Agenda item

To update the Audit & Advisory Committee of the progress made so far as a consequence of the self-referral in April to the Regulator of Social Housing.

Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) was invited to introduce a report from the Corporate Director Resident & Housing Services providing an update on progress following the Council’s self-referral to the Regulator of Social Housing following the previous update to the Committee in June 2025.

In presenting the update, Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) provided details on the ongoing engagement with the Regulator of Social Housing and the progress of the housing service improvement programme. The Committee were informed that monthly meetings with the Regulator had been taking place, with the most recent meeting held the day prior to the Committee meeting. It was reported that whilst the Regulator had expressed satisfaction with the pace and scope of change being implemented, the need for caution had been noted given the improvement process was not expected to yield immediate results, and it estimated that it would take between 18 months and 2 years before the regulatory judgment could be lifted. Nonetheless, the Regulator had commended the Council’s multi-faceted approach to service recovery and contrasted Brent’s strategy with that of other local authorities, noting that many had adopted a binary process involving initial internal resolution attempts, followed by consultancy engagement to assess the problem and subsequent contractor involvement to resolve the issue.

In contrast, members were advised Brent had already engaged consultants and contractors and had commenced risk mitigation activities from the outset. It was conveyed that an external audit had been conducted, focusing particularly on compliance within the housing service with confirmation provided that a root cause analysis was also underway to ensure that lessons were learned and that similar issues would not recur and with a recovery plan developed based on the audit findings.

As part of the recovery plan, additional staff had been appointed to focus specifically on compliance and complaints. The structure of the compliance team was outlined, which included team leaders responsible for gas safety, electrical safety, fire safety, and environmental health matters such as legionella, air quality, water systems and lift maintenance. Members heard that significant work was also being undertaken to remediate and improve the systems. In relation to the concerns identified in relation to data, the rebuild of True Compliance and the NEC asset register was underway and due to be complete by April 2026 with additional governance implemented around the management of data, in particular restricting property creation access which would provide a more controlled approach to new properties being added to the system and feeding into compliance workstreams accurately.  It was further reported that additional contractors had been engaged to address identified issues, particularly those relating to fire safety.

The Committee received assurance that all high-risk actions associated with high-rise buildings had either been resolved or were subject to further work to action with the service now having also begun to address high-risk actions in medium-rise buildings.

In terms of resident engagement, it was confirmed that communication efforts were ongoing. A digital newsletter, ‘The Notice Board’ had been circulated to over 6,000 tenants, with printed versions scheduled for distribution to all residents. The newsletter provided updates on service developments and contractor assignments. A new contractor was due to commence work the following week, joining the existing contractor to provide maintenance and repair services. The two contractors would operate across the borough, with one covering the eastern region and the other the western region. Residents would be informed of their designated contractor through the newsletter.

Following on from the initial update, Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) then addressed the Committee regarding governance arrangements supporting the housing improvement programme. It was reported that a review of governance structures had taken place since the last Committee meeting with section 4.5 in the report providing details on the establishment of the Housing and Tenant Satisfaction Improvement Board (chaired by the Council’s Chief Executive), which had been convened for the first time in September 2025.  It was explained that the Improvement Board was supported by three distinct workstreams, each being led by a Director with the purpose to provide strategic oversight of the entire improvement programme. It was noted that this represented a new layer of governance that had not previously existed and was intended to ensure robust monitoring throughout the implementation process with the Board providing governance and oversight by monitoring the progress of improvement initiatives and ensuring compliance with housing standards.

Having thanked Spencer Randolph and Tom Cattermole for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the update provided, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• As an initial query, details were sought regarding whether the next phase of the service investigations had revealed any concerns regarding material hazards. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director, Housing Services) confirmed that all blocks of flats, ranging from high-rise buildings to converted street properties, were subject to fire risk assessments. It was stated that compliance levels were considered high relative to the number of properties requiring such assessments with the original issue identified as prompting the self-referral relating to assessments having been closed without sufficient evidence that any associated actions had been resolved.  Referring to the audit subsequently undertaken as the basis for the recovery plan, members were advised this including a root cause analysis, with it identified that between 95% and 100% of properties requiring fire risk assessments had received them, depending on the assessment cycle. A validation exercise was underway to ensure that all properties requiring assessments had been included with any properties found to have been omitted subject to reassessment.  It was emphasised that the primary issue concerned the closure of actions arising from assessments, rather than the assessments themselves.

• Members then turned their attention to section 6.4 of the committee report, regarding the anticipated costs and financial implications arising from the actions identified and Recovery Plan. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director, Housing Services) explained that the Council managed 8,500 homes and referenced a local authority with 21,000 homes that had incurred costs of £2.3m to recover their position. It was noted that, proportionally, the cost for the Council would be significantly lower. Whilst the evaluation was ongoing, members were advised that no significantly high cost issues had been identified thus far. Funding had been provisionally allocated for the current and following financial years as part of the recovery plan. It was added that many costs would be absorbed within existing programmes, such as fire door inspections and replacements.  Whilst additional provision had been made, it was, however, acknowledged that details on the final costings were not yet available, due to the ongoing evaluation.

As a further query, details were sought on the potential impact any significant additional costs identified were likely to have on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). In response, Minesh Patel (Corporate Director, Finance and Resources) clarified that the HRA was a ring-fenced account. It was explained that services within the HRA were funded by rental income from residents, which supported various housing-related services. It was further stated that the HRA currently held reserves of approximately £5m, which exceeded the minimum reserve level required. Should significant costs arise, a call upon these reserves would be made. Following on from the previous question, members asked whether high costs could result in rent increases for residents. In response, Minesh Patel conveyed that rent increases within the HRA were governed by a statutory formula applicable to social rents. It was confirmed that councils were not permitted to raise rents beyond the limits set by legislation.

Members expressed appreciation for the publication of ‘The Notice Board’ and requested that copies be made available to all members. Further enquires were made around whether the ongoing review had affected the usual programme of maintenance and repair. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director, Housing Services) confirmed that ‘The Notice Board’ had been distributed through the members’ updates and undertook to ensure that it would be circulated to all members. In response to the second query, it was noted that the review had not impacted the broader programme of repairs and maintenance. It was emphasised that, while compliance remained a key focus, there was also a concerted effort to improve service delivery across housing management and property services. A newly appointed Head of Service was leading this transformation, with particular attention being paid to void turnaround times and the reduction of works in progress and two contractors having now been engaged, introducing a degree of competitive performance.  Additional operatives and managers had been recruited within the repairs, maintenance, and voids teams. These measures had resulted in observable improvements across the service, extending beyond compliance-related matters.

• Members requested clarification regarding the three workstreams under the Housing and Tenant Satisfaction Improvement Board and also raised concerns about communication between the service strands, citing instances where tenant management and property services were felt to have failed to coordinate effectively. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director, Housing Services) acknowledged that such issues had occurred historically. It was reported that significant changes had been implemented within the tenancy service, including the appointment of new Area Tenancy Managers who had begun to make a noticeable impact, with residents providing positive feedback. It was further highlighted that a cultural change programme was underway to ensure that tenancy and property services operated cohesively as a unified entity. It was additionally mentioned that tenant satisfaction measures were based on annual snapshots, which did not always reflect ongoing improvements. Nonetheless, recent data indicated progress in tenancy management and complaint handling, although challenges remained within the repairs service. These findings aligned with known service issues and were being actively addressed. Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) further advised the Committee that an additional member briefing had been scheduled for late November or early December in order for the Cabinet Member for Housing to provide a comprehensive overview of the workstreams.

• As a further issue highlighted, independent members referred to the previously identified 12,500 unresolved fire actions and queried whether any issues had been detected with the underlying software and if this remained within the scope of the root cause analysis. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director, Housing Services) clarified that the software itself was not inherently problematic. However, concerns had arisen regarding its governance and the manner in which access had been granted to officers to input and remove data. It was highlighted that the system was being rebuilt from the ground up, with enhanced compliance structures, restricted access rights to make changes to the system, and the introduction of robust training manuals and processes to prevent recurrence.

• Independent members then moved on to focus on issues identified within paragraph 6.5 of the committee report, which indicated that grant funding could be withheld during the notice period and enquired whether any such impact had materialised and what the financial implications might be for the current year and budget forecasts. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director, Housing Services) advised that he had been meeting regularly with the Greater London Authority (GLA) in relation to the Council’s regeneration programme and stated that, although there had been potential for grant funding to be withheld, the GLA had expressed satisfaction with the updates provided and no adverse financial implications therefore having arisen to date.

• Members enquired whether the Regulator was satisfied with the timelines and progress to date and then raised a secondary issue in relation to feedback received from residents and tenant groups following the distribution of ‘The Notice Board’ newsletters. In response, Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) confirmed that the Regulator was satisfied with the progress made thus far. In relation to resident and tenant feedback, it was acknowledged that concerns had arisen but it was noted that residents had appreciated the transparency with which the issue had been communicated. A series of summer roadshows had been conducted, during which approximately 500 residents were engaged. Furthermore, a tenant engagement event was scheduled to take place on 29 October 2025, which would include a Q&A session for residents. While concern had been expressed regarding the content of the communications, the openness of the Council’s approach had been positively received.

• Members referenced paragraph 4.5 of the committee report, which stated that the Housing and Tenant Satisfaction Improvement Board had held its initial meeting in September 2025, and requested details regarding attendance, outcomes of the meeting, and the frequency and reporting lines of the Board. As an additional question, members referred to the audit findings, which identified several major tasks requiring completion over the next 18 to 24 months and sought clarification on the prioritisation of these tasks, particularly the rationale for commencing with gas compliance as outlined in paragraph 4.9. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director, Housing Services) advised that the initial priority had been fire risk assessments and the associated remedial actions. All high-risk, high-rise fire risk assessments had been addressed. The Committee were advised that the Council was now progressing through compliance streams, with a focus on validating data and improving compliance. Gas compliance had been prioritised due to the volume of data involved and number of properties requiring gas safety certification. This approach had enabled the Council to address the largest compliance stream first.  The remaining 8 compliance streams were being addressed in a logical progression, with full remediation anticipated by April 2026. In response to the question regarding governance of the Board, Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) advised that the September 2025 meeting had been the first session, during which the terms of reference and scope had been agreed and undertook to circulate the governance structure overview to members following the meeting. Members were informed that the governance framework included an independent Housing Management Advisory Board, comprising the Cabinet Member for Housing and another non-executive councillor, resident representatives, and independent housing advisors with the Board chaired by the Chief Executive.

In welcoming the transparent nature of the approach outlined, the Chair thanked officers for the update provided on which the Committee would continue to monitor progress and seek to revisit at a future meeting.

With no further issues raised the Committee AGREED to note the update provided, with the following identified as specific actions:

(1)  That the ‘The Notice Board’ newsletter be disseminated to all members of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee, for reference and information.

Details on the governance structure relating to the Housing and Tenant Satisfaction Improvement Board be provided for members of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee.