Agenda item

Voluntary undertaking to the Regulator of Social Housing

Meeting of Housing, Planning and Development Scrutiny Panel, Wednesday, 13th March, 2024 6.30 pm (Item 163.)

Minutes:

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the work being done following the Council’s self-referral to the social housing regulator, and the subsequent notice issued by the regulator in relation to breaches of two parts of the Home Standard; for non-compliance with the Decent Homes

Standard, and the Council’s identification of over one hundred Category 1

hazards within its own housing stock. The report was presented by Jahedur Rahman, Operational Director of Housing Services and Building Safety as set out in the report pack at pages 9-16. The Director Placemaking and Housing, as well as the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning were also present for this item. The Panel noted that nine of the ten actions agreed with the regulator as part of the short-term plan had been completed. The following arose from the discussion of this report:

a. The Panel queried the statement in the report that 323 properties had returned back to Haringey and questioned whether this related to 323 illegal tenancies. In response, officers advised that this related to cases of properties without a valid electrical/gas safety certificate, and that due to problems with no access to these properties, the tenancy management team could do no more and so they were ‘handed back’ to the Council’s legal department to take legal action.

b. The Panel sought clarification around the term the ‘big 6’ indictors of compliance, and queried whether there were other compliance indictors that were relevant. In response, officers advised that these were the six statutory areas of compliance that the authority was assessed against by the regulator. It was commented that from a legal perspective these were the six areas that the Council had to focus its efforts upon.

c. In relation to a question, officers confirmed that the report’s allusions to new systems was the move to a new dedicated compliance system, so that the Council was no longer recording cases on spreadsheets.

*Clerk’s note at 18:47 – Cllr Moyeed joined the meeting at this point*

d. The Panel commended officers on the amount of work that had been done to undertake outstanding actions. The Panel noted that the regulator found that there were around 5k homes that did not meet the decent homes standard and that there were around 100 properties with category one defects. The Panel enquired whether any targets had been set for improving these outcomes. In response, officers advised that the Council had undertaken a stock condition survey and so had an up-to-date stock condition programme, which allowed it to have an accurate picture of the number of properties with category one defects. Officers advised that whilst surveyors had undertaken a robust survey regime and were prioritising category one hazards, it was the case that one of the category one hazards identified in HHRS legislation was overcrowding. In these cases, there was no repair that the Council could carry out to rectify the problem. Where the problem was repair based, the Council would rectify this. The Panel requested some further data on the number of category one hazards minus cases of overcrowding (Action Jahed).

e. The Panel queried why some of the different compliance indictors had variable frequencies as identified in the report. In response, officers advised that the inspection frequency was determined by the regulatory requirements and that this was out of the Council’s control. Different assessments had different regulatory regimes.

f. The Chair queried whether the statement made under the Carbon & Climate Change section of the report related specifically to the voluntary undertaking. In response, officers clarified that these comments related to work being undertaken as part of the Strategic Asset Management plan that went to Cabinet.

g. In relation to a query about the role of external validation, officers advised that once all of the actions had been completed, external auditors would be used to validate the work that the Council had done internally. Only once these assurances had been received would the Council apply to the regulator to have the notice removed. In response to a follow-up question, officers confirmed that the regulator had advised that the authority did not need to resolve the ongoing cases involving access issues in order to have the notice removed.

h. The Panel sought assurances about the wider engagement work referred to in the report. In response, officers advised that that the wider engagement work was taking place but that it was not part of the response to the referral to the regulator.

i. The Panel contended that the a lessons learnt exercise should be undertaken, given the position the Council found itself in when Homes for Haringey came back in-house. In response, the Director advised that Pennington Choices had undertaken a piece of follow-up work and that there was raft of actions and follow-ups that sat outside of the voluntary undertaking. Part of the follow-up work would be around validating these actions and ensuring that they had been resolved. In this context, the Director advised that he was satisfied that a suitable level of lessons learnt work had been done across the service.