration to the advantages and disadvantages of a review before deciding whether to proceed.