Agenda item

This report provides Audit Committee with details of the progress made by Housing Services in implementing the key recommendations of the recently completed Housing Services audits conducted by Mazars, the Council’s independent internal auditors, which received a limited assurance rating.

Mr Jahedur Rahman, Operational Director, Housing & Building Safety, introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·         For the last three years, on average, the Council received around 250 right to buy applications per year. The listed 700 applications were probably about three four years’ worth of right buy applications received in a space of about three weeks. The pattern was not specific to Haringey. Some directors had received applications worth 10 years or more. Most people were trying to get their application qualified for the previous discount and the Council had taken a strict approach to this. All applications received up until 21 November 2024 would be considered. If there had been an error on the way the form had been completed, the tenant would be given another five days to correct the error. If the five-day deadline was missed, then the application would not be considered for the discount.

·         Statutorily, the Council was required to issue Section 125s within 12 weeks from the point the Council had accepted the right to buy application. Ordinarily the Council would need to issue the Section 125 within 12 weeks. If the Council was not able to achieve the Section 125 within 12 weeks and the sale was completed, the resident could ask for a reduction on their rent should they proceed to complete the process on time. The Council had recruited additional staff to help with the influx of applications received to be able to meet the demand. Work was being done with the Valuations team to make sure on there was surveyor capacity to be able to value properties within the timescale set out.

·         The audit picked up fraud checks for right to buy applications. When a right to buy application was received, before it was accepted, the application was passed to the internal fraud team. Financial checks were made and if need be, follow-ups would be made. The audit recognised that significant due diligence had been done around minimising fraud for right to buy, but a housekeeping recommendation was made to make sure that information captured was saved centrally. At the time of the audit, it was saved locally.

·         There could be an increase in work for the internal audit team.

·         The time period to qualify for the original discount was 21 November 2024. The arrangements after 21 November 2024 was unclear. The Council decided it would take the date of 21 November 2024 plus five days, so anything received after the additional five days would not be eligible for the previous discount. However, if the Council received an application by 21 November 2024 and an error had been made on the application, an additional five days would be given to correct the error.

·         Any applications received after 21 November 2024 plus five days would be not eligible for the previous discount.

·         The audit did look at valuation and methodology and there were no concerns raised around the accuracy of the valuation, but there had been on the backlog of valuations - over 40. This backlog had been cleared. The reason for the delay was that there was one surveyor used by the corporate property team who went on sick leave and that caused the backlog to build up. Since then, more internal capacity had been built in the team and externally another valuer was available as an option.

·         Under the right to buy process as a tenant, if one received a valuation, it was possible to appeal the valuation and subject to the appeal, original valuation, a higher valuation or a lower valuation could be confirmed.

·         The third tenancy officer had been recruited.

·         At the beginning of each financial year, the Council earmarked 3,000 properties. A large proportion of these would be made up of the algorithm used. This gave an indicator of where fraud may be taking place. Doing random visits without any evidence would not be carried out. If there was data that supported a reason for that audit to take place, then the Council was more likely to identify fraud rather than a random visit. The algorithm provided a starting point, but ultimately the housing officers needed to visit the property get access to the property, look at who was living in the property, speak to the neighbours to ascertain where there was any fraud taking place.

·         The five key areas were Council’s completion of the tenancy audit, fraud related audits that were not triggered for completion, training, policies and procedures and data Integrity checks. One of the recommendations made on data integrity was to check the data held for tenants with regular spot checks. When tenancy audits were done, whilst it was important to maximise information held against the tenant, it was also important to maximise information on the household.

·         As the audits were predominantly done between July and August 2024, a number of recommendations were not yet due. Most were due at some point in 2025.

·         In terms of the damp mould case management system, phase one had been completed which enabled officers to capture key essential household information, phase two was currently being worked on and was the actual integration of the new system, built with the property management system. All areas of damp and mould, property management and data gathering systems would be integrated. A large proportion of the legal disrepair cases were about damp and mould and part of the recommendation within the audit was to make sure the Council was cross referencing the new damp and mould cases with the legal disrepair cases. This was to allow data sharing exercise to take place. Some properties could have a damp and mould wash where the damp and mould was expected to return. Sensors could be placed in the property. This would give real-time data around the way the household was using the property, how often they were putting the heating on and if there was there enough humidity in the property. This was still at the pilot stage.  A large proportion of housing stock was built before 1934. There were old roofs that needed to be fully replaced rather than repaired. It was complex to tackle damp and mould. Where it was reported, if the Council felt it was a category one damp and mould, surveyors would inspect it and would do a temporary decant and ask the family to move out temporarily so that remedial work could be completed. For a category two dump and mould, surveyors would specify the works needed and get the work organised.

·         One recommendation that had previously been made was to not to blame the tenant’s lifestyle. Instead, residents were encouraged to heat the home properly. If they were under financial difficulty, they could contact the financial inclusion team. In some cases, families needed to be rehoused. Due to a shortage of housing supply, this was difficult to do.

·         The Council had void standards, so when work on void properties had been completed, they would not be let if they had a high level of damp and mould. Some houses may have water penetration from the roof causing damp and mould, so the roof would have to be fixed first before the internal work and this could take time. 

·         When the Housing Improvement Plan was developed over a year and a half ago, the Council had just over 550 voids. The plan focused on tackling the void backlog and the HRA business plan assumed that the Council would have a void rate of 2% in 2025 - around 300 voids. On average, the Council should be aiming to have no more than 150 voids per year. The Council was hoping to return back to 1% by March 2025. The Council had a higher level of voids this year in comparison to previous years and at the year to date, the Council had about 350 new voids come through from March 2024 until November 2024. The work was being done partially because of the neighbourhood move scheme. When families were offered new properties, particular estates received 70-80 voids within three to four weeks because all of the families that had been offered new properties. A general turnover of about 350 to 400 voids would occur each year considering the housing stock.

·         On the audits, the issue was not about data integrity, but about capacity. The Council was required to do around 3,000 audits a year. The team did 1,400 because they had a team half the size.

·         The issue around data was around damp and mould and it was partially based on the way the team initially collected the information which was manual. The information was now being collected in a streamlined manner with more detail. To collect the same level of data for the old cases, it meant going back to the old tenants and asking for new data sets. If the damp and mould referrals had been dealt with, these cases would remain closed.

·         Mould wash would be ordinarily be done after a survey and a category one damp and mould was found. Sometimes another mould wash was needed. Sometimes more invasive treatment was needed like dealing with cold bridging where there was a cold space between the exterior and interior of the building and this area needed to be insulated.

·         The system was only partially built. Phase two involved the integration of the existing system. Once done, this would provide a fuller view of all of the information of the property specifically. There would be more accurate reporting and recording of the progress. The CRM system would allow easier access to track progress.

RESOLVED:

To note the report.