UPDATE: I hoped to report on the discussion of this item at last night's meeting but the live stream was not resumed for some time after a break in the meeting. The 'silent' period was when the discussion of the items below took place so I shall have to wait for the minutes to record any key points.
Brent Council owns two companies that act in the housing market on the Council's behalf. Tonight they report at the Standards and Audit Committee on their activities and financial position.
Elsewhere in London such companies have had financial difficulties so the Committee will be interested in their situation.
i4B (Investment for Brent) report:
At our last meeting in September, we raised the issue that i4B was likely to use up its remaining funding by the end of the financial year, and both then and since, received helpful signals that further funding would be available to support good acquisition prospects. Assuming that is still the case, the company will continue to look out for such prospects
With a profit forecast, excluding tax, for the year, the company is in a healthy cash position, so there is no risk of insufficient liquidity to carry out its normal business activities. However, if i4B Ltd is to engage in future refurbishment projects, e.g. Granville, they will require a cash injection from the London Borough of Brent as the business plan for 2025/26 onwards shows a risk that the company’s cash position could be overdrawn.
As of January 2025 i4B has housed and discharged the Council’s housing duty to 504 families and 1138 children. The majority of these families were previously housed in stage one TA [Temporary Accommodation]. The number of families housed is higher than i4B’s PRS portfolio due to a number of families moving on to other accommodation, with new families moving in.
The main risks the company faces are detailed below:
Poor rent collection performance due to unaffordability of rent for tenants
High void turnaround times, costs and rent loss lead to financial losses for i4B
High capital programme costs, including stock condition, energy efficiency and decarbonisation expenditure, adversely affect the company business plan
Company cash flow (capital and revenue) is insufficient to manage expenditure
i4B does not effectively manage its contract for the remote management of Home Counties properties, leading to poor performance and risk to tenant satisfaction
Challenges in the regulatory and external environment
PRS is Private Rented Sector
I queried the figures below as they clearly do not add up but I had not had a reply from Brent before delayed publication. Possibly 4 bed+ should be 156 but that is subject to clarification. UPDATE: Brent Council confirmed today March 26th that the correct 4 bed figure is 56 making the overall figure if 465 correct.
First Wave Housing has similar risks:
The main risks the company faces are detailed below:
Poor rent collection performance due to unaffordability of rent for tenants
High void turnaround times, costs and rent loss lead to financial losses for FWH
High capital programme costs, including stock condition and energy efficiency expenditure, adversely affect the company business plan.
Brent Council has agreed the acquisition of 294 units of the Fulton Road development that is currently under construction. 118 of the units will be leased to First Wave subject to financial review and approval by the First Wave Board. They will be let at London Living Rent.
First Wave has an operating surplus of £0.508m and a net rental income of £3.41m.
Settled Homes are a form of long-term temporary accommodation. They are let on assured shorthold tenancies, and have a target rent of the affordable rent level (80% of market rent).
So very few of the homes above are at social rent and none at council rent.
4 comments:
Mis-management of council properties makes it even worse ...
Wonder how many Brent Council properties are being illegally sublet...
Alan Bryce, author of the report, said: “There are nearly 50,000 tenancy frauds in London.
Tackling this type of fraud is quicker and more cost effective than building the new homes needed to accommodate the approximately 70,000 London families in temporary accommodation or the over 300,000 families on the London housing waiting list."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/social-housing-council-homes-fraud-taxpayers-cost-b1216532.html
The Granville New Homes debacle is shameful for B~ent and they keep hiding it as much as they can. Of course Brent's Director of IFB and FWH is non other than Cllr M. Butt's brother, Cllr S. Butt; he's not going to rock the boat is he? The last time someone rocked the boat he was removed as B~ent's Director. Mismanagement B~ent style, they have even given the company at fault other contracts, you just couldn't make it up, unless it were he Rotten Borough of B~ent.
So the council will just give money to certain (key?) private service providers whose cash positions are challenged or uncertain?
Is there any benefit then from using a private provider if they are underwritten by the taxpayer?
Should the council have a wider range of providers to benchmark against?
If the Brent emergency housing list is still 33,000 families long, this rate progress will take 30 years to clear. And that's ignoring UK immigration over the last 4 years, which prorated between uk-london-brent (eg. 100%/40%/5%) would add another 50k people needing homes in Brent.
Councillor Saqib Butt (M Butt's brother) is Director of First Wave Housing AND Vice Chair of Brent Council's Planning Committee. Rather convenient keeping all those important roles in the family, eh?
Post a Comment