Southwark Homeowner Council Meeting

You are invited to attend Southwark Homeowner Council Meeting

19:00 Wednesday 10 April 2019 Venue: 160 Tooley Street, SE1 2QH

AGENDA

Item Description By Time

1 Welcome, Introductions, Apologies and Confirmation of Voting Members

Chair 19:00

2 Privacy Notice, Code of Conduct and Declaration of Interest

John McCormack

19:05

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting and Matters Arising

Chair 19:10

4 Update on the Work Undertaken by MSHOA

Fiona Buist 19:45

5 Major Works Report (including Council Section 20 when the value of the major works is over 20% and up to 80% of the value of the property)

Sylvester Hilton & Carla Blair

20:00

6 HOC Budget Report 2019/2020 – Update

Brendan O’Brien

20:30

7 Update on HOC Response to Voluntary Enfranchisement Pilot Project Following Advice from Mari Knowles Solicitor

Brendan O’Brien

20:50

8 HOC Project Planning Timelines Update

John McCormack

20:55

9 AOB

Chair

21:25

For further information please contact: George Changua T: 0207 525 3326 E: [email protected]

Southwark Homeowner Council • southwark.gov.uk • Page 01

HOC Delegates List and Attendance (version 03/04/19)Area Position Name

09

.01

.19

23

.01

.19

06

.03

.19 AHF votes

entitlement

Votes

Actual

Votes

Elligible

Notes

No 1 Aylesbury (defunct?) Delegate VACANT 0 1 No leaseholders at AGM

Delegate VACANT 0 1 No leaseholders at AGM

Deputy VACANT No leaseholders at AGM


2 Bermondsey East Delegate Jean Attridge N N N 1 1 Elected 29 Nov 17

Delegate VACANT No one came forward

Deputy Lauren Attridge N N N 1 1 Elected 29 Nov 17

Deputy VACANT No one came forward

3 Bermondsey West Delegate Iris Edwards A A Y 1 1 Elected 22 Nov 17

Delegate VACANT 0 1 No other leaseholders at AGM

Deputy VACANT No other leaseholders at AGM


4 Borough & Bankside Delegate Chung Lam 1 1 Elected 30 Jan 19

Delegate Karon Dahmer 1 1 Elected 30 Jan 19

Deputy Jane Livesey Elected 30 Jan 19

Deputy VACANT

5 Camberwell East Delegate Grace Oyewole N N N 1 1 Elected 30 April 18

Delegate Fela Oduntan N N N 1 Elected 30 April 18

Deputy VACANT No other LH at AGM

Deputy VACANT No other LH at AGM

6 Camberwell West Delegate Obal Willie N N N 1 1 Elected 29 Nov 17

Delegate Christopher Lacey N No other leaseholders at AGM

Deputy Olukunle Kusanu N N N 1 1 Elected 21 Feb 2018


7 Dulwich Delegate Mohamed

Bounechada

Y Y Y Re-elected Dec 18

Delegate Clifford Cooper Y Y Y 1 1 Re-elected Dec 18

Deputy Philippa Kennedy A A A Re-elected Dec 18


8 Nunhead & Peckham Delegate James Bartlett N N Y 1 1 Elected 10 May 18

Delegate VACANT 0 1 No one came forward



9 Peckham Delegate Michael Orey A N N 1 1 Re-elected 17 July 17

Delegate Charles Akintoro N N N 1 1 Elected 17 July 17 (previously deputy)



10 Rotherhithe Delegate VACANT 1 1 Elected 9 Jan 18

Delegate Dominic Hunt Y Y Y 0 1 Elected 18 Sep 18



11 Walworth East Delegate Christine Tan Y Y Y 1 1 Re-elected 20 Jul 17

Delegate Angela Johnson N N N 1 1 Elected 18 Jan 2018

Deputy Maria O'Keefe N N N Re-elected 20 Jul 17

Deputy VACANT Deputy election deferred to next meeting

12 Walworth West Delegate Dotan Carmel Y N A 1 1 Elected 20.07.17, not in DL until Jan 18

Delegate Christina Metibemu N N N 1 1 Elected 20.07.17, not in DL until Jan 18

Deputy VACANT Elected 20.07.17, not in DL until Jan 18

Deputy Margaret Diab Y Y N

1A Freeholder Delegate Toby Bull Y Y N Y, one vote 1 1 Coopted 09 May 2018

Delegate VACANT No 0 1 Delegate stood down after election in 2016

2A LAS2000 Delegate David Eyles Y A A 1 1

Deputy VACANT

3A Non-Resident Delegate Brendan O'Brien Y Y Y 1 1 Re-elected February 2018 elections

Delegate Michael Haastrup N N N 1 1 Elected February 2018 elections

Deputy VACANT

Deputy VACANT

4A Street Properties Delegate Liz Errington Y Y Y 1 1 Re-elected February 2018 elections

Delegate Yvonne Felton N Y A 1 1 Elected February 2018 elections

Delegate Boz Baral Y A A 0 1 Coopted 09 May 2018

Delegate VACANT 0 1

Deputy VACANT

Deputy VACANT

Deputy VACANT

Deputy VACANT

5A TMO Browning EMB Delegate VACANT No 0 1

6A TMO Fair CH Delegate Ina Negoita Y A Y Y, one vote 1 1

7A TMO Leathermarket Delegate VACANT No 0 1

Y, three votes

Y, two votes

Y, two votes

Y, one vote

Y, two votes

Y, one vote

Y, two votes

Y, two votes

Y, two votes

Y, one vote

No

Y, two votes but

failed to attend

of send A for 3

meetings

Y, one vote

Y, two votes but

failed to attend

of send A for 3

meetings

Y, one vote


PRIVACY NOTICE

Please note that this is a public meeting and minutes will be taken and published on the council’s website, this will include names of attendees, which area housing forum they represent and records of what was said by whom at the meeting. Southwark Council needs to publish this information to ensure its resident consultation structures are transparent, accessible and inclusive. This is to comply with housing legislation and council’s own policies. This information will be published on line for a period of 2 years after which time it will be taken down. If you wish your name and other information not to appear on the published minutes please make it known at the start of the meeting. If you are concerned about how the council is using your data, please contact our Data Protection Officer via [email protected] or on 0207 525 5000. More information about your rights is available on our website, or via the Information Commissioner (www.ico.org.uk).


Homeowner Council EGM Draft Minutes from 6th March 2019 Attendance

DELEGATES PRESENT (9) OFFICERS

Christine Tan Brendan O’Brien Iris Edwards Mohamed Bounechada Clifford Cooper Dominic Hunt Elizabeth Errington James Bartlett Ina Negoita (speakerphone)

George Changua John McCormack

APOLOGIES OBSERVERS

Cllr Sandra Rhule Cllr Helen Dennis Philippa Kennedy David Eyles Boz Baral Yvonne Felton Doltan Carmel

Gete Otite

HOC Action Log

Action no.

Action Lead/ Supported

by

Status

1 JM said he doesn’t have an update on the FOI request to hand but will follow up on this and report back.

JM Pending

2 EE asked whether HOC can see the paper presented to cabinet agenda planning. If so, when?

JM Pending

3 BoB asked JM to look into and report back on what involvement HOC had regarding changes to payment plans.

JM Pending

4 JM said he would find out and invite the officer/director of asset management and collections to the next meeting to discuss service charges.

JM Pending

5 BoB said he would like Cllr Cryan to also be invited to the next meeting to discuss this matter.

GC Pending

6 BoB suggested Chris Green (CAB Chief Executive) is invited to the next meeting.

GC Pending

7 JM to provide the draft HOC budget report by 5th April 2019.

JM Pending

8 JM said he would clarify the details in regard to having an email adress for HOC set-up and report back.

JM Pending


Summary of Decisions Voted On by HOC

Decision Votes Minutes were agreed.

Agreed unanimously.

BoB proposed the HOC 2019/20 budget.

Agreed unanimously.

EE proposed a motion, ‘if by next week the council aren‘t able to employ somebody by next week HOC approach a secretarial agency on an adhoc basis.’

Agreed unanimously.

Minutes Item

Updates Action

Points 1 Welcome, Introductions, Apologies and Confirmation of Voting Members

1.1

The meeting started at 19:19 and was quorate with 9 voting members.

2 Privacy Notice, Code of Conduct and Declaration of Interest

2.1

2.2

JM read out the privacy notice as follows: “Please note that this is a public meeting and minutes will be taken and published on the council’s website, this will include names of attendees, which area housing forum they represent and records of what was said by whom at the meeting. Southwark Council needs to publish this information to ensure its resident consultation structures are transparent, accessible and inclusive. This is to comply with housing legislation and council’s own policies. This information will be published on line for a period of 2 years after which time it will be taken down. If you wish your name and other information not to appear on the published minutes please make it known at the start of the meeting. If you are concerned about how the council is using your data, please contact our Data Protection Officer via [email protected] or on 020 7525 5000. More information about your rights is available on our website, or via the Information Commissioner (www.ico.org.uk).” EE welcomed everyone. Introductions took place, apologies were given.

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting and Matters Arising

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

JM said he had spoken to Cllr Cryan about the action point 2 regarding the HOC resident involvement presentation and she confirmed she has seen it. JM said he is yet to speak to Cllr Olisa. CC queried paragraph 4.17 (see note from JM). BoB would like 4.24 to read ‘on bodies.’ MB proposed. CT seconded. Minutes were agreed.

4 Resident Involvement Review – Way Forward


4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

EE said the cabinet report paper had been pushed back to the 30th April 2019. IN said she asked JM via email to give HOC an update on the freedom of information request and the results of the consultation. JM said he doesn’t have an update to hand but will follow up on this and report back. JM also stated an email is in the process of being distributed to HOC, TC & AHF’s from Stephen Douglass regarding the delay in the Resident Involvement Review. CC asked JM who made the decision at cabinet agenda planning to not take the Resident Involvement Review item until April. JM said he believes it would have been the cabinet members. IN said she would like JM to make a formal statement about why the commitments in the resident involvement review were not followed through. EE asked whether HOC can see the paper presented to cabinet agenda planning. If so, when?

JM

JM

5

CAB Report

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

5.12

5.13

5.14

GO summarised the CAB report. BoB asked JM to look into and report back on what involvement HOC had regarding changes to payment plans. MB suggested inviting Louise Turff to a future meeting to discuss this. EE agreed saying she would like Louise to be present at the meeting on the 10th April. JM said he would find out and invite the officer/director of asset management and collections to the next meeting to discuss service charges. BoB said he would like Cllr Cryan to also be invited to the next meeting to discuss this matter. BoB would like some figures on how many leaseholders go to court for first tear tribunal. MB queried whether CAB would need more funding since they are doing more work. EE read out the printed email from Katherine Pitt which was provided at the meeting regarding CAB funding. IN queried whether the CAB funding for 2018/19 had been paid? JM said the funding is being processed this week. BoB suggested Chris Green (CAB Chief Executive) is invited to the next meeting. MB suggested HOC put a deadline on the date on which CAB funding is paid in the future. IN stated that she has queried the issue regarding CAB funding being paid three times in the past and had been told that it had which is incorrect.

JM

JM

GC

GC


6

HOC Budget Report 2019/20

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

6.10

BoB summarised the budget report included with the agenda pack. BoB said he will also send an email to JM and Stephan Colombies summarising the actuals. CC queried how the reserve would be used if the council took back the reserve fund. BoB said there is a surplus and suggested an email is sent out to all HOC delegates/deputies asking how this should be spent. EE said she would like the council to write the report and herself, IN and BoB present this to Cllr Cryan and Stephen Douglass exactly as last year. IN made the point that the HOC would have spent the budget if the action plan was properly excecuted. BoB then proposed the HOC 2019/20 budget. JB seconded. Unanimous votes in favour. JM to provide the draft HOC budget report by 5th April 2019.

JM

7

Project Planning Timelines Update

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9

7.10

7.11

7.12

JM summarised the HOC action plan. JM said the Green Paper action point was completed. IN said she hadn’t had any feedback or update on the e-mail address action point in the past two years. JM said he would clarify the details in regard to having an email adress for HOC set-up and report back. JM said the council needs to provide HOC with clarity with regards to advertising. MB to send potential adverts to JM for approval first. IN said she has spoken to JM many times in the past about the email being sent to absent members but the action point is still outstanding. JM said if the interviews which are due to take place on Friday aren’t succesful he is open to HOC going through a recruitment agency to employ someone. EE would like an update on Monday 11th March on how sucessful the interviews were. EE proposed a motion, ‘if by next week the council aren‘t able to employ somebody by next week HOC approach a secretarial agency on an adhoc basis.’ JB seconded. Agreed unanimously.

JM


7.13

JM added that the recruitment of CRM Database Manager post needs to go through the council due to legalities and the council being responsible for the homeowner fund.

8

HOC Conference Review

8.1

Deferred.

9

AOB & Close

9.1

None.

Next meeting 10th April 2019.

Meeting was closed at 21:33


Item No.

Classification: Open

Date: 10th April 2019

Meeting Name: Home Owners Council,

Report title:

Report on Tustin external works to tower blocks – leaseholder implications

Author

Ferenc Morath – Head of Investment, Asset Management

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Home Owners Council notes the report.

BACKGROUND

2. The Tustin Estate tower blocks require extensive works to refurbish them. There are three tower blocks comprising of 217 properties of which 22 are leasehold properties, currently 7 being resident leaseholders. The rest of the estate are having a consultation exercise to discuss their future, led by the Regeneration section as the scheme could also involve developing the school on the estate.

3. This could involve large scale demolition, however this consultation is still at its early stages. For the three tower blocks, a cost benefit analysis was .done of demolition against new build and it was very clear that refurbishment is the most cost effective option.

4. Extensive consultation on the proposals has been carried out with the residents in the tower

blocks. The council has ensured that all residents have had an independent ‘Resident’s Friend’ as well to guide them through the consultation and decision making processes.

5. Specific consultation has also been done for the leaseholders on the estate, including pre

arranged home visits for resident leaseholders. A special session was held prior to s20 notices going out to discuss the scheme and options with each individual leaseholder.

6. The works are extensive with a total cost of over £45m with the recently let external works

package being £33m. Leaseholders are of course only required to contribute to communal and external works elements.

LEASEHOLDER OPTIONS

7. Given the exceptional size of the bills leaseholders would be receiving, with an average recharge of £126,000, special options were agreed for both payment and buy back options.

8. These options include extended interest free payment options for resident leaseholders of up to six years. The council is unaware of any other council offering such lengthy interest free payment periods to resident leaseholders.

9. In addition due to the particular circumstances here, the council has offered to buy back properties, at market value dependent if sold vacant or with sitting tenant value if a resident leaseholder wishes to remain.


10. The council is of course concerned that resident leaseholders may be worried about losing their homes and therefore should they wish to sell back their homes to the council, they would be able to remain in their homes as council tenants. Alternatively they could choose to keep a partial equity in their home and pay a reduced bill.

11. As at the time of writing this report, four leaseholders have expressed an interest in the

council buying back their property and valuations are being arranged.

12. It should be noted that the council does not keep records of the open market value of any individual leasehold properties, as these will constantly vary according to the conditions of the housing market and on the condition of each property internally.

Report - Prepared by Ferenc Morath, Head of Investment, Asset Management Contact – [email protected]. 020 7525 1375 or [email protected]


HOC ACTION PLAN

COMPONENT PRIORITY LEVEL DEADLINE RESPONSIBLE MEMBER/OFFICER COMMENTS

1. Email to all HOC member to send

feed back about the Green paper to

Brendan as he will be the lead on the

Green Paper. Find out when it is the

internal deadline of the Green Paper

John McCormack Completed.

2. Create an HOC e-mail address John McCormack Email sent to Dave Dixon (IT)

and Stephen Douglass

(Communities) on 22/03/2019

to clarify position.

3. Clarification for the procurement &

content process for Southwark News

as we have the invoice ready

John McCormack HOC already appears to be

trading with Southwark News.

What, exactly, is the issue here?

4. What happened to the Referrals/

status Louis gave to My Southwark

Agency I heard there are 16

John McCormack JM to follow-up with Louis

Rotsos.

5. Non-attendance e-mail to absent

members

CRM Data Manager George Changua to provide list

of names (and their respective

AHFs) for JM to write to w/c

April 8th

.

6. Feed back on statistics of the

Councillors campaign, analyse replies

follow up with conference info

CRM Data Manager Need clarification here from

HOC. What Councillors

campaign?

7. 27 people who want to get involved

e-mail put people on the distribution

list

CRM Data Manager

8. Analysis of conference feedback CRM Data Manager Outstanding.

9. Loading of documents onto website Louis Rotsos Completed.

10. Thank you emails to conference

attendees


11. Loading of conference pictures onto

website

Louis Rotsos Completed.

12. Lower conference attendance to be

analysed we may need to let the

invite run in 400 as it looks to be a

CRM Data Manager To be discussed with HOC.


significant shift between people who

want to attend and the ones who

pop up on the day

13. Email campaign sorry you couldn’t

attend

CRM Data Manager Outstanding.

14. Email campaign for people who want

to get involved

CRM Data Manager Commenced. 12 positive

responses from individuals

contacted by email following

conferences.

15. Build database for both Conferences

and keep e-newsletter


16. Follow up section 20 process review,

expert advice, Michael Scorer &

personalised approach

Louis Rotsos This is in progress. Louis Rotsos

is taking this work forward.

17. Input conference results data, to be

analysed by the model


18. Send the Star report to Richard

Shelly and inform him that MSHOB

has not attended any of the panel

review meetings as he made highly

questionable statements at the

conference

John McCormack MSHOB did attend latter stages

of the RIR. Still want STAR

report to go to Richard Shelley?

19. MSHOA presenting their progress John McCormack More clarification needed here:

progress in respect of what,

exactly?

20. Create/ Analyse Leaseholders

database for contact management

CRM Data Manager How does this differ from 15?

21. Reactivate the Conference working

group – direct election model


22. Start the process review of

unfinished major works billed as

responsive repairs – invite to HOC

meeting

John McCormack Further clarification needed

here before invitation is made.


Priority levels

Urgent

High

Routine

Notes to the HOC Action Plan:-

I. HOC to discuss priority levels and deadlines with Servicing Officer

II. Actions shaded in greyscale are those planned to be the work of the CRM Data and Campaigns Manager (but some are now being actioned by other staff)

III. Several action points need clarification (see questions in Comments column)

John McCormack

22/03/2019 18:03:07


Southwark FSB

Update on Work Completed October 2018 to March 2019

The FSB is made up of nominees from Tenant Council and Home Owner Council, along with two

co-optees. You will see from the attached list of projects the number of issues the FSB has been

involved in, making comments and suggestions along with some changes we have been able to

agree with the Council’s Cabinet and with the Council’s Senior Officers.

The FSB has met regularly and frequently, in the morning and usually last between two and a half

and three hours. The FSB has met on; 9 October, 25 October, 31 October, 20 November, 11

December, 15 January, 5 February, 26 February.

The FSB has received reports on:

• Social Housing Green Paper – o Which sets out some of the government’s ideas to reform social housing and

promote new social housing • HRA Business Plan

o The Council’s Financial Business Plan for the next 30 years • Private Sector Licensing

o Setting out the Council’s powers to regulate private landlords and how and where they are used

• LBS - Great Estates o The Council’s commitment to provide improvements on estates where new homes

are being built, and other Council Estates • Canada Water Regeneration – Social Regeneration Charter

o Setting out how social regeneration is part of the physical changes proposed in the Canada Water Area

• Canada Water Regeneration – Joint Venture Agreement o The legal agreement between the Council land British Land that includes land

swaps, and the process for developing sites in the Canada Water Area with planning permission

• Update on Southwark Regeneration in Partnership o Outlining the sites that there Council had set aside for new Council Housing

development with private sector partners. Many of which will now be developed in house by the Council.

• Shelter Housing Commission o A wide ranging study by Shelter of the level of the Housing Crisis, considering

affordability, social housing, owner occupation, homelessness, and the private rented sector, the reasons for it and practical solutions to deal with the crisis.


The FSB has submitted responses to consultation on:

• Social Housing Green Paper

o The full FSB response is attached as appendix 1. It includes ideas on how to make

communications between residents and local authority landlords more effective, how

to improve resources for residents groups to raise serious complaints, including

through the Ombudsman, how to make the Social Housing Regulator more effective,

how to reduce the stigma associated with social housing and how to increase the

supply of Council housing.

Impact of the FSB’s work

The focus of the FSB remains on monitoring the progress the Council is making towards the target

of 2500 new homes by 2022, along with understanding the likely effects of the changing

government housing and planning policy on meeting the new homes target, and on Council

residents in general. The FSB has monitored the variety of implementation methods used by the

Council to provide new homes, including Direct Delivery and through Southwark Regeneration in

Partnership. Where questions or issues for residents arise, the FSB has addressed these directly to

the responsible Council Officers. The Council’s decision to develop some of the sites in house that

were previously part of the Southwark Regeneration in Partnership programme has been supported

by the FSB.

The FSB has spent a considerable time in the Autumn preparing a response to the Government’s

Social Housing Green Paper. (Appendix 1). In 2019 the FSB has worked through the Shelter

Housing Commission Report which makes the case for a significant increase in Social Homes

Building to deal with the housing crisis impacts of homelessness, poor quality and lack of security

and affordability in the private rented sector, lack of replacement of homes lost due to Right to

Buy, and changing demographics.

The Shelter Housing Commission report, which is aimed at policy makers and politicians, uses a

wide variety of evidence to set out what the current housing crisis is, focusing on homelessness

and every housing tenure, before making practical recommendations on how to improve the supply

of new social housing, and analysing the positive financial impact to central government of doing

this.

Attendance

There have been 8 FSB meetings between May and September 2018.


Member Attendance Apologies

Tenant Council

Cris Claridge 5 3

Colin Harrison 5 3

Sheila Hayman 5 3

Ian Ritchie 6 2

Carol Vincent 2 (out of 3) 0 (out of 3)

Home Owner Council

Pam Murphy 3 (out of 5) 2 (out of 5)

Co-opted Members

Bill Mullins

7 1

Sandy Stewart 7 1

Pam Murphy was a delegate from the Home Owner Council until December 2018. She has

attended 3 FSB meetings as an observer, since ceasing to be a delegate from the HOC.

Carol Vincent was elected as a delegate from TC in December 2018.


Appendix 1

Southwark FSB Green Paper Consultation Response

The Future Steering Board (FSB) is a consultative body recognised by the London Borough of Southwark that

includes representatives from the London Borough of Southwark Tenants Council and the Home Owners

Council. It is a formal, resident-led mechanism to work with Southwark Council on its Asset Management,

New Build Homes and investment plan. The FSB previously responded to the Housing White Paper and has

worked through, and analysed the Social Housing Green Paper.

Chapter 1: Ensuring homes are safe and decent

1. How can residents best be supported in this important role of working with landlords to ensure

homes are safe?

Specialist advice from independent organisations, at a local or national level. Clear and quick route of

challenge to non-response, slow response, or inadequate response from their landlord. All FRA Reports to

be published and available to residents. Clear standard for landlords to provide fire safety information to all

residents and update it regularly. Make a single Board Member or Councillor responsible to deliver Decent

Homes Standard, or make the corporate responsibility similar to that for Health and Safety legislation.

2. Should new safety measures in the private rented sector also apply to social housing?

Yes. Social Housing Tenants should be given copies of all certificates relevant to the property when they

move in, and when new inspections are carried out. Tenants should get notification from Building Control

when changes or updates are made in their homes, e.g. updating electrical systems. Legislative rights of

access for the freeholder to leasehold homes to deal with safety issues that could affect neighbours is

needed.

3. Are there any changes to what constitutes a Decent Home that we should consider?

Yes. Decent Homes did not take account of tenants and leaseholders interests to make sure that common

parts are maintained to a modern standard and that issues relating to security in blocks and on estates are

important. As Building Regulations are generally not retrospective, modern standards of safety and

ecological performance could be included in Decent Homes Standard.

4. Do we need additional measures to make sure social homes are safe and decent?

Make the standard enforceable against the landlord by tenants, perhaps through application to the

Regulator.

Chapter 2: Effective resolution of complaints

5. Are there ways of strengthening the mediation opportunities available for landlords and residents to

resolve disputes locally?


The focus of the Green Paper is on the process of Complaints and how Internal Complaints are escalated

into the Housing Ombudsman system. What is needed is for Landlords to have effective mechanisms to

gather residents’ concerns well before there are Ombudsman Complaints. Residents who have tried to

report serious concerns about the safety of their buildings have had problems getting a response from their

landlords, and sometimes residents concerns have not been taken seriously. Residents on Ledbury Estate in

Southwark had reported ‘gaps and cracks’ in four tower blocks for several years before the Council took this

seriously immediately following the Grenfell Fire. Changing regulation on resident empowerment and

involvement could help with this, and providing a source of independent specialist support to residents

could also help to make sure concerns are effectively dealt with early, and solutions can be developed with

residents and landlords working to commonly agreed aims. Landlords making better use of the qualitative

and quantitative information they receive could improve prevention rather than cure solutions. This could

be built into the Regulatory Standards.

6. Should we reduce the eight week waiting period to four weeks, or should we remove the requirement for

the “democratic filter” stage altogether?

Yes to reducing the waiting period.

7. What can we do to ensure that the “designated persons” are better able to promote local resolutions?

Make sure that residents can get help from Councillors of the political party that is not in control of the

Council. Where landlords use Arbitration Panels or something similar to deal with complaints, there should

be a binding requirement to implement the Panel’s recommendations.

8. How can we ensure that residents understand how best to escalate a complaint and seek redress?

Require all responses to Official Complaints to set out the process to escalate and appeal. This is done with

notification to applicants when a local authority gives their decision on a homelessness application.

9. How can we ensure that residents can access the right advice and support when making a complaint?

Provide independent help and resources to do this, preferably through locally based organisations such as

Citizens Advice, a Tenants Federation, backed up with resources to access professional help e.g. building

surveyors.

10. How can we best ensure that landlords’ processes for dealing with complaints are fast and effective?

Through monitoring of performance by the Regulator, and the Housing Ombudsman.

11. How can we best ensure safety concerns are handled swiftly and effectively within the existing redress

framework?

Changing regulation on resident empowerment and involvement could help with this, and providing a

source of independent specialist support to residents could also help to make sure concerns are effectively

dealt with.

Chapter 3: Empowering residents and strengthening the Regulator


12. Do the proposed key performance indicators cover the right areas? Are there any other areas that

should be covered?

Value for Money is not regulated by the Regulator for Council Housing and it should be. Comparing budget

to outturn costs would be a good indicator of financial control.

13. Should landlords report performance against these key performance indicators every year? Annual

reports to tenants and leaseholders on performance would enhance accountability and give residents clear

information on landlord performance. There was much good practice on this set out during the TSA time as

regulator.

14. Should landlords report performance against these key performance indicators to the Regulator?

Providing information on the performance to the Regulator would give them the information needed to

regulate. The FSB was concerned at the use of raw data to compile league tables that would not necessarily

be relevant when comparing large, small, urban and rural authorities. As tenants do not have the choice to

move to a different landlord, league tables are unlikely to be a great benefit to tenants of social landlords as

they have very limited choice.

15. What more can be done to encourage landlords to be more transparent with their residents? There are

benchmarking tools used by Housemark or Housing Quality Network, that would be useful for residents if

the information was published. At present it is only available to the landlord, and if the landlord chooses,

they can release information to residents. Making it publicly available would help residents understand

comparable performance and more effectively scrutinise their landlords.

16. Do you think that there should be a better way of reporting the outcomes of landlords’ complaint

handling? How can this be made as clear and accessible as possible for residents?

Outcomes and the effect on changing policy or procedure is a positive way to report complaints. There is a

need for landlords to analyse trends in complaints and to use ‘risk assessment’ tools to understand where

there are serious issues that have not been picked up through other routes e.g. fire safety.

17. Is the Regulator best placed to prepare key performance indicators in consultation with residents and

landlords? There needs to be direct contact between the regulator and residents. The Scottish system is

more effective than the current system in England. Working with existing benchmarking organisations

means the system does not have to be designed from scratch.

18. What would be the best approach to publishing key performance indicators that would allow residents

to make the most effective comparison of performance? Local comparisons with similar landlords make it

easy for residents to compare with something they are familiar with.

19. Should we introduce a new criterion to the Affordable Homes Programme that reflects residents’

experience of their landlord? What other ways could we incentivise best practice and deter the worst,

including for those providers that do not use Government funding to build? Having poor landlords provide

more homes is not effective use of resources, but this is a very blunt tool where there are limited numbers

of landlords in areas of high housing need. Reviewing the regulator’s existing powers and providing

resources to use them more flexibility will be more effective than just financial incentives.


20. Are current resident engagement and scrutiny measures effective? What more can be done to make

residents aware of existing ways to engage with landlords and influence how services are delivered? The

role of the local councillor as someone who can intervene, advocate and scrutinise on behalf of an unhappy

resident has been diminished by the Cabinet system. Having locally based, independent advocacy groups,

such as Tenants Federations or other voluntary sector bodies will support this. When the regulator

published good practice in this area regularly, tenants were able to point to options on how engagement

could be improved. Since 2011 there have been limited resources for tenants groups and examples of good

practice are less easy to find.

21. Is there a need for a stronger representation for residents at a national level? If so, how should this best

be achieved? Yes. Government funding for a national tenants organisation, controlled and run by tenants.

22. Would there be interest in a programme to promote the transfer of local authority housing, particularly

to community-based housing associations? What would it need to make it work? This is unlikely to be

effective in most local authority areas. Providing sufficient resources for local authority landlords to

maintain their stock and provide good services, along with effective resident involvement, will be more

effective than change of ownership.

23. Could a programme of trailblazers help to develop and promote options for greater resident-leadership

within the sector? Yes. There are many good examples of work, in Southwark and elsewhere that could

inspire others. There was a programme of tenant education in the 1990s with a National Certificate in

Tenant Participation, that gave residents education and qualification to become leaders and workers in the

sector.

24. Are Tenant Management Organisations delivering positive outcomes for residents and landlords? Are

current processes for setting up and disbanding Tenant Management Organisations suitable? Do they

achieve the right balance between residents’ control and local accountability? Local support and monitoring

by their landlord is crucial in answering this question. Many local authorities benchmark their TMOs

performance against the local authority, and have good data to answer this question.

25. Are there any other innovative ways of giving social housing residents greater choice and control over

the services they receive from landlords? A flexible menu of options for influence and control, with a

process to give residents the ability to access any level of responsibility on the menu. Standard documents

and methodologies, along with central government funding to develop are essential to these.

26. Do you think there are benefits to models that support residents to take on some of their own services?

If so, what is needed to make this work? See above.

27. How can landlords ensure residents have more choice over contractor services, while retaining

oversight of quality and value for money? Involving residents in Value for Money Assessments, including

Social Value, at the point that a procurement strategy for a service is developed. Providing support and

training on this, either through the National Tenants organisation or another group, would help to promote

skills procurement analysis. This would also link in to the monitoring of the Value for Money Standard by

residents.

28. What more could we do to help leaseholders of a social housing landlord?


Provide more locally based advice services and promote links between leaseholders of social landlords.

Including leasehold of social landlords within the Regulatory Framework would help. There could be a

separate National Standard for Leasehold Management.

29. Does the Regulator have the right objective on consumer regulation? Should any of the consumer

standards change to ensure that landlords provide a better service for residents in line with the new key

performance indicators proposed, and if so how? Explicitly include them with the regulatory framework and

make the regulator responsible to regulate leasehold services.

30. Should the Regulator be given powers to produce other documents, such as a Code of Practice, to

provide further clarity about what is expected from the consumer standards? Yes. Producing more good

practice guidance and regularly updating it would be helpful for residents.

31. Is “serious detriment” the appropriate threshold for intervention by the Regulator for a breach of

consumer standards? If not, what would be an appropriate threshold for intervention? The threshold is too

high at present. It should be lowered so intervention could take place when there is a risk. Analysis of

information that a landlord holds should help landlords and the regulator to assess and identify the level of

risk.

32. Should the Regulator adopt a more proactive approach to regulation of consumer standards? Should

the Regulator use key performance indicators and phased interventions as a means to identify and tackle

poor performance against these consumer standards? How should this be targeted? Yes. Low levels of

resident satisfaction and a high number of complaints, internally or to the Ombudsman would be an initial

alarm bell to identify where deeper analysis and intervention is needed.

33. Should the Regulator have greater ability to scrutinise the performance and arrangements of local

authority landlords? If so, what measures would be appropriate? Yes. Value for Money would be an

effective tool to scrutinise the service provided and how it compares with other similar landlords. Using

inspections more often than self assessment or co-regulation would help to keep landlords focused on the

regulatory regime.

34. Are the existing enforcement measures set out in Box 3 adequate? If not, what additional enforcement

powers should be considered?

Enforcement needs to be proportionate to the problem it is attempting to resolve. Intervention that

focuses on residents and landlords working together is more likely to lead to a long term cultural change

within an organisation, rather than financial penalties.

35. Is the current framework for local authorities to hold management organisations such as Tenant

Management Organisations and Arms Length Management Organisations to account sufficiently robust? If

not, what more is needed to provide effective oversight of these organisations? The Modular Management

Agreement includes performance expectations. A supportive monitoring regime that includes comparisons

between TMOs and with the landlord is an effective tool developed by many landlords to make this work.

TMOs should be treated the same as any other housing management contractor by the regulator.


36. What further steps, if any, should Government take to make the Regulator more accountable to

Parliament? Annual performance report and three yearly review by the Commons Public Accounts

Committee or Select Committee for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Chapter 4: Tackling stigma and celebrating thriving communities

37. How could we support or deliver a best neighbourhood competition?

Look at existing examples of how social landlords already do this.

38. In addition to sharing positive stories of social housing residents and their neighbourhoods, what more

could be done to tackle stigma?

Change the language of stigma, blame and non-deserving status for social housing tenants from politicians.

This must change in support of the existing mixed tenure communities that exist on every Council estate.

Strong communities depend on social spaces for residents of all tenure to interact. Require community

space in all new developments above a threshold number where there is no existing facility. Provide stable

funding to voluntary organisations to develop community activities, so they do not have to continually

divert energy to fundraise. Austerity has reduced the funding available to voluntary organisations across

the country. Where there are new blocks with a new community, require the landlord to involve residents

in decisions of common interest, such as landscaping, as a community building exercise.

39. What is needed to further encourage the professionalisation of housing management to ensure all staff

deliver a good quality of service?

Some large landlords put housing management in a difficult position by not providing accountable and

effective services where problems are reported. Local monitoring of services that are very important to

residents, such as Day to Day Repairs, Estate Cleaning and Grounds Maintenance with benchmarking could

help with this. Clear accountability within the landlord to improve services where they are poor is also

important. Where housing officers are not highly motivated and pushing their own organisation to perform

better, there should be options for residents collectively to report their concerns and see that they have

been listened to.

40. What key performance indicator should be used to measure whether landlords are providing good

neighbourhood management?

This is too complex to measure through one indicator. It depends on the design, the local issues, and

aspirations of residents.

41. What evidence is there of the impact of the important role that many landlords are playing beyond their

key responsibilities? Should landlords report on the social value they deliver?

Yes they should, and some landlords have developed systems to do this. In Southwark this is primarily

embedded in the procurement process, but much social value created by the landlord and residents jointly

is not closely measured nor monitored. Clearer guidelines on how to do this would be useful.


42. How are landlords working with local partners to tackle anti-social behaviour? What key performance

indicator could be used to measure this work?

ASB issues vary depending on location, and are mobile. In Southwark there is joint working with residents,

the police and housing management on some estates. There is a Council Wide partnership that involves the

Council, Police, the Noise Team and Licensing.

43. What other ways can planning guidance support good design in the social sector?

The GLA London Plan includes useful ideas on this. LBS has developed its own guidance on Design

Standards for new Council homes. Requiring Secured by Design for all new homes will have an effect.

44. How can we encourage social housing residents to be involved in the planning and design of new

developments?

The FSB has worked with LBS on the Charter of Principles, which is the process to involve residents where

new build Council Homes are proposed on their estate. There was a large scale consultation with over 1000

responses on the Design Standards for New Council Homes. This has been the basis for the specification of

new Council Homes and has been regularly updated.

Chapter 5: Expanding supply and supporting home ownership

45. Recognising the need for fiscal responsibility, this Green Paper seeks views on whether the

Government’s current arrangements strike the right balance between providing grant funding for housing

associations and Housing Revenue Account borrowing for local authorities.

Removing the HRA borrowing cap has been a positive move. Providing security on future rents puts local

authorities in the position that they can plan for the medium term once again. In London, the GLA has a

variety of different grant levels to provide a variety of different homes with different costs.

46. How we can boost community-led housing and overcome the barriers communities experience to

developing new community owned homes?

Agencies with experience of working with communities, bringing forward development ideas, and accessing

funding are needed to do this. In the past, Secondary Co-ops, with financial support from a government

agency provided this service.

47. What level of additional affordable housing, over existing investment plans, could be delivered by social

housing providers if they were given longer term certainty over funding?

This is for the developing landlords to answer.

48. How can we best support providers to develop new shared ownership products that enable people to

build up more equity in their homes?

The more flexible approach taken by the GLA is helpful, but with access to owner occupation based on

market value, extremely high compared to average incomes in Southwark, means this is an option for only a


limited section of the population. Measures to reduce land values could help to make home ownership

accessible to more people.


Homeowner Council Meeting Dates 2019

Agenda Planning HOC Meeting Venue

19th December 9th January Tooley Street - 23rd January (SGM) Queens Road - 6th March (EGM) Tooley Street - 10th April Tooley Street

24th April 8th May (AGM) Tooley Street 5th June 19th June Tooley Street 10th July 24th July TBC

21st August 4th September Tooley Street 25th September 9th October Tooley Street

23rd October 6th November Tooley Street

Documents

Southwark Homeowner Council Meeting