Agenda item

The Director of Housing submits a report on the outcome of the Regulator of Social Housing’s (RSH) initial inspection of the Council’s Landlord function, along with the action plan to address identified assurance gaps.

The Director of Housing presented a report to update the commission on the outcome of the Regulator of Social Housing’s initial inspection of the Council’s landlord function, along with the action plan to address identified assurance gaps.

It was noted that:

·       The RSH regulations came into effect in April 2024 for Local Authorities with housing stock. Following an inspection of the Council’s landlord function, Leicester had received a C3 judgment, as anticipated, equivalent to the judgment received by comparable authorities, including Bristol, Nottingham, and Sheffield.

·       In the judgment, which was announced on 30 July 2025, the Regulator recognised the significant work underway toward compliance and praised the council for its open and transparent approach. The regulator was also complimentary about the council’s work in meeting the standards for the delivery of services.

·       The Regulator was assured that the consumer standards were being met in safety and quality, with legal compliance in gas safety, smoke and carbon monoxide safety, fire safety, water safety and lift safety.

·       The Housing division demonstrated an understanding of the diverse needs of tenants, taking into account their views in the decision-making process. The Regulator was also assured that the Council deals effectively with Anti-Social Behaviour, further to which the Council was deemed fully compliant with the Neighbourhood and Community standards.

·       For the Tenancy standard, the Regulator saw evidence that Leicester was offering tenancies that were compatible with the purpose of its accommodation, the needs of individual households, sustainability of the community, and efficient use of the housing stock. Leicester’s mutual exchange processes also met the required outcome of the tenancy standards. Leicester was similarly deemed fully compliant with this standard.

·       Only two of the four standards had gaps and issues identified, i.e., Safety and Quality; and Transparency, Influence, and Accountability.

·       Under the Safety and Quality Standards, the following areas of improvement were identified:

o   Improved evidence needed on stock condition using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), to demonstrate that homes were free from Category 1 hazards and give assurance in the level of decent homes.

o   For Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) to be completed on a 5-year cycle for all domestic homes.

o   Requirement of additional oversight of Health and Safety performance.

o   Need to strengthen repairs and maintenance services.

·       Under the Transparency, Influence and Accountability standards, the following gaps were identified;

o   Additional performance information to tenants

o   Increased opportunities for tenants to scrutinise and influence services.

o   Enhanced complaints handling and reporting.

o   Formalised reporting on learning from complaints.

·       The highlighted gaps had already been identified by the Council through a self-assessment before the inspection, and the Housing Division had already commenced work towards compliance since the introduction of the Regulator in 2024. The Regulator was advised of these self-assessed gaps, along with an action plan for addressing them and the required timescales to become compliant in relation to the entire standard.

·       Despite detailed evidence of stock knowledge, the Regulator did not accept this due to the absence of HHSRS inspections. Although 500 HHSRS inspections showed no Category 1 hazards, the Regulator still did not consider this sufficient evidence. To date, 1,000 inspections had been completed with no Category 1 hazards found, supporting the Council’s belief in 99.5% Decent Home compliance.

·       The Regulator also declined to accept the fact that the Council was already 27% compliant for EICR checks and had a full programme that meets the new standards requirement, notwithstanding that this requirement was not mandatory before 2024.

·       As of 31 March 2025, given increased demand and lack of craft staff and contractor resources, the Council had about 5000 outstanding out of category repairs (none of which were category 1 or emergency) and 1254 damp and mould out-of-category repairs. As of 31 July, these numbers had significantly reduced to 589 damp and mould repairs and 4,191 out-of-category repairs, respectively.

·       The Housing Division had engaged contractors to reduce these numbers further, and it was anticipated that by the end of 2025, all damp and mould out-of-category repairs, and by early 2026, all repairs and maintenance that are out of category, would have been addressed

·       From a Transparency, Influence, and Accountability perspective, in the last 12 months, a new tenant scrutiny panel had been introduced and was now up and running. There were also pop-up Housing Officers and two new engagement officers to enhance tenant engagement. Two new communication officers had also been recently recruited to boost tenants’ communication.

·       On complaints, the whole corporate complaints team had now moved under the Housing Division and was in the process of putting in place correct staffing levels, additional training, a new IT system, and reporting to enable the Council to meet the requirements of reviewing and assessing the type of complaints, as well as lessons learned from that. These will be fully in place over the next 12 months to ensure compliance.

·       The Council would be subject to regular engagement and oversight with the regulator, who would monitor compliance with meeting the standards.

·       Internally, a Regulator of Social Housing Oversight Board, headed by the Strategic Director, had been set up, reporting to the Deputy City Mayor, Housing, Economy and Neighbourhoods, as well as the Executive. This Oversight Board was proposing to provide progress reports to the Housing Scrutiny Commission alongside detailed reports relevant to the different areas.

In response to questions and comments, the following points were made:

·       In reaching its judgment, the Regulator attended two Housing Scrutiny meetings to hear about detailed reports, met with the tenant Scrutiny Panel, and held behind-closed-door sessions with tenants to allow tenants' feedback in relation to services. The Regulator also met with officers across the Housing Division over the course of two days. Finally, they met partners who provide services, including police and community safety.

·       It was emphasised by members that tenants' participation was important in shaping services. The Director of Housing assured that officers were proactively ensuring this, and tenants had different channels for reaching officers, including pop-up housing offices, where queries were dealt with on site. The Council had consistently engaged tenants more broadly across the whole of the estate and was identifying champions that could be worked with.

·       The distinction between tenants and leaseholders was clarified: the Council, as the landlord, was responsible for repairs, maintenance, and management of the building where its tenants were, whereas the leaseholder, as homeowner, would be responsible for paying for repairs and maintaining the property, particularly internally. In blocks that the Council was responsible for, leaseholders would need to share the cost of any work undertaken. A leaseholder could potentially be responsible for peripherals, i.e., they could be charged for maintenance of externals beyond their core block.

·       In response to the cost of repairs being high, it was noted that the increased cost of engaging craft operatives and current inflation were contributory factors to this. The Council always looked to get the best value and multiple quotes where work is externalised and consulting leaseholders on costs and processes.

·       The pop-up housing programme was widely marketed; however, more could be done, including some information going out with the rent statements. A review would also be conducted to determine whether the units were in the right places and if there was a need for additional units or expansion.

·       One key area that had been identified was the requirement to undertake 5-yearly EICR inspections. Currently, the council was 27% compliant, and it would have been impossible to achieve 100% across the council stock at the time of the inspection, since the requirement was only introduced in April 2024.

·       Other unitary authorities with large stockholding and the same capacity and financial situation as the Leicester City Council were unable to complete, and the Council’s expectation was that the Regulator would recognise this in its judgement however this did not happen.

·       The Council had always adopted a risk-based approach in checking electrical safety and was therefore confident that its housing stock was safe, e.g., no property has electrical wiring that was older than 30 years old, EICRs were conducted when a property was being let or during mutual exchanges, minor works certificates and electrical installation certificates were issued, and tenants could report electrical faults directly. Tenants also had the opportunity to report concerns to members.

·       Leicester housing stock had had £169m investment over the last 10 years, and the Council had detailed information on the different property elements, including roofs, windows, boilers, electric, and their respective lifecycles. Within the decent homes lifecycle, the following replacements had been carried out: 98.2% doors and windows, 92% replacement of central heating, 91.2% electricals (though over 3500 households refused because of its disruptive nature) and 88% kitchens and 77% bathrooms. Additionally, 74% roofs did not exceed 50 years. The following substantiated the Council’s position that it did have decent homes.

·       The HHSRS and 5 yearly inspections was not a mandatory requirement under the Housing Act 2004 and was introduced as a tool to identify category 1 hazards. The Council had previously done this a different way, but would now undertake the HHRS inspection across its stock. About 1000 had been carried out, with the expectation of fully completing over the next 3 years. The data obtained from this process would be fed into a new IT system to replace the existing data knowledge.

·       Operational Tenant satisfaction with repairs remained high at 94%, with only 0.24% of repairs leading to complaints.

·       The new legislation has increased the workload and broadened the responsibilities of the Council as a social landlord through the requirement of more preventative work, a 5-year cycle for EICR, and the upcoming Awaab’s law. All of these needed to be responded to with the limited resources available. 

·       Most of the out-of-category repairs had been visited to identify actual risk to tenants. 

·       The council utilised other councils’ inspection outcomes to feed into its self-assessment and identify areas linked to the actual standards. This was beneficial in the drawing up of a robust action plan and identifying solutions.

·       There were plans to improve on tenant engagement. In addition to the previously mentioned strategies, including pop-up offices and recruitment of communication officers, it was imperative to ensure that the right performance information was communicated, there was a clear strategy of how people can engage, as well as the incorporation of tenants' input/feedback.

·       The complaints process had now been brought under the Housing Division, as opposed to being managed by different departments within the Council. There was an annual report that goes to the Governance and Audit committee, which set out most complaints and timelines for response. The Council was currently about 75% compliant in meeting the timescales.

·       Other unitary authorities with a similar-sized stock, and who owned and managed their own stockholding, had received a C3 rating, and this put into context the circumstances surrounding the stock, including age, HRA, the ability to raise funds, etc. Hence, statistically, more councils got C3 than any other grade.

·       Officers were encouraged to take into consideration the needs of disabled tenants when carrying out inspections like EICR.

·       The council acknowledged ongoing issues in relation to domestic refuse, recycling, and the work to manage the same.

·       It was noted that the tenant scrutiny panel’s preference for participation in the Council’s scrutiny process was either to attend an HSC meeting to provide some feedback on different issues or to send the notes from the entire scrutiny panel for the commission to view.

·       The Council was expected to formally report to the Regulator the outcomes and feedback from the Tenants’ Scrutiny Panel. The intention was for the Tenants’ Scrutiny Panel to be representative of the different estates, and part of the role of the new team being set up would involve visiting the estate to investigate how people wanted to be engaged locally, to accommodate their different needs. In terms of areas of interest, the Panel wanted to scrutinize and input into performance, environmental budget, allocation policy, inspection outcomes, etc. Ultimately, the agenda was set by them.

·       Tenants' satisfaction surveys were undertaken on 100% of repairs. The plan was to extend these surveys to other service areas. The annual satisfaction survey, which was a requirement of the regulator, has just been concluded, and the questions covered the different service areas.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted

2)    That comments made by members of the Commission be taken into account by lead officers

3)    Provide regular dashboard reports on the HHRS inspection to the Commission

4)    Present tenancy scrutiny engagement outcomes to the Commission in 6 months, including proposals to integrate the tenant scrutiny engagement with the Council’s scrutiny function

5)    Provide a future report on lessons learned from the complaints process and from other councils in similar situations.