Agenda item

The Cabinet Member for Community Leadership and Engagement introduced an update on the Regulator of Social Housing Health and Safety Compliance. It was noted that:

·  The Council was very committed to the health, safety and wellbeing of its residents, and had worked very closely with the Regulator.

·  It was on track to complete all works and had met regularly with the Regulator over the previous 18 months. Positive engagement had been undertaken, with the Council updating the Regulator on its action plans and roadmaps. Lots of engagement had also been undertaken with residents.

·  Whilst there was greater intervention from the Government in terms of regulatory processes, all local authorities were affected by this. The Council was working with the Government and was clear on what it was delivering.

The SDMP also advised on the following:

·  In February 2022, the Regulator formally announced that the Council had been found non-compliant in all six areas of compliance that were monitored, which was largely due to the Council not having the relevant data to evidence its certifications and inspections.

·  The Council had since verified every piece of information through its new True Compliance system, through which it was able to robustly report its compliance position to the Regulator.

·  The Council had set a roadmap of getting back to a position of full compliance by August 2023; progress now showed that this would be achieved by the end of May 2023. The final action had been to ensure that a five-year electrical testing programme for all domestic properties was in place, which had been mobilised in May. This programme would conclude in 2026 and was spread across four different contractors, to lessen the risk of non-achievement. These contractors were being monitored very closely.

·  Engagement with the Regulator had been essential in helping the Council to consider the cause of its previous non-compliance, opportunities missed and the necessary assurances that needed to be put in place, to prevent future issues.

·  The Council had been fully transparent throughout the process. It was going to enter into a voluntary undertaken with the Regulator, to show that it was committed to the health, safety and well-being of its residents and to show that it wished to learn from its previous mistakes.

·  The Council was using the process followed for its compliance journey, for that of its repairs service and to improve its repairs position.

In response to questions from Members, the SDMP stated that:

·  Prior to compliance, the Council was using different systems to present and record information which had led to there being a number of non-verified certificates and gaps in its knowledge of the data. As such, the Council could not previously be clear on what it had tested. Whilst there was a level of tolerance in compliance, in resolving its issues, the Council had taken a completely risk-averse approach and had ensured that every single piece of information had been tested and verified.

·  A report had been commissioned by BDMS in Autumn 2021 for Pennington Choices to undertake a compliance health check; this had found non-compliance across a number of areas. The Council then worked with BDMS to resolve any issues, with a decision then taken to undertake a health check of the Council’s own services. Pennington Choices completed this in November 2021, which showed that the Council was also non-compliant. On the basis of this, the Council self-referred itself to the Regulator, who had also concluded that the Council was non-compliant at this time.

·  The Council had established a new Compliance leadership team with a dedicated Head that was focused solely on delivering on compliance, rather than on procurement, contracts and compliance as under the previous structure. The Council had also relied on Savills to undertake its Fire Risk Assessment (FRAs). The Council had a two-year contract with Savills, to firstly ensure service recovery, and secondly to ensure firm foundations and then to train Council staff so that they could undertake these professional inspections themselves.

·  Whilst by law, there was six regulatory areas that needed to be considered, the Council had added damp and mould as a seventh area, to ensure that this had sufficient focus.

·  The Council’s Executive Team had also highlighted to Directors and Heads of Service, the importance of ensuring that compliance health, safety and wellbeing was the responsibility of all teams across the Council.

·  The Council was also undertaking work with residents as to their awareness of compliance testing and why this was important.

The Chair highlighted the importance of all departments communicating effectively together and expressed her support that this was now occurring. She noted that this item would return to the Committee in the new municipal year.