Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the mock housing inspection of housing services conducted against the Regulator of Social Housing’s consumer standards, carried out by specialist housing consultants, Housing Quality Network (HQN) between September and October 2024. The report was introduced by Jahedur Rahman, Operational Director of Housing Services & Building Safety as set out in the agenda pack at pages 13 – 20. Cllr Sarah Williams, the Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning was also present for this item. The following arose as part of the discussion of this item:

a.    The Director of Housing advised that overall the outcome of the mock inspection was a C2 grade, which was the second highest of four possible grades (C1, C2, C3 & C4). Prior to the referral to the regulator, Haringey would have likely been a C4 authority. The Chair welcomed the overall positive outcome of the mock inspection and commented that a number of areas of improvement had been made. It was questioned how many inspections of the new consumer standards had been carried out to date and what sort of scores were being achieved. In response, officers advised that there had been 50 inspections and that most authorities were coming out at C3. Some achieved a C2 grade, and only one in authority in London had achieved a C1 grade – Westminster. Officers advised that HQN issued 48 recommendations that should bring the Council up to a C1 grade. Of those 48, there were a number of recommendations that had been identified internally as areas for improvement. Six of the 48 had been implemented. One of these was around reporting beyond the big six compliance areas, which was already happening internally. HQN commented on Haringey’s extensive resident engagement structures. Resident engagement impact assessments would be a carried out every year by the Council to drive forward the improvement agenda.

b.    The Panel expressed a degree of surprise around the overall score, given the gaps in stock condition surveys and the performance levels on voids. The Panel sort assurances that the C2 score was realistic. In response, officers advised that rating was given by an external company, rather than the regulator, so it was not a certainty. However, HQN used the criteria set out by the regulator and also reviewed all of the previous judgments made by the regulator when assigning a rating. The report set out that Haringey was able to meet the criteria for a C2 rating, but did not say that it definitely would achieve this score. In relation to stock condition surveys, officers advised that the authority had achieved a 75-80% compliance rate on stock condition surveys. The Director of Housing advised that he did not want to be complacent, but advised that the mock inspection gave the authority a critical view of whether it was on the right track and also set out what steps needed to be taken to achieve a C1 grade.

c.    In response to a question, officers clarified that the 48 actions were what was considered necessary in order to achieve a C1 rating, rather than what was required for a C2 rating.

d.    The Panel raised concerns about tenant walkabouts and that these needed to be reconfigured. It was commented that residents no longer attended these in Northumberland Park ward. Concerns were also raised around walkabouts on sheltered housing blocks and the need to ensure that a sheltered housing manager, or one of their staff, needed to be present when conducting these. It was suggested that this was something that the Cabinet Member may want to take forward. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that she would take these comments on board. The Director of Housing acknowledged the need to reconfigure tenant walkabouts of estates. It was commented that the resident advisory panels would be part of this process going forward. The Director of Housing acknowledged that the walkabouts needed to be meaningful, signed off by residents, and that the residents  understood the grading and how it was applied.

e.    A Member of the Panel raised concerns about a case where a resident had a water leak and had been charged for several thousand baths worth of water. Concerns were raised that, in many instances, the Council did not know where Thames Water had installed water meters. In response, officers acknowledged this individual case and advised that the Member had been working with the relevant Assistant Director to resolve it.

f.     In relation to stock condition surveys, officers advised that 75% of internal surveys had been carried out and 80% of surveys in communal areas.

g.    The Panel sought assurances around the comments in the report around housing fraud. In response, officers advised that tenancy audits took place which used a number of algorithms to identify possible cases of tenancy fraud. The Housing team worked with Corporate Fraud team to review these and take the necessary action.  The report made  a recommendation that a new policy document should be developed to formalise this working arrangement.

h.    The Panel queried the impact of asbestos on the Council being able to carry out works. In response, officers acknowledged that if work was required in an area with known asbestos, then the health and safety risk could make the works complicated. It was commented that in general, the policy was to try and not disturb the asbestos and work round it where possible. The Director of Housing agreed to provide written feedback on any specific cases, if a member of the Panel were to email him with the details.

i.      The Panel raised concerns about the extent to which the Council would be reliant on its contractors in order to achieve a satisfactory rating in the event of a future inspection by the regulators. It was commented that as an organisation the Council was weak on contract management. In response, the Cabinet Members advised that the Council was ultimately responsible for checking the work undertaken by its contractors and it was acknowledged that there was a need to ensure effective contract management was carried out, particularly in the key areas of building safety and compliance standards.

j.      In response to a question, the Panel was advised that the report and action plan was not for external consumption, and therefore not attached to the report, at the request of HQN.

k.    The Panel sought clarification about the role of Scrutiny in the formal reporting structures around the consumer standards and a future inspection given that it was a public facing body. In response, officers acknowledged the role of Scrutiny, but set out that the Council also had a cross-party Housing Improvement Board, chaired by the Chief Executive and that there was a degree of overlap. Officers advised that HQN were aware of the role of Scrutiny and that 2 years’ worth of papers to this panel were submitted as part of the evidence for the inspection. 

l.      In response to a question, officers clarified that a C2 rating reflected that that overall the organisation was delivering on the consumer standards, but that some areas of improvement were required.

RESOLVED

That the update was noted.