Agenda item

To update the Committee on the progress made so far as a consequence of the self-referral made in April 2025 to the Regulator of Social Housing and Brent Council’s grading of C3.

Councillor Fleur Donnelly-Jackson (as Cabinet Member for Housing) introduced the report and thanked the Committee for scrutinising the housing function. She advised members that the report set out Brent Council’s response to the Regulator for Social Housing’s findings, which had graded the Council at C3, showing that serious failings in Housing Management had been identified and significant improvements were required. She advised that, since the grading, substantial progress had been made and there were regular monthly meetings with the Regulator and senior housing staff. The Regulator was satisfied with the progress the Council was making, which was being done across the piece on different areas of housing in parallel to ensure all actions required were put in place. She added that, as Cabinet Lead for Housing, this was not something she had anticipated she would face when stepping into the role but she was determined to see through the improvement actions and ensure the Council was doing everything to progress as a housing department and was on the journey to a C1 grade to be an effective and excellent Housing Management Service.

Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Housing and Residents Services, Brent Council) provided additional information on the self-referral to the Regulator for Social Housing. He advised that, in April 2025, officers had identified irregularities with the True Compliance system, establishing that up to 12,500 fire risk assessment actions had been wrongly updated to indicate that works had been completed but the supporting evidence was missing. The system was also unable to reconcile performance data on asbestos management, water safety and detectors for smoke and carbon monoxide. Due to the seriousness of the findings, the Council had accordingly referred itself to the Regulator for Social Housing and began improvement works immediately. An independent health and safety specialist had been appointed to assist the Council in assessing compliance arrangements against the ‘Big 8’ areas of compliance, who had confirmed that there were significant systemic issues, particularly in data management issues, governance and policy implementation. The specialists recommended developing a comprehensive compliance framework, resolving data integrity issues, closing overdue fire risk assessment actions, establishing central registers for smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, providing staff training on compliance processes, and implementing dashboards for real-time KPI monitoring. In progressing the recommendations, the Council had completed all high-risk fire risk assessment actions in high rise blocks, was rebuilding the compliance data system which was due for completion by April 2026, had recruited to the Compliance Team which was now at full capacity, and had regular meetings with the Regulator to discuss progress. The Council was also consulting and engaging with residents through a multi-channel engagement strategy including newsletters, web updates, direct communication and mini engagement days.

The Chair then invited Dawn Martin (Independent Chair of the Housing Management Advisory Board) to provide her opinion on the progress the Council was making in light of the grading. She informed members that she had worked in housing for over 20 years and was experienced in all aspects of housing management, and from her expertise she felt Brent Housing Management had been very open and transparent in relation to this and recognised the issues within the service. The Housing Management Advisory Board acted as a critical friend to Brent Housing Management to monitor the service they were delivering for tenants and leaseholders.

The Chair thanked presenters for their introduction and invited comments and questions from those present, with the following issues raised:

The Committee recognised the seriousness of the failings and asked how they occurred without notice for as long as they did. Tom Cattermole responded that the service recognised the gravity of the situation, and HR processes had been followed to undertake investigations and appropriate actions. As such, none of the management team currently in post were responsible for the compliance system which they had inherited as they moved into their substantive posts. The system issues were noted to be an error in personnel in terms of how data was being uploaded onto the system, but there were also issues identified relating to leadership, culture amongst the service and governance. Governance systems and processes had subsequently been implemented with a full complement of new leadership that was addressing each of those issues. He added that, whilst the current leadership had not been in post when the issues arose, senior leaders took full responsibility for the inherited situation and the solution. Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services, Brent Council) further explained that the issue that had led to the self-referral related to recording on the system, where the necessary evidence of an action having been carried out was not being uploaded before the officers were closing the action. As such, whilst fire risk assessment actions might have been carried out, there was no evidence to provide confidence in the data to confirm that it was correct. Work over the last 4-5 months had focused on cleansing that data and verifying properties so the service knew 100% of the properties needing a particular certificate and whether the property had one. This would then allow the service to report with 100% accuracy where it was with compliance. He confirmed that, given the breadth of the work being undertaken, he was confident that similar issues would not happen again.

Highlighting that the issues identified by the Regulator would have built up over time, the Committee asked what would be done to ensure the culture issues identified did not happen again. Councillor Donnelly-Jackson responded that when she inherited the situation, she had asked the same questions the Committee was asking, and confirmed that she was deeply unsatisfied with the situation as a member of the Council who did not know this was coming. Whilst she had inherited the issues within her new portfolio role, she took full responsibility for addressing them as the Cabinet Lead. A new internal governance process had been established, made up of several monitoring and improvement Boards to keep progress on track, alongside the Housing Management Advisory Board which had been in development before the regulatory issues had been identified to ensure the voice of tenants was heard in everything the Council did. A full service improvement plan had been established, including reorganisation and recruitment, service management, training, handovers and improved inductions to ensure every officer who worked in housing took responsibility and accountability and worked together. Managers were now required to meet particular training requirements with professional qualifications, and the Council was working with Doug Goldring who had worked in Kensington and Chelsea following the Grenfell fire tragedy to help with communications to residents. She advised that there were many different strands of work taking place and the Council was working at pace to ensure it was addressing every type of risk, including how particularly vulnerable tenants were supported and recorded in the system. Spencer Randolph reaffirmed Councillor Donnelly-Jackson’s comments, highlighting that there was a whole new team within the service now with a new Head of Property Services, Strategic Compliance Manager and three further compliance managers responsible for particular compliance assets. He felt that the change in culture in the team was tangible with clear pride in pushing these changes forward.

Noting that the service lacked confidence in the data it currently had access to, the Committee highlighted that the C3 grading may or may not be accurate as a result of that lack of reliability. They asked how the service would ensure it got to a point where the data was reliable so that officers knew where the issues were and could address them. Spencer Randolph advised members that officers were having to review the data forensically, and it would take until May 2026 before there was that assurance that each property had been added to the correct workstreams. Some of that work could be done via desktop review where properties already had certificates, but for other properties the service was needing to go out and survey properties to see what compliance workstreams they should be in. As director, he reported on a monthly basis to the Council’s Corporate Management Team and the Housing Regulator with progress on the data reconciliation, with attendance from the Head of Property Services, Strategic Compliance Manager and other senior officers as required. He advised that the Council now had a good reporting rhythm with the Regulator, and the Chief Executive and Cabinet Member for Housing would be attending the next meeting.

The Committee highlighted that many aspects of compliance were not visible to a tenant, and some tenants would not know whether they had or needed a particular certificate. They asked whether the service would be able to inform a tenant whether they needed particular certificates if asked. Spencer Randolph advised that, as the data currently stood, the service would not be able to tell someone that information with confidence. However, from May 2026 onwards the service would know and be able to inform tenants, and hoped long term to be able to develop a system where tenants could log on to their account and see that compliance information themselves.

The Committee highlighted two aspects to resident safety, one being that residents were safe, and the second being that residents felt safe. Given the finding by the regulator, the Committee highlighted that residents were not confident in their safety. Councillor Donnelly-Jackson affirmed that the Council was not downplaying the feeling of a lack of safety that tenants may have, and there had been a comprehensive communications approach taken around this ranging from newsletters sent to 7,500 tenants, a series of in person events across summer roadshows, estate walkabouts and a video where she, as the Cabinet Member, explained the significance of the Regulator’s findings. Communications continued with a range of engagement to ensure the Council was better at engaging with tenants and that tenants understood what was happening in relation to the referral and progress being made to improve. A new resident engagement framework was in development to ensure all possible avenues to get feedback from tenants.

The Committee felt that the service was a long distance away from completion of the improvement timeline, which may cause anxiety amongst tenants, and asked how the service was expediting that timeline where possible. Spencer Randolph advised members that the service had prioritised the workstreams and ensured that all high-risk high rise block actions were closed down as the first step, followed by all high rise medium-risk actions, taking the approach to deal with the higher risk actions first. The service had then worked on gas safety, and he was now confident that 100% of properties that should be in the gas safety workstream were in the system.

The Committee raised concerns over that length of time it would take the Council to have 100% of stock surveyed within 5 years and asked what the implications of that were. Spencer Randolph advised that the Regulator expected stock condition surveys to be no older than 5 years old for each property in order for the Council to have a strategy for carrying out major repairs and planned works over a 30-year period, and Brent Council’s stock condition surveys were far below that requirement. In response, the Council had increased its rolling programme so that by the end of the financial year around 70% of stock would have a stock condition survey of 5 years or less, but it was highlighted that, as time went on, other properties would fall back into the over 5 years category, which was why the Council had estimated it would take until 2028 before all properties had an up to date survey. In terms of the scale of properties that did not have a recent survey, of the 8,976 Council dwellings, there was surveyed information on 5,851, with 65.2% classed as up to date and the remaining having surveys between 5 and 10 years old. Arkus Limited had been appointed to assist with the management of stock data and the creation of a capital works programme. In terms of prioritising, the service would be starting with properties that had not had a survey for the longest length of time, and activity would be increased alongside the other remedial actions being put in place to improve the Council’s grading.

Noting that the Council had now addressed all high-risk high rise block actions, the Committee asked what the specific types of issues being addressed were. They heard that Fire Risk Assessment actions provided a snapshot of the issues identified by the assessor on the day the assessment was carried out and may include issues such as bicycles being stored in a corridor, blocking means of escape, which would be considered a high-risk action. The tenants should be asked to move those items and the officer should take photographic evidence of that in order to close the action, but that evidence had not been being provided before the action was closed on the system, which had previously not been happening. Now, contractors were visiting those properties to see whether the actions had been completed, taking evidence if they had been done or completing those actions straight away with evidence if they had not been done, before closing them on the system. Spencer Randolph added that the actions did not relate to fundamental fire safety issues with the building materials themselves such as high-risk cladding.

The Committee asked how, going forward, the service would ensure individual voices and stories were being listened to and not ruled out if a data point said otherwise. Councillor Donnelly-Jackson advised that the department was adamant that people were treated with dignity and respect and were listened to about their repairs. A new Repairs Manager had been brought in who was focused on ensuring tenants were heard and their repairs happened in the timeline required, and the new repairs and maintenance contract provided competition for Wates, driving up their performance.

The Committee asked whether the housing service kept an up-to-date risk register and how finance factored into this, including the pace in which these actions could be done. Tom Cattermole confirmed there was a departmental risk register, directorate level risk register, and a corporate risk register which had all been updated given the findings and had Red Amber Green (RAG) ratings. The departmental risk register was reviewed monthly. In terms of finance, he advised that the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) was unstable. The Council was reviewing the HRA 30-year business plan currently to make decisions on how, where and when to invest and there were a number of actions being undertaken to help turn the financial position around, including the void turnaround plan and rent collection improvement plan. He confirmed that a large investment into the HRA would allow the work to be done at an increased pace, but as that would not be likely the Council was prioritising the most high-risk actions first.

In response to queries around damp and mould and disrepair, Councillor Donnelly-Jackson advised that there were separate workstreams specifically around damp and mould following the implementation of Awaab’s Law, and the timeline the Council had to address those actions was short. There had been communications to all tenants around raising damp and mould issues, and information in the Members’ Bulletin so that councillors were able to support tenants who reported issues to them.

As no further issues were raised the Chair thanked officers for their time and responses and invited members to make recommendations, with the following RESOLVED:

i)               Housing to ensure continual monitoring of the data to ensure similar issues do not happen again.

ii)              Housing o fast-track the timeline for stock condition surveys and data reconciliation.

iii)             Housing o provide reassurance to residents through appropriate communication channels, such as through a safety dashboard, so that residents had visibility of performance. This communication should be direct and easy to understand.

iv)             Housing to ensure it is listening to how residents felt about the grading and whether they feel the improvements being put in place are having an impact.

v)              For the Council to review other departments to ensure no other cultural issues are giving rise to significant risk.