Agenda item

To allow Members to debate the outcome of the formal consultation on the review of the Council’s Housing Management Options.

The Mayor outlined that the procedure for this item had been agreed with all three group leaders and the Council’s Chief Executive. He outlined that Councillor Farah (Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform) would introduce the item; followed by a speech from the Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee; which would be followed by a general debate which would be open to all Members. The item would conclude with a summary from the Lead Member.

Councillor Farah introduced the report which set out the outcomes from the formal consultation undertaken with tenants and leaseholders on the Council’s future housing management service provision. Councillor Farah began by thanking the BHP Board and staff for their support during a difficult period over the last two years. He gave some background to Full Council on the reasons that the review had come about, citing significant concerns about BHP’s performance which began towards the end of 2015. He noted that review formally started in June 2016 and Cabinet heard the three identified options for housing management services going forward at its meeting in November 2017. These were:

(i)         To continue with BHP on a reformed basis;

(ii)        To bring the service back in-house; or

(iii)       To enter into partnership with another organisation to provide the service.

Councillor Farah outlined that Cabinet had rejected the partnership option as it was deemed to have had too many risks and rejected the option to reform BHP as Cabinet did not have confidence in BHP to make the necessary improvements or savings that needed to be achieved. He specified that Cabinet had chosen its preferred option to bring the housing management service back in-house as it was expected to be easier to achieve savings and would also give the Council direct control to be able to drive up standards. This would in turn deliver better services for tenants and leaseholders. He noted the consultation which had been undertaken with residents since November 2016 and the different aspects of this which included: newsletters; information on the Council’s website; a dedicated hotline; a dedicated freepost address; drop-in events; and an independent survey which had a 26% response rate. He drew Members’ attention to the fact the survey’s key finding was that 49% of BHP respondents support, or tended to support, the Council’s proposal and only 8% preferred the reformed BHP option.    

He set out the additional reasons for the in-house option being considered preferable, such as: there no longer being a financial advantage to having an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO); a single leadership team would provide clarity of accountability and reduce costs; opportunities to bring Council expertise to addressing BHP challenges whether on the frontline or in back off functions; and opportunities to join up services and remove an unnecessary divides which currently existed between Council and BHP services. He noted that it was for these reasons that ALMOs in London had reduced from 20 in 2009 to eight in 2017. He added that most ALMO arrangements were not always clear and that there was not always much to distinguish between what could be run operationally by the Council’s Housing Department. He concluded that his main focus was for residents’ voices to be heard in shaping housing management services and asked for Members to support the proposals put forward in the report - of which Cabinet would make the final decision on.             

Councillor Ketan Sheth (Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee) began by stating that housing was a huge challenge within the borough. He said that Members knew this, not just because of the stats on homelessness and temporary accommodation, but also from the housing issues that residents frequently tell them that they face. He mentioned that the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee convened for a special meeting in October 2016 to discuss the review of the different options for the Council’s housing management services. He was pleased that the recommendations made at that meeting were taken forward and had been contained within the report before Full Council. He also outlined that members of the Committee had undertaken ‘walkabouts’ in BHP estates across the borough, including Wembley, Kilburn and Cricklewood and that it had been valuable for the Committee to be able to see services for themselves. Members’ heard that a resident had approached the Committee Members and voiced their frustrations. Returning to the special Scrutiny Committee meeting in October, Councillor Ketan Sheth outlined how satisfying it was that so many BHP residents were in attendance and that the Council should be proud that it was able to engage with so many of them.

He continued by specifying the three recommendations that the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee had set out for Cabinet (contained under paragraph 15 of the report) and the reasoning. He re-iterated that it was pleasing that these had been taken into account and it also highlighted the role that the Scrutiny Committees had in teasing out problems before important key decisions are taken. He concluded that Councillor Farah had made it clear at the special Scrutiny meeting back in October that he wanted resident engagement to be at the core of the new housing management arrangements and that he hoped that this would definitively happen.

The Mayor then opened the debate up to Members.

Councillor Kansagra (Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group) began by recalling that Full Council had welcomed the original decision to create BHP as an ALMO to deliver the Council’s housing management services (in 2002) and often applauded BHP’s work at Council meetings. He stated that it was important to assess what had gone wrong since then. He said that when the Council established BHP it was hoped that a private business culture would be established to drive the management of the service forward, and it was unfortunate that this ultimately never happened. He felt that this was because the Council’s internal work practices and culture had been incorporated within the creation of the ALMO. He also felt that strategic direction from the Council had been lacking at that time which had contributed in a number of ways to the current problems. He stated that, in his opinion, the option in the report for pursuing a reformed BHP was the preferable route for Cabinet to take. He noted that this reform should also encompass more involvement for the relevant Scrutiny Committee and more Councillors on the BHP Board with additional powers to assist with oversight of the ALMO.

Councillor Shahzad stated that there had been a high level of concern about BHP from both its tenants and leaseholders in Cricklewood. He stated that the high number of complaints about the service had not been acceptable and that the proposal to bring the management of the service back in-house provided a way of addressing this. He said that when the management of housing had been provided in-house, before BHP had been created, it had been a superior service. He concluded that it was beneficial for the Council that the proposed option would save money and that he was certain this option would provide a better service for residents.

Councillor Collier outlined that he was concerned about the proposed decision to bring the housing management service back in-house. He said that he could not remember a time of such unanimity of agreement between Councillors and Officers for a key decision affecting the Council. He emphasised that the decision to enter into a repairs and maintenance contract with Wates had contributed to BHP’s problems as Wates had not had the supply chain or staffing levels to deliver the key elements to the contract. He felt that the BHP Board had been inhibited by this contract in what had, in effect, been a political decision taken by the Council. He also raised concerns about a lack of strategic direction within the Council, stating that it had been a significant error not to utilise BHP for new builds and questioned why filling voids (unoccupied properties) and undertaking repair work to properties had not been addressed more quickly. He re-iterated that this was linked to the failure of the contract with Wates. He concluded that he felt the proposed decision would take away both the expertise of its members and the community voice if the BHP Board was disbanded. He also raised that the problems would only continue if it was largely the same people involved in delivering housing management services.

Councillor Long began by declaring that she was a previous BHP Board Member. She also noted her concerns for how the housing management service would function if it was brought back in-house. She questioned how the future decisions relating to the service would be made, stating that having it within the portfolio of one Lead Member and having decisions come through Cabinet could cause delays which might affect the service. She said that it was also possible that decisions would be delegated to Council Officers which would mean less transparency for residents. She highlighted that the in-house option would still incur transfer costs and that it would be difficult for the Cabinet to manage expectations of what can be achieved under the proposed new arrangements. She mentioned that the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee had considered the three different options and offered recommendations but questioned why BHP’s problems had not been scrutinised more regularly and addressed before reaching this point.

Councillor Jones emphasised the amount of casework she had had to deal with from BHP leaseholders in recent years. She noted that this had centred on inadequate information from BHP when work was proposed and the length of time it took to address any problems. She said that she hoped that proposals would work in addressing the issues facing residents.

Councillor Colacicco raised points to Council on the link between poorly insulated homes homes and mental health problems. She noted that the UK’s housing stock had the lowest level of energy efficiency in Europe. She added that cold homes and poverty went hand in hand and that the Council should take control and make warm housing a priority for its Council housing stock.

Councillor Kabir stated that in principle she was in agreement with the proposal to bring the housing management service back in-house but would have preferred a greater level of detail on the logistics of where this would be placed within the Council’s structure. She raised that, going forward, it was very important for Members to have channels for referrals of housing-related casework to social services, children and young people services, environmental services, the police, relevant voluntary sector organisations and others. She also stated that any future contracts should be value for money and ensure that tenant and leaseholder interests are taken into account. She continued that the relevant Scrutiny Committee should have a more prominent role in overseeing the management of the Council’s housing stock, with arrangements to ensure tenants and leaseholders are involved alongside frequent Committee recommendations to Cabinet. She also implored that it was essential that the Council took into consideration the need to adapt houses for those children and adults with special needs.

Councillor Mashari began by congratulating Councillor Farah and Phil Porter (the Council’s Strategic Director of Community Wellbeing) for the undertaking the review and formal consultation. She emphasised that it was important for Members not to glaze over the issues which had contributed in getting to this point. She said that all Members had horror stories on the quality of BHP service from residents and that it was very important that those responsible for delivering housing management services both in the past and moving forward were accountable. She noted that she did not necessarily believe bringing the service back in-house would be a silver bullet to solve the problems which had occurred. She made clear that governance; transparency; quality of service; and resident collaboration would be the key in ensuring the in-housing option was successful. She agreed with other Members that scrutiny arrangements would also be crucial, and that there should be a detailed change management plan with a definitive timetable reporting to the relevant Scrutiny Committee on a regular basis. She concluded that it was important that the Cabinet got this decision right and that she did not want to see the Council having to go back to an ALMO model in another ten years’ time.

Councillor S Choudhary welcomed the plan to bring housing management services back in-house. He noted that he was an ex-BHP trustee and had experienced the problems which had led to the review. He said that Brent’s BHP residents were fed up with the level of service from BHP, largely caused by the lack of repairs, and that Members heard the complaints constantly through emails and at Councillors’ Surgeries. He stated that all Members should want to make a success of the proposal. He added that arrangements for genuine resident engagement would be crucial. He concluded that it was also essential that the Council now ensured that it had a proper standard of mechanics and electricians to be able to carry out repairs on the properties quickly and effectively.

Councillor Carr stated she was largely in agreement with the earlier points made by Councillors Collier and Long and she was not convinced that bringing the housing management service back in-house was the best way forward. She questioned whether the proposed reforms would improve the service and also raised concerns about the practical management arrangements.

Councillor Mahmood said that whilst he had found BHP had been viewed favourably by residents in the past, in the last few years it is clear that problems had arisen which had affected this view. He stated he supported Cabinet’s proposal in principle, but that if the Council did not perform well under the new arrangements then it would be letting residents down. He recorded his hope that things could improve. He concluded by thanking BHP staff for their services and thanked Officers for undertaking the review work.

With no other Member indicating that they wished to speak, the Mayor invited Councillor Farah to conclude.

Councillor Farah thanked Members for their contributions in the debate and acknowledged that he had listened to the concerns and issues raised. He stated that past experience should not paralyse the Council and emphasised that it should continue to always be forward looking. He said it would be possible to learn from past experiences and believed that the proposal would allow the organisation to do a better job with limited resources. He outlined that Cabinet would assess the concerns raised and that he, as Lead Member, would respond in due course. He assured Members that the views of tenants and leaseholders would be at the heart of the housing management service arrangements. He welcomed Members’ support and said that he would welcome ideas and engagement with Members over the next 12 months. He concluded that he was confident that a better service could be delivered for residents and asked Members to support the recommendations within the report.

Councillor Kansagra raised a final point, on behalf of the Conservative Group, which asked that Cabinet re-consider the ‘Reformed BHP’ option (as specified under paragraph 4.7 (i) within the report) when it took its decision.

RESOLVED that:

(i)         The outcome of the formal consultation regarding the proposal that the housing management functions and other delegated roles exercised by Brent Housing Partnership Ltd. be exercised by the Council thus requiring termination of the management agreement, be noted;

(ii)        New arrangements for scrutiny for this function which will constructively engage residents, be noted;

(iii)       The main points of the Council’s discussion of the report be referred to Cabinet when it meets to consider the consultation responses and make the final decision on the Council’s housing management service options.