Issue - meetings
x
Meeting: 04/06/2013 - Overview & Scrutiny Committee (Item 8)
To agree the report and recommendations arising from the Scrutiny Review.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Please note that the order of business was varied by resolution of the OSC earlier in the proceedings in order to allow this item to be considered following Agenda Item 5.2 “Appointment of Scrutiny Lead Members, Co-options to Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Health Scrutiny Panel Terms of Reference and Appointments”, however for ease of reference the OSC deliberations, and subsequent decisions taken, are set out below in the order detailed in the agenda.
Councillor Sirajul Islam, Scrutiny Lead Member Development & Renewal 2012/13 and Chair of the Scrutiny Working Group (SWG) on Co-regulation and the Accountability of Registered Housing Providers (RP’s), introduced and highlighted key points in the SWG report, which set out the rationale, methodology, key findings and recommendations of the scrutiny review. The following points were highlighted:
· Background to identification of this as a potential area for review, including abolition of the Tenants Services Authority and dilution of control under the Greater London Authority. Detailed reasons for the review were:
- Understanding how RPs are currently held to account and performance managed.
- Development of co-regulation and new tenant scrutiny arrangements.
- To include new processes for tenants complaints and support for councillors around these.
· Review Objective: Clearer understanding of how RPs are held to account and performance managed through co-regulation and how Members can support this framework.
· Core Questions:
- How was co-regulation working across RP’s and what are the current strengths, gaps, challenges and opportunities?
- How could Members work effectively with tenant scrutiny members in holding housing providers to account?
- What was the appropriate role of Members in the new co-regulation framework particularly in relations to dealing with tenant complaints as set out in the Localism Act?
· Key Findings including:
o The main gap and potential weakness of the co-regulation framework is that it was voluntary. The abolition of the Tenants Services Authority and the introduction of new national regulatory standards shifted responsibility for monitoring of Registered Providers (RPs) from the national regulator to local tenants. This meant it was difficult to know how well co-regulation was functioning in different RPs in the borough. Co-regulation arrangements had been adopted by all the Register Housing Providers (RPs) giving evidence to the scrutiny review. However implementation varied with some good practice, but also some areas for improvement. Most RPs engaged in the scrutiny review were positive about opportunities available through the new co-regulation process, and were keen to work together to strengthen their practice in this area.
- Joint working between RPs can help pool resources and provide much better value for money on initiatives that could see real choice and influence for residents. There appeared to be a genuine desire by RPs engaged in the scrutiny review for developing sector-led local quality assurance standards and local partnership approaches to performance management which involve tenants, housing officers and Members working together to improve services and empower residents in the borough. There were opportunities for landlords to focus resources on services and outputs that residents want and design more meaningful quality ... view the full minutes text for item 8