Agenda item

To receive the current context of the Area Tenancy Management team responsible for providing tenancy services to general needs Council tenants.

Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) was invited to introduce the Area Tenancy Management Model Report. In presenting, it was highlighted that Shanice Low (Area Tenancy Manager) and Georgia Gallagher (Area Tenancy Manager) were two of the Council’s area tenancy managers, covering the areas from Willesden to Kensal Green and Kilburn. It was outlined that the area tenancy management model had been introduced in June 2024 in response to fragmentation between teams, weak handover processes, data quality issues and limited continuity in resident relationships. It was explained that the new model consolidated responsibilities into a single accountable role. Each Area Tenancy Manager, referred to as an ATM, was responsible for lettings, income collection, tenancy management, estate presence, early intervention and safeguarding from end to end. Members noted that the model remained relatively new and that recruitment and induction had taken time to complete. However, early evidence of positive impact was being observed, including increased tenancy audits, improved estate visibility and strengthened income performance during late 2025.

In presenting to the Committee on her role and the nature of cases she managed, Shanice Low (Area Tenancy Manager) informed the Committee that she had extensive experience within the Council. Prior to the restructure, she had worked solely as an income officer, focusing primarily on rent collection. Following the restructure, her role now encompassed income, tenancy management, lettings and acting as the first point of contact for prospective tenants. She reported that, upon taking up her new role, she had sent an introductory letter to every household within her management to inform residents of her role and provide her contact details. She then provided an example of a case relating to a resident referred to as Miss B, who was a management transfer moving from one area to another. She described how she had attempted to contact Miss B by email and telephone to arrange a viewing but had initially been unable to reach her. She subsequently received a response from Miss B’s support worker advising that Miss B had significant vulnerabilities. She explained that, after two cancelled viewings due to Miss B being hospitalised, Miss B eventually attended a viewing and expressed interest in the property but requested the installation of a wet room. Shanice Low (Area Tenancy Manager) contacted the occupational therapy team, who carried out an assessment and agreed to make the necessary adaptations. The sign up was coordinated and Miss B attended with her mother and support worker. Shanice Low advised that, because Miss B was hospitalised again following the sign up, she was unable to return the keys for her former property for approximately 6 weeks. As a result, Miss B incurred rent and council tax liabilities at both properties. Shanice Low explained that because she had established a relationship with Miss B’s support worker, she had been able to coordinate communication and support arrangements to minimise the impact. She described how she had suggested a dual Discretionary Housing Payment application to assist Miss B in covering the rental charges associated with one of the properties. She further reported ongoing liaison with the allocations team to ensure that Miss B’s interest in the property was understood despite her vulnerabilities and repeated cancellations. She also maintained contact with the occupational therapy team to confirm when the adaptations could be completed after the system was updated to show that Miss B had moved in. In concluding her presentation to the Committee, Shanice Low highlighted that her knowledge of Miss B’s vulnerabilities enabled her to take a holistic approach to the tenancy, ensuring that issues related to lettings, rent and support needs were understood together. It was explained that without this integrated approach, the missed viewings or rent arrears might otherwise have been misinterpreted as a lack of engagement or non?payment rather than as consequences of Miss B’s health and vulnerabilities.

In continuing the presentation to the Committee, Georgia Gallagher (Area Tenancy Manager) noted that she had joined the Council after the restructure in December 2024. She reported that she, too, had issued introductory letters to all residents within her management, setting out her role and contact details. She explained that she managed a high-rise block in Kilburn and had received a significant number of antisocial behaviour complaints relating to a particular property. Following inspections and checks, she discovered that the resident of that property was vulnerable and was a victim of cuckooing, whereby individuals involved in county lines activities took over the homes of vulnerable residents. She stated that she had submitted a safeguarding referral and worked closely with the antisocial behaviour team and the police. She undertook joint visits to the property with the police and social services and discussed the possibility of a management move. However, due to the level of community support the resident received from a neighbour, a move was considered inappropriate at that time. She therefore explored alternative safeguarding measures, including the use of closure orders. She explained that the block had wider issues including abandoned and vandalised vehicles and graffiti. Over the course of the year, she worked jointly with the repairs team, the compliance team and Vehicle Estate Services to address these issues. She sought 2 partial closure orders: one to safeguard the vulnerable resident by providing police with enhanced powers of arrest in the event of unauthorised entry by non-tenants, and another to address the behaviour of a second tenant whose actions were contributing to the antisocial behaviour within the block. She informed the Committee that she had received excellent feedback from residents during the 3-month period in which the closure orders were in place. The closure orders had created a period of respite which enabled contractors to improve security measures, remove graffiti, and remove abandoned vehicles. She also reported that estate walkabouts had identified additional measures to prevent future antisocial behaviour. In concluding her presentation to the Committee, Georgia Gallagher highlighted that the work she had described had taken approximately one year and that she would next be focusing on engaging residents across the entire block through engagement events and other initiatives.

The Chair thanked Tom Cattermole, Shanice Low and Georgia Gallagher 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:

·       Members reported, specifically in relation to Clearwater House, that based on feedback received at a recent meeting, residents had raised concerns that complaints were not being responded to and that their housing point of contact within Brent Council appeared to change repeatedly. Residents felt that responsibility for their issues was being passed between different teams without accountability. It was stated that the information provided to residents when moving in, setting out who to contact for different matters, had been described as unhelpful. Members queried whether officers were aware of these concerns and what steps were being taken to address them. In addressing the issues highlighted, Councillor Donnelly Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) noted that a new case management tool had been implemented to support better identification and monitoring of learning from complaints. Members were advised that a full review of complaints handling had been launched in October 2024. With regard to Clearwater House specifically, officers undertook to examine the matter further. It was explained that, for some new build schemes, residents had been provided with guidance packs and that area tenancy managers had held meetings with residents, supported by other staff, to explain processes.

Kate Daine (Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods) confirmed awareness of issues at Clearwater House and explained that some difficulties had arisen across new build blocks where approximately 700 properties had been let. It was noted that many of the new build blocks were mixed tenure and involved mixed management arrangements, which made issues more complex and required officers to adapt as the service developed its approach. Kate Daine accepted the feedback provided and undertook to progress the matter following the meeting. It was stated that officers would ensure that communication improved, that residents were clear about their points of contact and that complaint escalation routes were properly understood and responded to.

·       Details were sought on whether the Council, together with the police, used any form of Section 7 eviction notice for individuals who should not be residing in properties. In response, Georgia Gallagher (Area Tenancy Manager) highlighted that, in broader situations involving closure orders, a full closure order could be sought. It was explained that when a full closure order was granted, the property was closed and all individuals were required to vacate, with the tenant being decanted elsewhere temporarily. This could then lead to eviction where the tenant was responsible for serious antisocial behaviour, or to safeguarding interventions where the tenant was vulnerable. It was noted that closure orders could be used where individuals engaging in antisocial behaviour were accessing the property, and that closure orders provided a faster means of regaining control of a property pending possession proceedings.

·       Members sought clarification on how long a property remained closed when a closure order was in place. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services) indicated that where a partial closure order was issued, the tenant could remain in occupation but named individuals or any other persons who were causing issues were prohibited from entering. Any breach of the order could result in arrest and prosecution. In the case of a full closure order, the order normally lasted between 3 and 6 months. A further closure order could be applied for if required. It was emphasised that closure orders were interim measures, aimed at stabilising the situation and protecting residents. It was noted that tenants retained their tenancy during the closure order period, but if the tenant had been responsible for antisocial behaviour, the period could be used to progress ending the tenancy. It was clarified that the property could not be relet while the closure order remained in place.

·       Members questioned whether the police were still utilising Section 7 eviction notices for individuals who should not be residing in properties. In response, Kate Daine (Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods) highlighted that the Council worked closely with Legal Services and the Community Protection Service to ensure that the most effective and timely legal route was taken in each case. It was further stated that public sector equality duty assessments were undertaken to ensure that any action taken was appropriate for vulnerable residents. It was emphasised that the Council always sought the most suitable and proportionate option for the resident affected.

·       In noting that the current debt position was over £7 million and significantly above that of most London boroughs, members questioned what actions were being taken to address the issue. In response, Kate Daine (Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods) highlighted that the area tenancy managers, including Shanice Low (Area Tenancy Manager) and Georgia Gallagher (Area Tenancy Manager), had achieved excellent performance in respect of Patches rates, both achieving rates of 100%. It was stated that the next priority was to substantially improve debt collection. It was confirmed that a small team of 4 temporary staff was being recruited. Members noted that the first phase of the NEC remediation project was focused on rent collection and data improvement, and that officers anticipated improved performance in the next financial year as this work progressed.

·       Members queried the effectiveness of estate walkabouts in achieving tangible improvements and shared learning. In response, Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) emphasised that estate walkabouts had been highly effective. It was expressed that he had gained significant insight from attending walkabouts with councillors and with staff on the ground. It was noted that residents engaged openly and readily, raising concerns and also complimenting their area tenancy managers.

·       Further clarification was sought on what mechanisms were in place to ensure that issues identified during walkabouts were followed up, resolved and communicated back to tenants. In response, Kate Daine (Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods) shared with the Committee that improvements had been made following the appointment of new technical officers within Property Services. Previously, officers had struggled to coordinate estate level repairs and maintenance. It was stated that Property Services now attended almost all walkabouts and were able to log repairs immediately. It was confirmed that action plans were in place for each estate and that Property Services now held responsibility for progressing repairs and providing meaningful updates before the next walkabout. It was further highlighted that tangible improvements were beginning to be seen.

·       Co-opted members expressed that they were pleased to hear the personal relationships described by officers and by the letters sent to residents, which were perceived as approachable. A question was then posed to officers on what single issue tenants most often raised based on officers’ experience on the ground. In response, Georgia Gallagher (Area Tenancy Manager) shared that, when beginning her role, many residents had not seen an officer for a long period of time. It was explained that residents often experienced frustration when using the contact centre and welcomed in?person contact. It was noted that tenants did not always feel heard. It was also explained that area tenancy managers often acted as a point of contact between different departments and that tenants sometimes assumed responsibility lay solely with the Area Tenancy Manager. Georgia Gallagher reported that her repairs were being completed more quickly and that escalation through area tenancy managers had enabled fast tracking of some cases.

Shanice Low (Area Tenancy Manager) further added that previously many complaints related to residents not knowing who their housing officer was, as well as complaints about repairs. It was highlighted that clarity around points of contact had improved, though repairs continued to account for a significant proportion of complaints.

·       A Member recognised the value of estate walkabouts and of the engagement they facilitated but questioned how walkabouts were planned and scheduled. The Member noted that they had received invitations for some estates within their ward but not others, and that walkabouts were sometimes scheduled without checking availability. The Member additionally questioned whether, after one year of operation, the number and size of Patches managed by area tenancy managers remained appropriate. In response, Kate Daine (Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods) assured the Member that she would review the scheduling arrangements. It was explained that walkabouts were placed in diaries and relevant councillors were invited but acknowledged that adjustments might be required for estates with only a small number of street properties. She invited the Member to contact her regarding specific areas. It was additionally stated that the Council attempted to reschedule walkabouts where councillors could not attend. It was further explained that Patches were designed based on geography, levels of antisocial behaviour, rental arrears, turnover of properties and other factors. It was acknowledged that the role of Area Tenancy Manager was busy and reactive but emphasised that processes would become easier as improvements continued across policies, repairs and systems. It was confirmed that Patch sizes remained under review.

In seeking to bring consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards scrutiny of the Area Tenancy Management Model Report. As a result of the outcome of the discussion, the following recommendation was AGREED:

RECOMMENDATIONS

·      That communications with residents at Clearwater House be improved with clear updates and to inform them with details of an accountable point of contact be following resident complaints that they were not receiving responses, that their housing point of contact changed repeatedly, and that cases were passed between teams without clear accountability.