Agenda item
Co regulation and the Accountability of Registered Housing Providers (RPs) - Report of the Scrutiny Working Group (To Follow)
- Meeting of Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Tuesday, 4th June, 2013 7.00 p.m. (Item 8.2)
- View the background to item 8.2
To agree the report and recommendations arising from the Scrutiny Review.
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 assurance methods with tenants.
- The Council wants, and is expected by residents, to play a role in ensuring that RPs manage to the highest possible standard in Tower Hamlets. However this expectation may need to be carefully managed as the Authority did not have any formal powers and its influence over RPs was limited and varied amongst providers.
- With effect from April 2013 the role of the Independent Housing Ombudsman would be extended to include complaints from Local Authority tenants, formally the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman. An additional stage had been incorporated in the formal complaints escalation process to include referrals to a “designated person” before a complaint could be considered by the Housing Ombudsman. This additional requirement placed new responsibilities on Members that would impact on the way they handled some complaints received from social housing tenants in future. A further piece of scrutiny work was required on this to ensure this worked well and Members were adequately trained.
· Recommendations set out in the report were highlighted.
o Mr Shibbir Ahmed, Strategy Policy & Performance Officer, and Councillors Marc Francis and John Pierce, were formally thanked for their contribution to the review, as were RPs, TH Tenants Federation and TH Housing Forum for their positive engagement in the review.
A discussion followed which focused on clarification being sought and given on the following points:-
· The main gaps/ weaknesses/ areas for improvement in proactive partnership working between the Council and Registered Housing Providers. A robust system for tenants to hold RPs to account was needed and close working between the Council and the TH Tenants Forum, in the ways outlined in the report recommendations, would greatly strengthen accountability.
· Given the acknowledged problems with governance and transfer documents relating to Island Homes in Millwall Ward and the lack of success on the part of the Council in addressing these had the scrutiny review examined and identified ways avoid such problems going forward. The Review had not focused on specific cases but the wider issues. One Housing (RP), which had provided evidence to the Review, had robust arrangements for tenant scrutiny. Its stock transfer documentation was not good but the Council was not currently transferring housing stock so those issues were less of a priority. It should not be a case of the Council trying to dictate to RPs how housing stock should be managed, but rather working through the TH Tenants Forum to build a good working relationship.
· How strongly prepared were Councillors to take up the responsibilities placed on them in this area under the Localism Act? Councillors would require training as the responsibilities were different to those of membership of RP governing boards. A further Members Seminar would be helpful.
· Given the abolition of the Tenants Services Authority would all RPs be required to have a tenants panel to hear complaints? Also given the level of engagement with the Review by RPs what action could the Council require of them. The Review only sought evidence from specific RPs. The Review recommendations would be presented to the TH Housing Forum on which RPs were represented, and its Chair had engaged with the Review and endorsed its recommendations. It was anticipated that RPs would embrace the recommendations.
The Chair thanked Councillor Islam for his contribution in chairing this excellent scrutiny review, and for attending OSC to present the report/ recommendations arising. He then Moved the recommendations as set out in the report, and it was:-
Resolved
1. That the draft report of the Scrutiny Review Working Group, and the recommendations contained in it be agreed; and
2. That the Service Head for Strategy & Equality be authorised to amend the draft report before submission to Cabinet, after consultation with the Scrutiny Review Working Group.
Action by:
Daisy Beserve (Senior Strategy Policy & Performance Officer, Corporate Strategy & Equality Service, CE’s)
Shibbir Ahmed (Strategy Policy & Performance Officer, Corporate Strategy & Equality Service, CE’s)
Supporting documents:
-
Housing Co-regulation - OS Cttee Report with legalv2, item 8.2
PDF 68 KB
-
APPENDIX 1 - Scrutiny Working Group Report (Housing Co-regulation) v6, item 8.2
PDF 450 KB