Agenda item

This report provides an update and assurance on the governance and oversight arrangements the Council has in place as Shareholder of i4B Holdings Ltd (i4B) and Guarantor of First Wave Housing (FWH). It outlines the mechanisms through which the Council monitors performance, risk and compliance, and highlights key governance developments from the most recent Shareholder/ Guarantor meetings held in February 2026.

Minesh Patel (Corporate Director, Finance and Resources, Brent Council) was invited to introduce the report, advising the Committee of the governance and oversight arrangements in place for i4B Holdings Ltd and First Wave Housing Ltd (FWH). In presenting the update, he highlighted the following key points:

·            The governance framework in place was noted, with both companies overseen through formal Shareholder and Guarantor meetings held biannually with the Chief Executive, Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, and the Deputy Leader of the Council. Both companies produced annual accounts and business plans, which were reviewed and approved by the Council.

·            Minesh Patel had met the Board as Shareholder of i4B and Guarantor of FWH at a meeting held on 6 February 2026, which had set out the performance of both companies during 2025-26 and outlined their current business plan and priorities for 2026–27. During the discussion, the Board highlighted that voids remained an ongoing concern, with an improvement plan in place to address that. Rent collection performance was also noted to be below expectations, with a revised improvement plan from the Housing Management Service now in place. The Shareholder and Guarantor had encouraged the Board to consider whether the current tenancy management model remained appropriate and to explore alternative approaches where necessary. Consideration was also being given to expanding support from the Council for i4B and First Wave Housing in relation to exploring new opportunities and providing Supported Exempt Accommodation (SEA).

·            Financial performance was reported to be showing early signs of improvement, with a reduction in disrepair cases, a significant reduction in budget variances compared with the previous year, and improved clarity of reporting.

·            The longer-term strategic direction of the companies was outlined, including proposals for exploring new ways of increasing stock, such as small-scale development schemes, partnerships with local builders, opportunities in the Home Counties, and the conversion of commercial units. A capacity gap within the companies had been noted, with the Shareholder and Guarantor identifying that additional senior operational or development resource may be required to translate strategic concepts into deliverable work programmes.

·            The companies’ acquisition programmes were discussed, with i4B having completed on six properties during 2025–26, with a further 13 properties progressing through various stages of conveyancing. Market conditions remained challenging due to price pressures and limited suitable stock.

·            Officers spoke to the recent Government announcement of loan availability at 0.1% interest under the Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP) 2026–2036, administered by the GLA, with First Wave Housing working closely with Council colleagues to prepare a bid to support the delivery of additional new homes in the borough.

Having thanked Minesh Patel for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee. Andrew Hudson (Chair of i4B and First Wave Housing) also attended to assist in responding to queries, with the following comments and issues discussed:

·            Assurance was sought that the data correction work to Brent’s housing stock data that was being progressed through the Housing Management Service Improvement Plan was also being applied to the Council’s subsidiary companies. Members were advised that the recovery plan applied to the Council’s Property Management Service, which also applied to the Housing Companies as governed by the SLA, meaning that improvements would apply consistently across all council housing stock and the Housing Companies. Andrew Hudson added that if there were serious failings in the work for the Companies then there would be a need to report that to the Regulator for Social Housing as FWH was a Registered Provider, and the Board applied those same principles to i4B.

·            Members followed on from this with requests for confirmation that central registers for smoke and CO detectors had been established, as recommended in the audit. Both Andrew Hudson and Natoya Vincent (Strategy and Delivery Manager, i4B and First Wave Housing) advised that they did not have this information available at the meeting in order to provide an immediate response and committed to sharing the relevant details with the Committee following the meeting.

·            The Committee queried whether the Council had assurance that when it issued funds it went towards the specific purpose of supporting the delivery of acquisitions, rather than addressing operational pressures. Minesh Patel advised that the Shareholder and Guarantor meetings received reports which set out the financial performance of the Companies, with regular budget monitoring and support provided to the Companies on financial monitoring so that the Companies, and by extension the Shareholder / Guarantor, was clear where funds were going. It was agreed that the most recent Shareholder and Guarantor reports would be circulated to the Committee.

·            The discussion then moved to the extent to which the Council had the ability to restructure i4B to better serve the Council’s interests if necessary. In response, Amanda Healy (Deputy Director, Investment and Infrastructure, Brent Council) confirmed that the Council retained full control of the organisations as their sole owners and lenders, which meant that the Council had the ability to close, restructure or explore alternative arrangements for the companies.

·            In regard to a question on whether the viability assessment criteria for acquisitions could be relaxed to increase both companies’ contributions to addressing temporary accommodation pressures, officers noted that equity had been placed specifically in i4B, which was another way for the Council to support the delivery of the Company and, whilst not a direct arrangement, represented an investment the Council could make in supporting them to increase temporary accommodation relief.

·            A number of questions regarding the companies’ operations were raised, exploring whether tenancy management models were being reorganised and whether the identification of a need for additional senior operational or development resource had led to any tangible developments. In response, Minesh Patel confirmed that the current management model operated on the basis of one officer per 300 properties, with officers managing all aspects of a tenancy from commencement through to conclusion. Current work was exploring whether this model represented the most effective use of Council resources in terms of management efficiency and tenant satisfaction. Officers indicated that additional staffing might be required and noted that other models operated with higher ratios of properties per officer alongside more effective rent collection processes. Greater use of efficient processes, combined with enhanced training for a higher number of skilled staff, were identified as essential elements for the solution to the capacity gap. It was also noted that any move towards developing new capabilities, such as building or acquiring large blocks of properties, would require officers with additional and specialist skill sets and a corresponding expansion of operational management capacity.

·            In noting the Council’s agreed social value commitments, members questioned whether these values could be channelled through i4B and First Wave Housing. Minesh Patel advised that a social value strategy was being developed, which sought to identify how social value could best be secured through the Council and how best value could be achieved. Officers noted that the current Service Level Agreements placed constraints on what might be achievable in this regard, which would require further consideration.

·            Moving the discussion on, members asked whether an agreed rent collection improvement plan was currently in place considering the below target rent collection performance. Andrew Hudson confirmed that an improvement plan was in operation, with figures reviewed monthly against current rental data by the Board. More detailed analysis of rental figures was conducted by the i4B Board every two months to allow time for any necessary rental adjustments to be made.

·            Members noted that risk 1 of the Risk Register, on he statutory health and safety obligations, was rated red pre-mitigation and green post-mitigation, despite the action status indicating that the risk continued to improve but that some residual non-access risks remained, which implied that the mitigations were not yet fully in place. In response, Andrew Hudson clarified that the final column of the register was intended to reflect the position only after successful mitigations had been implemented. He acknowledged the need to review and amend the column headings, as members had correctly identified that the current presentation could give a misleading impression regarding items shown as green.

·            On the matter of the interest rates referenced in the report and their implications for housing affordability, members questioned the realism of the 0.1% loan rate, noting that it appeared unusually favourable. In response, Amanda Healy referred to recent Government announcements regarding the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme, which had been made available to private Registered Providers. Officers confirmed that, following due diligence, they were exploring opportunities for the Council’s companies to access this funding, as the loan facility was not available through the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). When asked how many homes this funding could support and why it was restricted to private providers, officers advised that they were unable to confirm the policy rationale. It was explained that the loan was only offered alongside a grant bid, with housing blocks funded through a combination of grant, loan and potentially additional external finance. Although £2.5 billion of loan funding had been made available nationally, Brent was expected to receive only a modest proportion of this and so it was unclear how many units this could be put towards, if a successful bid was made. Minesh Patel added that the Council would need to continue progressing build phases and bids, subject to the GLA’s responses to ongoing enquiries.

·            A final query was raised regarding i4B’s potential involvement in contributing 22% of costs towards refurbishing a poorly constructed building in Kilburn ward. The estimated cost was over £5 million; however, members noted that the associated risk had been classified at level 2, which they considered comparatively low relative to the scale of the potential liability. In response, officers confirmed that discussions with developers were ongoing and that the final quantum had not yet been agreed, although provision for mitigations against the impact of that contribution had been considered. Further consideration of the scoring was to be given to the matter at the upcoming i4B Board meeting on 26 March 2026.

With no further questions or comments raised, the Chair thanked Minesh Patel, Andrew Hudson and officers for the update provided and the Committee RESOLVED:

(1)      To note the governance arrangements and oversight mechanisms in place for i4B Holdings Ltd and First Wave Housing Ltd, together with the update from the most recent Shareholder and Guarantor meeting.

(2)      To provide any further comment to the Chair on areas where additional assurance may be required, following the meeting.

The following were identified as specific actions:

(1)      To provide an update to members on the position for establishing a central register for smoke and carbon monoxide detectors outside of the meeting. (Natoyah Vincent)

(2)      To circulate the Shareholder and Guarantor reports from i4B Holdings Ltd and First Wave Housing Ltd to all members of the Committee. (Minesh Patel / Natoyah Vincent)

(3)      To review the headings of columns in the risk registers to ensure the post-mitigation score reflected that those mitigations may not yet be completed and represented the RAG rating for the successful implementation of the mitigations (Natoyah Vincent).

(4)      To review Risk 13 of the i4B Risk Register in light of the latest information regarding discussions with developers and mitigations in place at the next Risk Register review (Natoyah Vincent)