Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Stephen Ross (Independent Co-Opted Member).  It was also noted that Councillor Lesley Smith had been unable to attend in person so would be participating as an online participant.

The Chair also took the opportunity (on behalf of all members of the Committee) to pay formal tribute and thanks to Councillor Kabir for her support and input as a member of the Committee following her stepping back from the role.  In addition, Councillor Gbajumo was welcomed as a new member of the Committee, following her recent appointment to represent the newly formed Green Group on the Council.

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary or personal interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

David Ewart (Chair) declared a personal interest as a member of CIPFA.

No other declaration of interests were made by members during the meeting.

To hear any deputations received from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 67.

There were no deputations considered at the meeting.

4.1   To approve the minutes of the previous meetings held on Wednesday 3 December 2025 as correct.

4.2   To note the updated Action Log from previous meetings of the Audit & Standards Advisory Committee.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 3^rd December 2025, be approved as a correct record.

Members also noted the update provided in relation to the Action Log of issues identified at previous meetings, which they were advised would remain subject to ongoing review.

To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

None raised.

This report provides an annual review of the complaints received pursuant to, and a review of, the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints procedure.

Biancia Robinson, Senior Constitutional & Governance Lawyer, introduced a report from the Director of Law providing an annual review of the complaints received under the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure.

In considering the report the Committee noted:

·            The summary of complaints received in the last 12 months, as detailed in section 3.5 and Appendix A of the report. During this period the Director of Law, as Monitoring Officer, had received eight complaints and made determinations regarding six councillors.  Of these, one complaint had been resolved at Initial Assessment Stage, seven had been resolved at Assessment Criteria Stage with none proceeding to investigation stage. In terms of outcomes, one complaint had been upheld as a breach of the code and two had been subject to review requests, of which one had not been upheld, and one remained under review.

·            The overview of the complaints procedure provided within section 3 of the report and consistency produced as a result of the detailed procedure and assessment criteria.

·            The outline of trends identified in relation to complaints and outcomes, as detailed with section 3.11 – 3.13 of the report.  These had included:

Ø  No issues being identified as having arisen during 2025 from the Code only permitting the investigation of complaints against Members made in their official capacity or when giving the impression they were acting as a member of the Council, unless the issue related to a serious criminal offence committed in the Member's private capacity.

Ø  The main reason given for complaints not proceeding beyond the initial assessment stage being that the complaint had not disclosed sufficiently serious breaches of the code to merit further consideration, or there was insufficient documentation to support the allegation. The main rationale supporting this finding had been that insufficient evidence had been submitted to support the allegation and/or when considering the allegations in context, there was not significant evidence to suggest the Councillors had behaved in the manner complained off.

Ø  The main recurring factor for escalating complaints to the Assessment Criteria Stage which was based on the contents of the complaint and that there may be a serious issue to consider, with an opportunity for the councillor concerned to comment being necessary to establish if this was the case before a conclusion was reached.

Ø  The value and role of the Independent Persons in providing external scrutiny in relation to any complaints that reached the Assessment Criteria Stage.

·            Whilst no substantive changes had been recommended as a result of the review of the Member Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, the Committee was advised that the potential for any future changes would be kept under review, pending the outcome of the government's review of the standards regime and framework for local authorities in England.

Having considered the report the Committee was then invited to raise any comments/questions, which are summarised below:

·            In noting the outline of the complaints received against members during the previous 12 months, as set out within Appendix A of the report, further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The purpose of the report is to update the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee on the progress made so far as a consequence of the Council’s self-referral in April 2025 to the Regulator of Social Housing.

The Chair welcomed Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Housing and Resident Services) and Gary Mitchell (Head of Housing Property Services) to the meeting, who he advised had been invited to provide the Committee with an update on the progress made as a result of the Council’s self -referral to the Regulator of Social Housing.  Members noted the report followed an initial update provided for the Committee in April and September 2025 and provided details about the ongoing engagement with the Regulator of Social Housing and the progress of the housing service improvement programme.

In presenting the update, the Committee noted:

·            The background and context to the initial self referral to the Regulator for Social Housing in relation to the compliance arrangements relating to building safety and stock condition, which had resulted in the Regulator of Social Housing having subsequently issued a regulatory judgement grading Brent’s Housing Management Service as C3.

·            The work subsequently undertaken by the Council to appoint health and safety advisors that specialised in building safety and assisting landlords in meeting the requirements and outcomes set out in the Social Housing (Regulations) Act 2023, in particular the Quality and Safety Standard, who had completed an initial assessment of the council’s compliance arrangements against the 8 main areas of compliance.  These contractors were also now supporting ongoing improvement work, providing additional objective and independent oversight, as well building safety expertise.

·            In support of this work, and as additional assurance, Caldiston Ltd had also been engaged to undertake an independent forensic audit across all key compliance workstreams (including fire, gas, electrical, water, asbestos and decent homes requirements) which had been completed in August 2025. The audit involved desktop reviews, staff interviews and validation of data from multiple systems in use by the service and had been aligned with concerns, which had further validated the referral to the regulator, confirming that there were significant systemic issues, particularly in data management, governance, and policy implementation. The overall outcome of the audit had been that the Housing Management Service had inadequate assurance in relation to managing building safety and compliance with key recommendations including developing a comprehensive compliance framework, resolving data integrity issues, closing overdue fire risk assessment actions, establishing central registers for smoke and CO detectors and providing staff training on compliance processes.  It had also been recommended that dashboards for real-time KPI monitoring be implemented with further alignment of the Strategic Risk Register with actual risks.

In seeking to assure members, in terms of the response, the Committee was advised that the findings from the audit had highlighted and clarified several areas that the service had already identified as requiring focus as well as some additional key learning. These findings had fed into the development of a robust action plan for improvement which included root cause analysis (as recommended by The Regulator) to ensure permanent solutions were implemented to prevent similar issues arising in the future and on which progress would also be monitored by the newly established Housing and Tenant Improvement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To undertake a Deep Dive exploration on the subject of the strategic risk presented to Brent Council from the ongoing development of AI technology recognising the way in which Brent is expanding its use of AI and automation to enhance efficiency and modernise service delivery.

To assist in the review, a paper has been attached which outlines the strategic risks along with the gaps identified in a recent internal audit. It provides an in?depth overview of the newly added AI Strategic Risk within the Council’s Strategic Risk Register and summarises the internal audit findings, governance improvements and planned actions designed to provide the necessary oversight and mitigation.

(Please note the agenda has been republished on 28 January 26 to include an updated version of the AI Strategic Risk Register attached as Appendix 1 to the report)

The Chair welcomed Tony Afuwape (Head of Digital Transformation) to the meeting who was invited to introduce a report from the Head of Digital Transformation as part of a deep dive commissioned by the Committee in relation to the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation expansion for use across the Council along with the benefits as well as strategic risks identified and oversight and mitigations being developed in response.

Olurotimi Adeniji (Digital Programme Manager) and Derrik Boyce (Head of ICT Solutions) were also introduced as co-presenters of the report. As a starting point, members were advised of the way in which Brent, like many organisations, was expanding its use of AI and automation as a key element of Brent’s digital transformation agenda to enhance efficiency, innovation and modernise service delivery, productivity and the resident experience.  Whilst recognising the benefits identified, the use of AI was also acknowledged to carry inherent strategic and cyber risks that required careful governance and oversight, which the Committee were advised had been detailed within sections 5 and 6 of the accompanying report circulated with the agenda and had also been captured within the newly developed AI Strategic Risk, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, included within the Strategic Risk Register

Key issues highlighted during presentation of the report were as follows:

·            Members were advised of the focus in developing Brent’s AI approach thought the establishment of an effective in?house automation function, the Intelligent Automation Centre of Excellence (CoE).  The CoE had been responsible for identifying, designing and delivering automation solutions that streamlined manual, repetitive and high?volume processes across the council and by leveraging the use of a leading platform for Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (i.e. UIPath) and agentic automation had also been able to actively develop staff capability with the aim of promoting a culture of continuous improvement.  As a result, the CoE had (to date) been able to successfully deliver around 50 automations, generating significant efficiency savings, reducing administrative burden and improving the speed and quality of services for residents, with Brent noted to be one of the few local authorities that had the capability of maintaining an internal team solely for this purpose positioning the Council as a leading authority within the sector and with examples of its use provided within section 4 of the report.

·            Having highlighted the significant progress made to date, members were advised that the approach had been subject to an Internal Audit review commissioned by Brent and conducted by PriceWaterhouse (PwC) in August 2025 which had concluded that whilst the overall, the arrangements for AI were maturing they had not yet been identified as consistent with the required corporate-level recommended.  This had resulted in a Limited Assurance rating being provided identifying important gaps needing to be addressed to ensure the Council remained compliant, secure and operationally resilient as AI adoption was accelerated.  Whilst recognising that significant progress had been made in establishing governance, strengthening controls and deploying early AI use cases,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Further to feedback from the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee on 3 December 2025, this report provides an update on action owners, accepted recommendations, and implementation dates for audits reported as completed within the Interim Internal Audit Report. It also reinstates the ‘Basis of Our Classifications’ and ‘Assurance Definitions’ for clarification.

Matteo Biondi (Deputy Head of Assurance) & Darren Armstrong (Deputy Director of Organisational Assurance and Resilience) introduced a report from the Corporate Director Finance & Resources which provided members, following feedback from the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee on 3 December 2025, with an update on action owners, accepted recommendations, and implementation dates for audits reported as completed within the Interim Internal Audit Report (as detailed in Appendix 1 of the report).  Members noted the report also reinstated the ‘Basis of Our Classifications’ and ‘Assurance Definitions’ for clarification.

Members welcomed the update and clarifications provided and as no further issues were raised it was RESOLVED to note the addendum to the Internal Audit Interim Report and additional clarification provided.

To receive an update on the progress in finalising the External Audit Findings Report and Council’s Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31 March 25.

(Please note the agenda was republished to include the attached report on 2 February 2026)

Before inviting the External Auditor’s (Grant Thornton) to present the report, David Ewart (as Chair) commenced consideration of the item by expressing the Committee's appreciation for the work undertaken to date by both Grant Thornton and the Council’s Finance Team in seeking to progress the audit and sign off of the Council’s Statement of Accounts given the extensive and challenging nature of work required.  Members were reminded that the necessary delegations had already been authorised in relation to completion and sign off of the final statement of accounts following completion of the external audit process and issuing of the Audit Findings Report, with the update being provided at the meeting therefore focussed on current progress.

Sophia Brown (Key Audit Partner, Grant Thornton), Sheena Phillips & Louis W. Niven (Grant Thornton – External Auditor) were then welcomed to the meeting and invited to provide a further update for members on the current status of the audit, with the following issues noted:

·            An update was provided on the Value for Money work as set out in the Auditor's Annual Report presented to the Committee in September 2025 with members advised that since presentation of the initial report additional work had been required in relation to procurement which had been completed during November 2025 as a piece of added value work at no additional cost to the Council.

This work had been focussed on development and implementation of the Council's procurement improvement plan, with Grant Thornton having assessed the first two stages of that plan (establishment and stabilisation), which were found to be largely complete. Management had now progressed to work on the subsequent two phases of improvement and embedding, which were scheduled to run for up to 24 months. It was recognised that the Council’s procurement function was evolving towards a more strategic approach including the implementation of new controls, processes and arrangements with the review undertaken by Grant Thornton focused on the necessary controls, policies, management oversight, monitoring and risk management arrangements to support that process.  Controls within the first two phases of establishment and stabilisation had been found to be compliant with expected standards. In examining the improvement and embedding phases, which were recognised as being in progress, Grant Thornton (whilst not identifying any improvement recommendations) had identified a comment and insight with it noted that Brent's current approach to procurement risk consideration was project-focused, and it observed that management was in the process of developing a comprehensive procurement-specific risk register.  As part of this process, Grant Thornton had identified a need to include consideration of the Council's readiness for implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act and for further consideration to be given to enterprise risk management with the updated Annual Report incorporating this additional work due to be presented to the Full Council meeting on 23^rd February 2026.

In thanking Sophia Brown for the update provided in relation to the Value for Money arrangements, the Chair advised that the update had also been useful in supporting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To consider the Audit and Standards Advisory Committees work programme 2025-26.

It was RESOLVED to note the Forward Plan and Work Programme for the remainder of the 2025-26 Municipal Year with the date for the final meeting scheduled as Tuesday 24 March 2026 which members were advised would now also include consideration of the Procurement Strategy review.

It was noted that development of the Committee’s work programme would continue to be kept under close review with the Chair and Vice Chair working closely with officers to ensure sufficient capacity was maintained to allow for the appropriate consideration of each item at future meetings.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Deputy Director Democratic & Corporate Governance or their representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

No items of urgent business were identified with the Chair expressing his appreciation to members for their valuable input and contributions during what was felt to have been a constructive session.