Agenda item

To receive an overview and update on the performance of Brent Housing Management (BHM) against Tenant Satisfaction Measures and improvements planned and delivered in relation to BHM performance, particularly voids, compliance, repairs and disrepair, rent collection and arrears, complaints, major planned works, and the current financial position.

Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) was invited to introduce the Housing Management: Tenant Satisfaction Measures and Brent Housing Management (BHM) Performance Report. In presenting, it was stated that housing remained one of the defining issues for Brent, and that the quality of housing management was central to how residents experienced their council. It was noted that the Council continued to face a significant level of challenge arising from rising homelessness and structural financial constraints. It was emphasised that the Council remained fully committed to delivering safe, secure and decent homes for all residents who relied upon its services. Reference was made to the broader national context following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, the death of Awaab Ishak which had led to the introduction of Awaab’s Law, and the strengthening of building and fire safety requirements. It was stated that it was essential that tenants were placed at the centre of everything the Council did in this area. It was observed that safe, secure and decent homes were a foundation for a fair and thriving borough and were not optional for any responsible housing authority. Members were informed that the report before the Committee set out an overview of the Tenant Satisfaction Measures and the performance of Brent Housing Management. It was explained that the Tenant Satisfaction Measures provided one of the core mechanisms through which the Council assessed tenant views and their experience of the housing service.

In continuing the presentation, Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) added that current performance was not always at the level that residents expected and that such a position was not tenable. It was stated that the report represented a transparent and accurate account of the issues, the improvements achieved to date, and the changes being delivered. The measures put in place to address the issues identified were outlined. It was confirmed that a Housing Tenant Satisfaction and Improvement Programme had been established, chaired by the Chief Executive, providing clear governance, delivery oversight, grip and accountability in respect of the required improvements. Members were further advised that resident scrutiny had been strengthened through the Housing Management Advisory Board, chaired by Dawn Martin. Several key areas of focus within housing management were highlighted. The first related to voids, where the backlog was reducing. The second concerned compliance, where improvements were being made although data systems continued to be stabilised, with supporting information technology systems forming part of the ongoing improvement work. The third area was repairs, where significant improvement had been recorded since autumn 2025, although capacity remained tight. The final area related to complaints, where volumes continued to rise. It was stated that this reflected both service issues and increased resident awareness, with learning being embedded as part of the system. It was noted that void losses and arrears had a direct impact on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and that improved performance in these areas was essential, as had been reported to the Resources Scrutiny Committee in the previous week. In concluding the presentation, it was emphasised that the approach remained honest about current weaknesses, focused on residents, and underpinned by strong governance, accurate data and political and organisational leadership.

The Chair thanked Councillor Donnelly-Jackson and Tom Cattermole for their presentation to the Committee and then moved on to invite members to ask questions in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

·       As an initial query, members queried why data quality and reporting issues had been a recurring theme in the report and sought clarification on what action was being taken to resolve these issues holistically. In response, Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) noted that a comprehensive improvement project had been established to address these matters. Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) further added that the core challenge in housing management had been the historic use of systems that were not fit for purpose. It was stated that the principal system used within housing management was NEC, which was an industry standard system but had not received required investment over the previous 8 years. It was explained that attempts had been made to build a dynamic system over the NEC platform, but this had not integrated effectively with NEC despite significant investment. Members were advised that two further systems were also used within housing management. The first, True Compliance, supported compliance workstreams such as gas safety, fire safety and electrical safety. This system had been introduced approximately two and a half years previously but had not been implemented or used correctly. The second system, Lifespan, supported decency and housing condition management and worked satisfactorily but did not integrate with the other systems. It was reported that the NEC structure was now being rebuilt and would become the predominant housing management system. It would act as the single source of information, with True Compliance and Lifespan integrated within it to enable full data consolidation. Members heard that this project had been underway for approximately 6 months and that the first phase was expected to be introduced by May or June 2026. The overall programme was anticipated to take approximately 18 months. It was additionally mentioned that the Council managed approximately 12,500 council and leasehold properties. It was noted that some leaseholders did not reside in their properties and therefore additional addresses were required on the system, with an estimated total of between 20,000 and 25,000 addresses. It was reported that approximately 900,000 individual address related data had required cleansing within NEC. It was confirmed that the Council was nearing completion of the data cleansing process, particularly for True Compliance, with completion anticipated by May 2026. It was further stated that validation of properties was ongoing and that officers were now confident that all properties requiring a fire risk assessment were recorded on the system. Contractors were undertaking outstanding assessments. Members were informed that the same validation processes were underway for gas, electrical safety, legionella and asbestos. It was emphasised that the scale of the project was considerable but essential, as the system established would be used to manage the housing stock for the next 20 years.

In noting the response received, members suggested that a full report be provided to the Committee on the operation of the housing management systems, setting out how the previously separate systems were being integrated into the rebuilt NEC system to ensure that all systems used within Housing Management were being brought together effectively.

·       Details were sought on the reasons for the increase in disrepair cases. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) explained that repairs and maintenance related to day-to-day repair work, most of which was reactive. Disrepair, by contrast, concerned legal claims brought by tenants alleging that the Council had failed to undertake necessary repairs, often in relation to damp and mould. It was stated that there had not been a substantial increase in repair requests, with approximately 27,000 cases per year remaining typical. However, there had been an increase in completed repairs, largely due to the move from a single repairs contractor, Wates, to a dual contractor model. Since October, Mears had covered the east of the borough and Wates the west. Legacy repair cases resulting from the transition had been cleared, resulting in higher completion numbers. It was noted that the housing stock was ageing and that limited capital investment in recent years had contributed to increased repair needs. Work was underway to reestablish capital investment priorities based upon decency standards and identified need. It was highlighted that increased reporting of damp and mould reflected both evolving circumstances and improved resident awareness resulting from communications activity. It was emphasised that while some increase had occurred, the Council did not expect numbers to exceed the approximate 27,000 annual repair cases.

Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) added that while legitimate disrepair claims should never be minimised, the Minister for Housing had issued a call for evidence in February 2026 regarding whether claims farming was contributing to rising national disrepair claims. Reference was made to the prevalence of no win no fee arrangements and referral fees. Members noted that the Council did not know the extent to which any local increase was attributable to claims farming, but that the issue was recognised nationally. It was reaffirmed that residents with legitimate claims should always be supported to bring them, particularly in the context of Awaab’s Law.

Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) further added that increased regulatory expectations had arisen following Grenfell and Awaab’s Law. Reference was made to section 11 of the committee report, which explained that complaints had increased due to residents being encouraged to complain and having higher expectations of the complaints process.

Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) additionally mentioned that complaints were essential in supporting service improvement. Reference was made to the recent deep dive review undertaken by Elizabeth Skillen (Quality Assurance and Standards Manager) and emphasised the importance of distinguishing between service requests and complaints, noting that these could sometimes become blurred. It was stated that the Council sought not to avoid complaints but to treat them appropriately so that learning could be embedded. It was emphasised that complaints should be acted upon promptly, resolved at the first possible point of contact, and handled in a respectful manner that placed tenants at the centre of service delivery. It was stressed that complaints were not the responsibility of Brent Housing alone, but required a whole Council approach, ensuring that any issue raised at any point of contact was captured and addressed.

·       Members were keen to seek details on how complaints relating to antisocial behaviour were being addressed. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) highlighted that there had been some improvement in the perception of how antisocial behaviour was being managed. It was confirmed that officers were bringing forward a new Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy and were working across departments, including with the antisocial behaviour team, to consider how additional officer capacity could be funded to take a more proactive approach in relation to council housing. It was noted that antisocial behaviour constituted a significant proportion of the complaints received and included issues such as fly tipping, the dumping of rubbish and nuisance neighbours.

Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) added that antisocial behaviour was an issue raised across various estates and that the Council listened carefully to those concerns. It was stated that improved coordination with the community safety team had been necessary, which had informed the development of the upcoming Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy. It was confirmed that the strategy would be subject to consultation, allowing tenants, leaseholders and other residents to contribute. Further reference was made to the Brent Joint Action Group (BJAG) meetings, where the police, Brent Housing Management, housing associations and other partners met directly to discuss approaches to addressing antisocial behaviour on estates. It was acknowledged that further improvement in this area was required.

·       Co-opted members made reference to the detail provided on page 42 of the committee report which concerned satisfaction with the landlord’s approach to handling complaints. It was observed that only 24.6% of respondents appeared to be satisfied and members questioned whether further information was available to explain such a low figure. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) emphasised that the sector as a whole experienced low satisfaction levels in this area. It was acknowledged that Brent was in the lower quartile and accepted that improvement was required. It was reported that improvements were being observed and that these were likely a result of measures introduced to strengthen complaint handling. It was noted that the Tenant Satisfaction Measures included perception-based questions and that it could be difficult to determine what residents were thinking when responding. It was confirmed that, in the most recent Tenant Satisfaction Measures survey, supplementary questions had been included to enable further analysis. The report from that exercise was awaited and would enable deeper understanding of the responses. It was added that local authorities performing better across the Tenant Satisfaction Measures often had newer housing stock or more established engagement approaches. It was further explained that the questions were prescribed and asked in a standard format, but that the additional supplementary questions would help officers identify areas requiring improvement.

·       Co-opted members then referred to paragraph 6.20 within the committee report and questioned how many staff were within the temporary lettings team. In response, Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) indicated that the team consisted of 4 staff members.

·       Following on from the previous question, co-opted members further asked whether financial or regulatory constraints were preventing an increase in staffing, noting that the team would likely be required to undertake additional deployments. In response, Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) stated that as tenants moved into new build properties, the Council received additional rental income and increased council tax, which supported the service. It was explained that the pressure placed on the new team of area tenancy managers, when combined with the introduction of 892 new build properties within the year, had been significant. It had therefore been necessary to introduce temporary resourcing to support the increased workload.

·       Representatives of the Brent Youth Parliament referred to new legislation arising from Awaab’s Law and noted that a significant proportion of Brent residents did not have English as their first language. The representatives highlighted that opportunities for parents to access learning spaces had reduced since the Covid period and questioned what steps the Council was taking to ensure that migrant communities were fully informed of their enhanced rights and of the risks associated with substandard housing. In response, Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) confirmed that the Council was fully committed to ensuring that information was accessible. The Committee heard that all published communications could be translated online using the Council’s translation tool. It was also noted that the contact centre included staff who could speak many of the approximately 100 languages represented in Brent. It was added that area tenancy management teams were also multilingual. Reference was additionally made to Brent Hubs, which formed part of resident services, and it was noted that many residents used the hubs as a first point of contact, where staff held a diverse range of language and advice skills.

Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) additionally mentioned that in addition to multilingual staff, officers frequently used tools such as Google Translate and that translation support was also available through the DA Languages service. The importance of ensuring that residents received information in the languages most useful to them was emphasised.

Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) further added that many partners within the hub network and the housing team worked with community organisations such as SAAFI and organisations representing Portuguese, Brazilian and Romanian communities. These organisations regularly advocated on behalf of tenants.

·       Further details were sought on how repair performance had improved over the last 2 years. Members also raised concerns regarding new build properties and referred to complaints relating to Roy Smith Court concerning the entry door system, refuse chutes and access to the car park. On the South Kilburn Estate, there had been complaints about dumping and, more recently, a boiler breakdown. It was questioned whether contractors responsible for constructing the properties were required to rectify such issues or whether the costs fell to the Council. In response, Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) noted that both Mears and Wates had attended the Housing Management Advisory Board, which included tenant representatives, to present their performance. It was stated that the Council was scrutinising the contracts closely and that tenants had provided direct and candid feedback. It was confirmed that the Council was ensuring that contractors were fully accountable for repairs.

Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) further added that improvements in repairs performance could be attributed to the introduction of the new contractors and stronger contract management arrangements. It was noted that the presence of two contractors had created a degree of competition which had been beneficial. It was further reported that additional officer capacity had been introduced, enabling more inspections and verification of completed works. With regard to new builds, it was explained that issues were addressed within the defect liability period and the latent defect period, during which the Council could refer matters back to the main contractor if faults were attributable to installation or construction matters. It was noted that properties cited had not been built by the Council but had been procured during construction, after specifications had already been agreed. Where faults occurred, the Council sought to manage and resolve them as quickly as possible for residents.

·       Clarification was sought on who was responsible for costs associated with decanting residents into temporary accommodation where defects occurred. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) advised that responsibility depended on the cause of the defect. Where defects were attributable to the main contractor, the Council would seek to recover costs. It was confirmed that there had been very few instances requiring decant as a result of new build defects. It was noted that issues such as breakdowns in central heating systems could have large impacts where a central system served a large number of flats.

·       Questions were raised around the financial impact of void properties, including the effect on lost rent and council tax liability, and members sought clarification on whether sufficient resources were being dedicated to addressing the issue of voids. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) explained that the void loss rate was approximately 4%, and that the service aimed to reduce this to approximately 2.5% by the end of the following year. It was stated that a significant programme of work had been undertaken to return void properties to use. A new team had been established, comprising 5 officers dedicated to void management and bringing properties back into use. It was confirmed that 2 contractors, Wates and a second contractor named Greyline, had been appointed specifically to undertake void works. Members were advised that approximately £5 million was expected to be spent during the current year on returning void properties back into use. It was stated that although progress had been made, officers continued to work through a legacy of longstanding voids. It was explained that returning those older voids, which required more extensive work, had negatively affected the average void turnaround time, despite the underlying improvement in performance. It was confirmed that the investment being made was substantial and that the service was focused on reducing void times in order to limit rent loss.

Councillor Donnelly Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) further added that when residents were moved from overcrowded or unsuitable accommodation into new build homes, properties were freed up behind them. Those vacated homes often required work before they could be relet. It was stated that although this created temporary voids, it was a positive outcome because families were moving into homes that better met their needs. Satisfaction was expressed that performance data indicated that the new team was on track, that performance was improving and that progress was moving in the right direction.

·       Further questions were raised by members on whether the service had set a target for the void rate and turnaround time. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) noted that officers sought to reach a position by the summer in which almost all legacy voids had been returned to use. Members noted that a small number of legacy voids might remain due to the extensive works required, for example in cases involving subsidence or fire damage. It was stated that by the summer, the service intended to be dealing only with day-to-day voids arising from routine circumstances such as tenant moves, deaths or transfers, each of which required void works before the property could be relet.

Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) added that the financial impact of voids included lost rental income, council tax charges and increased spending on temporary accommodation. It was stated that officers would provide the Committee with the relevant figures, following the meeting.

Councillor Donnelly Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) further advised the Committee that, based on current performance taken from the Full Council budget, voids represented 5.07% of social and formula rent properties, resulting in an estimated rental income loss of approximately £3 million in the financial year 2025 to 2026. It was noted that peer authorities reported a median void loss rate of 2.2% and that a 1% reduction in void losses would generate approximately £0.6 million in additional annual income.

·       Queries were raised on whether there was a proactive strategy to undertake planned repairs so as to minimise the likelihood of repairs escalating into larger issues. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) highlighted that historically the Council had not undertaken sufficient planned works. It was stated that provisional work had been carried out and that a strategy was being developed focusing on disrepair and decency. It was explained that the intention was to undertake proactive renewal of kitchens, heating systems and bathrooms once they reached a certain age, rather than waiting for failures. It was reported that the strategy was expected to be completed within the next 2 months and would inform the programme of planned works for the forthcoming year. Members were advised that approximately £16 million had been set aside for capital works during the next year. It was further reported that when the Council had referred itself to the Regulator, a key criticism had been the lack of comprehensive stock condition information. At that time decency levels of approximately 92% were being reported, although this figure had been based on only 40% of the stock having been surveyed within a five-year period. It was confirmed that the survey programme had been accelerated and that by the end of the financial year 70% of properties would have been surveyed. By the same time the following year 100% of properties would have undergone stock condition surveys. It was stated that the survey data would feed into the housing management systems, enabling accurate planning of maintenance and investment. It was confirmed that despite the significant increase in surveys undertaken, decency levels remained approximately 92% but without investment these levels would decline.

·       Members sought clarification regarding voids arising from the allocation of new build homes. It was observed that although the Council had a long housing waiting list, some new build homes were being allocated to existing tenants, resulting in additional voids requiring turnaround work. It was questioned why new applicants were not being placed directly into new builds in order to avoid additional voids. Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) responded that the majority of residents moving into new build properties were coming from temporary accommodation.

Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) further mentioned that allocation of new build properties occurred through several mechanisms including direct offers, choice based lettings through Locata and transfers from overcrowded properties. It was emphasised that not all new build allocations resulted in a vacated property but that a proportion did contribute to the void figures.

·       Members observed that it was concerning that the process could result in the creation of additional voids at a time of significant housing need. In response, Councillor Donnelly Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) referred to paragraph 6.3 of the committee report, which described short term increases in void numbers as a result of the handover of 450 new homes. There was felt to be a need to see a more frictionless process, including earlier preparation for subsequent allocations when families moved into new build properties. It was noted that although voids were sometimes extended because applicants declined properties following viewings, choice remained a necessary part of the process. It was further mentioned that improving the efficiency of the process remained a priority.

Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) further added that approximately 70% of new builds were allocated to homeless households in temporary accommodation, 20% were allocated to transfer cases and 10% were allocated through the Homeseekers Private Rented Sector route.

·       Representatives of the BYP referred to paragraph 12.9 of the committee report which indicated that Copilot AI was being used to support new recruits. The representatives questioned what environmental considerations had been taken into account in relation to the increased use of AI. In response, Councillor Donnelly Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) highlighted that AI had considerable potential to support public services. It was stated that the question of the environmental impacts such as water usage in data centres was an issue requiring consideration at national level. It was further explained that AI represented a whole Council approach rather than an issue specific to housing management. It was acknowledged that although AI had been referenced within housing reports, environmental considerations were a broader Council matter.

In seeking to bring consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards scrutiny of the Housing Management: Tenant Satisfaction Measures and Brent Housing Management (BHM) Performance Report. As a result of the outcome of the discussion, the following recommendations and information requests identified were AGREED:

RECOMMENDATIONS

·      That a full report be provided to the Committee on housing management systems, including a clear plan setting out how these are being integrated into the new NEC suite ensuring all systems used within Housing Management for gas safety, fire safety, electrical safety, housing decency and wider housing condition systems are being brought together effectively.

·      That the development of a Repairs Preventative Strategy be explored and formalised.

INFORMATION REQUESTS

·      That data be provided on the financial impact of void properties, including an assessment of rent arrears associated with void periods, income lost through missed rental collection, and any council tax liabilities arising during the vacancy of properties.

·      That information be provided on key performance indicators, benchmarked against performance measures from other London borough.