'In-house' management of council housing favoured in Brent Council survey - Full Council debate April 20th

There will be a Special Brent Full Council meeting on Thursday April 20th, 7pm Civic Centre, to consider the outcome of the survey of council tenants and leaseholders on options for the future management of council housing in the borough.

2,937 residents responded to the survey (26% return) to consider the options:

a. Continue with Brent Hoising Partnership on a reformed basis
b. Bring the service back in-house under direct control of the council
c. Enter into partnership with another organisation to provide the service

49.1% of respondents supported option b with 55.6% of lease holders and 47.3% of tenants in favour.

After debate at Full Council the proposal to bring the service in-house will go to Cabineton Monday April 24th.

The decision will be made against the background of a deficit in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and further 'savings' and 'transformation' will be necessary:

1. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget is £56.1m and is used for the management and maintenance of the HRA stock and for the repayment of the HRA debt. The HRA is a ring fenced account. The BHP Management Fee for the current year is £7.5m. This fee is for managing and maintaining the HRA properties on behalf of the Council. Core management costs, including this fee are £12.5m per annum.
   
2. 12.2  The Housing and Planning Act 2016 will have a significant impact on Brent’s Council housing and its financial position in coming years. The implications for which are continuously being reviewed with more comprehensive analysis to follow once the details are published by Government.
   
3. 12.3  Based on current assumptions and changes in the Housing and Planning Act,
   an efficiency savings target of circa £3.6m would be required to balance the HRA if the current assumptions on changes materialise.
   
4. 12.4  The savings to the HRA upon the initial implementation of the in-house housing management service are estimated to be £1m pa. These are provisional figures and will be refined as planning for the implementation of the selected option is progressed.
   
5. 12.5  The decision to bring the housing management service in-house alone is not sufficient to cover the gap without wider transformation. This, then, reinforces the need for further transformation in the service.
   

I hope councillors will explore what 'transformation' could involve when they debate the proposal.

AGENDA For Ful Council Meeting

Background:

The Council owns almost 11,500 homes, mostly flats on small and medium-sized estates, with around 7,700 tenants and 3,700 leaseholders. Around 43,000 people live in these homes - over 1 in 8 of Brent’s population. Around a third of tenants are over 60, 4% have a disability and 8% have a vulnerability of some kind. The Council is responsible for management and maintenance services and has delegated these to BHP since 2002, under a Management Agreement. BHP is a company with a Board of 13 people comprising residents, Councillors and independent persons with an independent chair. BHP provides all landlord services, directly or through contracts, including:

Tenancy Management – e.g. lettings, rent collection, resident engagement,

Right to Buy and the oversight of two Tenant Management Organisations. 


Leaseholder Management – e.g. service charges and major works. 


     Property services – e.g. estate management, repairs and major works 


    Development services – the delivery of a new-build programme on existing estates 


Duffy rubbishes Council litter contract but does he know about BHP?

Cllr John Duffy, elected to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee by the Labour Group on the evening of the tube strike, has lost no time in setting out his stall in an email to fellow councillors.

Dear All,

As you know I have been elected to the scrutiny committee, albeit the leadership of the Labour party wished to rule my nomination out of time so the leader could play musical chairs with who he wanted to scrutinise the cabinet decisions or council contracts.

Now that I have been endorsed by the full council. I wish to state my view on scrutiny. I believe that just as a puppy, is not just for Christmas, Scrutiny is not just for committees. Members of the committee are duty bound to raise issues of waste and financial mis-management by the Cabinet.

Therefore I listen to Monday night's full council meeting, which seemed to allow cabinet members to make statement without explanation. They were also allowed to avoid questions by saying the problems were caused by a lack of resources. Whereas I believe many problems are caused by government cuts. However the cabinet has to take responsibility for bad polices making which undermining our ability to be efficient and use our limited resource’s to ensure service improvements. Those who care about these issues should read on and those who do not should stop reading now.

ENVIRONMENT (CAUSE)

On Monday Cllr Southwood, said we have successfully taken 50 residents to court for non-payment of June 2016 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) for mostly smoking related litter. However as far as I understand the true number is 41. The problem of smokers litter around tube stations and bus stops is an easy way to make money from FPNs as a smoker about to go into a tube station or get on a bus have no alternative but to put out their fags before boarding their train or bus, particularly as we have no cigarette butt disposal bins place close by.

The government in the middle of devastating cuts to service,did however allowed L/As to keep the 100’s thousands of pounds income from those FPNS and was this was one of the only ways councils could raise money for environmental protection.

Unfortunately and bewilderingly Cllr Southwood and the cabinet decided not to use the money for environmental protection. Instead the cabinet decided to outsource the service to Kingdom Securities (KS)  therefore ensuring the majority of the income was not used for Environmental protection but was paid in profits to the private company. KS introduced the service using cheaper less qualified staff and ensured the council agree certain conditions.

(i) They received £46 for every ticket issued, whether the fine was paid OR NOT.
(ii) Residents were not allowed a discount if they paid early unlike all other fine given out by the council.
(iii) The council meets all the costs of appeals and legal support and reviews.
(iii) The service did not undergo a VFM review

These conditions were introduced purely to increase KS's profit and is the cause of the council having no increased resources to deal with other environmental enforcement .The figs show-using June (the period Cllr Southwood mentioned) as an example. The council have received £49k and paid £35K to KS (approx. £25k pure profit a month for KS), whereas the council makes £9k a month after write –off, costs of admin and legal costs, work stations, free use of our car pool etc.

ENVIRONMENT (EFFECT)

I believe that bad policy making by the lead member and cabinet has cost us £25K+ per month of income and  has had the effect of ensuring that we have no strategy or resources for other environmental enforcement. Whereas dog–ends concerns were less than 1% of complaints that are 99% of our enforcement (FPN) strategy.

For example, when Cllr Crane on Monday night rightly raise the issue of dumping behind shops in a private area by the Hyde in Colindale on behalf of his residents.Which is an ongoing issue which has caused concern from residents about the unpleasant and nasty conditions they are forced to live with.They also complaint the place was overrun with rats.

Cllr Southwood reply (I think) went something like this saying we have not the resources or trained officers to deal fly tipping on private land and was therefore was difficult to deal with. Cllr Southwood reply ignores the reality of the situation. There is legislation EPA (S59 private land) where the owner of the land can be fined £5000 if they do not clear the land and £500 a day if they fail to comply.There are also ways of working with the Environment Agency  to ensure any companies using the alley way for fly-tipping are dealt with.However you need qualified, trained officers with a full understanding of legislation, to carry-out surveillance, interviews and ultimately prosecutions. However the cabinet policy of introducing cheap (LLW) unqualified officers has left us deprived of well trained officers to deal with issues as well as ensuring we have no resources.

I believe Scrutiny committee should be asked to look at the way we organise our enforcement section, to ensure VFM, flexibility ,priorities and increased investment.They should also look at the way the FPN are issued and why 154 (20%) are written off, remember we already paid KS over £7k   for the issuing of those ticket and writing them off is a direct lost  and if that is constant over a year it would mean a loss of £84k per year.

I intend to talk to the Chair of Scrutiny to see if there are ways the committee can  review and recommend service improvements.

Cllr Duffy may also be interested in the contract awarded to Kingdom Security on Brent Housing Partnership's estates.  This is Kingdom's own account - they don't seem aware that BHP is soon to be taken back in-house by the Council.:

Kingdom is pleased to have won a new contract with Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) to help tackle anti-social behaviour in north west London on their behalf. The new contract will start on 9^th January 2017.

Kingdom’s Environmental Protection Division will be providing a reception & concierge service in some of BHP’s properties, and will also be carrying out uniformed patrols, both of which are intended to provide reassurance to residents that anti-social behaviour is being tackled and that the lives and properties of residents are being protected.

Anti-social behaviour is something that can affect the lives of a great many people, making their day to day existence a real misery and leaving them feeling helpless, desperate and with a reduced quality of life. It often includes but is not limited to the following:

• Vandalism
• Graffiti
• Fly-posting
• Nuisance neighbours (noisy or abusive neighbours)
• Intimidating groups taking over public spaces
• Acting in a rowdy or inconsiderate manner
• Littering
• Being drunk in public or street drinking
• Aggressive dogs
• Prostitution
• Begging
• Abandoning vehicles
• Using vehicles inappropriately
• Trespassing

We have previously written in detail about tackling anti-social behaviour – our in depth article on the topic, including more information about what it is, who to contact to tackle it, and what action agencies and individuals can take can be found here.

Kingdom will be acting on behalf of Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), an arms-length management organisation (ALMO) and community housing company owned by Brent Council. In 2013 BHP signed a 10 year management agreement with Brent Council. The council owns the homes and takes responsibility for housing policy and strategy, whereas BHP is responsible for day-to-day management of housing services to over 9,500 council tenants and 3,000 leaseholders.

Brent holds no information on tree losses and plantings in its parks

Trees on BHP's Kings Drive Estate, Wembley

As the importance of trees for cleansing the air attracts attention following recent  'Red Alert' air pollution days in Brent and the rest of London, it is surprising to find that Brent does not keep a record of tree losses and replanting in its parks, and that Brent Housing Partnership has not replaced trees lost on its estates.

Maintenance of parks and BHP Estates is out-sourced by the Council to Veolia. The lack of information on parks may need further investigation to ensure that there is not a net loss of trees. The Council will soon take over BHP and I hope they will adopt a ;olicy of tree replacement.

I deliberately excluded Fryent Country Park and the Welsh Harp Open Space from the request as they are natural rather than formal open spaces.

This is the Council's reponse to my FoI request:
 

1. The number of a) street, b) BHP & other social housing estates and C) park trees (excluding Fryent Country Park and Welsh Harp Open Space) removed by the council and its contractors from January 1st 2016-December 31st 2016. 

a) (Street) - 220 (approx)
b) (BHP) - 62
c) (Parks) - The Council does not hold this information 

2. The overall pattern of reasons for removal (eg safety, redevelopment, disease) expressed as an approximate percentage. 

a) (Street) -
End of life (dead/decayed/diseased) - 60% Damage to pavements, walls etc. - 30%
Other (insurance claims, vandalism etc.) - 10%
b) (BHP) -
Unsafe 12 trees 19%

Rot/decay 22 trees 35%

Dead 28 trees 45%

c) (Parks) - The Council does not hold this information 

3. Of those trees the numbers where stumps were left.
a) (Street) - Almost all but no precise figures available. b) (BHP) - 62 (all)
c) (Parks) - The Council does not hold this information 

4. Of those trees the numbers where they were replaced by a) semi mature trees b)saplings
a) (Street) - All replaced by saplings, 155 in the last season but this runs from September and is not recorded by calendar year
b) (BHP) - None
c) (Parks) - The Council does not hold this information 

5. The number of new trees planted: a) street trees b) social housing estates c)parks and d) new developments/regeneration (eg Wembley Park, Alperton, South Kilburn) in the stated period. 

a) (Street) - 155 in last season
b) (BHP) - None
c) (Parks) - The Council does not hold this information
d) (Regeneration) - 240 (mostly funded by S106 money)

I think 5a is probably a mistake as 155 is the same number as street replacement trees. I wanted the figures for new planting in addition to replacement.

Is this the end of Brent Housing Partnership?

There was a bit of a jamboree at Brent Civic Centre as Brent Housing Partnership showed their film Stories of Brent LINK but beneath the public relations glow things are not well with BHP, Brent Council's arms length management organisation (ALMO) for housing.

BHP was put under 'special measures' in March due to under-performance. LINK

Now the Brent Cabinet is to consider the future of the organisation LINK in the additional context of the government's housing reforms  which include high value council housing disposal,where the council is forced to sell high value stock;  'pay to stay' in which council tenants with an income of more than £40,000 income will have to pay higher rents from April 2017 - moving towards market rents, 'right to buy' and a 1% reduction in social rents.

In addition the volume of housing stock has been reduced by the South Kilburn regeneration and redevelopment and existing right to buy.

A further pressure, the potential cost of which is not revealed, is a claim for 'significant additional costs' from Wates, the BHP's asset management service which has been carrying out extensive refurbishment on the BHP's estates. 

The question arises as to whether the BHP is fit for purpose in this new situation. Officers recoemmend that the period for BHP's Recovery Plan be extended until September 30th 2016 while a review of options takes places.

These are the options:

-->

Continuation with BHP .  

   
3.29 Formally this is the most straightforward option but practically will require further and significant reform to assure continued progress, to generate significant cost reductions and to achieve wider outcomes. New operating arrangements and service structures will be needed to achieve this. Preliminary examination of a new Target Operating Model has recently been completed that may provide an initial basis for the development of these. In addition a reformed council client-side function will be required to provide strategic direction and greater assurance, and opportunities to generate additional efficiencies and savings through improved integration between the council and BHP will also be needed. The scope of services to be provided will also need to be considered including what contribution BHP could, in time, make in other areas to the council’s objectives.

 
Bringing the Service Back In-house

 
3.30 The majority of stock-holding councils provide housing management services directly. Simply bringing the service into the council will not in itself assure improved performance and while there may be some direct savings the challenge to generate significant further savings and service could be more fully integrated across a range of council services and functions and this could also support the achievement of wider outcomes but specific expertise and coherence in the service would need to be maintained

3.31 A number of councils with ALMOs have in recent years brought the service in- house. This would require termination of the existing Management Agreement. From the experience of other authorities a minimum period of 6 months would be needed and in a number of cases the process has taken a year. Consultation with tenants and leaseholders would be required in advance.

Service Provision through a Partnership

3.32 A housing management partnership would be formed with another housing management provider with an existing high-quality housing management service in order to raise performance and generate significant economies and efficiencies. This could be a significant local housing association provider. The scope of the partnerships activities (e.g. whether it included affordable housing development) may also be a significant consideration in choosing a suitable partner and in the extent of interest from prospective partners.

3.33 There are two main routes by which this partnership could be established. The council could directly select a suitable partner in place of BHP and enter into the necessary legal arrangements with them to establish a jointly owned housing management company. Alternatively BHP could itself be converted into a partnership housing management organisation, jointly owned and governed by the council and the selected partner. Again consultation with tenants and leaseholders would be required in advance.

4.0 Financial Implications

4.1 The HRA expenditure Budget is £56.9m. This budget is used for the management and maintenance of the HRA stock and for the repayment of the HRA debt. BHP Management Fee for the current year is £7.5m. This fee is for managing and maintaining the HRA properties on behalf of the Council.

4.2 The Housing and Planning Act will have a significant impact on Brent’s council housing and its financial position in coming years. The implications for which are currently being scoped with more comprehensive analysis to follow once the details are published.

4.3 The three options outlined in this report for the management of the council’s stock will each have differing implications in terms of the impact on the HRA and will need to be developed through the formal review process. However, it should be noted that all of the options will result in an initial cost of change, which will need to be factored into the each appraisals.

Brent Housing Partnership scorched at Scrutiny

Current works on BHP properties on Pilgrims Way Estate. Wembley (roof, windows, boiler) this morning

Things did not bode well at first last night when the public found that the Scrutiny Committee was not listed on the Civic Centre event screens, but eventually they found that the meeting was indeed on and a few were in the public gallery. Transparency was not improved when yet another delegation by Philip Grant was refused on officer advice. I hope to publish more on that from Philip later.

There were two main items on the agenda: a performance report from Brent Housing Properties (BHP), Brent Council's 'arms length' council housing provider, and the Committee's plans for future work.

Dan Filson opened with a couple of rebukes concerning an inadequately anonymised case study in the BHP report and bureaucratic language that seemed to ignore the actual people who were BHP tenants and leaseholders. Today the report has been removed from the Council website.

Recent government proposals formed the backdrop to many of the concerns and a stumbling block was that social housing providers had yet to receive any detail on how some of the proposals would be implemented.

The budget proposal for a 1% annual social housing rent reduction over a four year period starting in 2016 LINK was a concern because it would amount to a reduction in rent receipts of £10m by the end of the period. For comparison the BHP's repairs expenditure is about £2m per year.  it would also affect the income of housing associations ansd their ability to build new homes adding to the problems caused by the right to buy proposals.

There was a range of potential impacts from benefit changes as well as the proposal that high value properties should be sold off. Lead member for Regeneration, Cllr Margaret McLennan suggested that the latter would affect Council proposals for building larger 4-5 bedroomed houses for the borough's high number of larger families. It was unclear exactly how the high value social homes would be  identified, regionally or by borough. If the latter there were homes in particular areas of the borough that would be affected and could amount to one third of the total.

The higher rents to be imposed for tenants with a joint household income of more than £40,000 was discussed as well as the problem of the removal of benefits from young people.

The Committee were keen to assess the effectiveness of consultation and tenant involvement as well as engagement with young people. There were detailed questions on the makeup of the BHP Board and representation of tenants and leaseholders.

Dan Filson was bitingly critical of the BHP's performance in filling 'voids', getting new tenants into empty properties, remarking that in some boroughs such figures would lead to dismissals. He reminded BHP that every delay resulted in the Council paying for people in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation. The turnaround time for 'major voids' was 79.3 days against a target of 61 and for 'standard voids'  55.7 against 24.

The Committee questioned in some detail the data on complaints:

It was unfortunate that with 'job completion' the main issue there was no discussion of the performance of the BHP's contractors such as Wates for major projects and Veolia for grounds maintenance.

The BHP were given a number of requests for further information by the Committee and Dan Filson asked for a paper clearly setting out the issues for the Committee, the Council and the public.

Controversial Veolia Public Realm decision to be made at October Executive

Tomorrow the petition against Veolia being given the £250m plus Brent Public Realm contract will be presented to the Executive at the Civic Centre. The Bin Veolia campaign will be given 5 minutes to speak to the petition at the beginning of the meeting and there will be a demonstration of supporters outside the Civic Centre from 6.30pm.

Overnight the Council released  information that the Executive will make their decision at their October 14th meeting:

ITEM
To award the contract for public realm services including waste, recycling, street cleaning, winter gritting and grounds maintenance for Brent Council land and Brent Housing Partnership parks and open spaces and approve any consequential recommendations.

The campaign for Veolia's exclusion is based on the claim that their activities in the Occupied Territories of Palestine provide infrastructural support for the illegal settlements and that this amounts to 'grave misconduct'.

In June an Israeli court fined TMM Integrated Recycling Industries, owned by Veolia, NIS 1.5m for burying waste after finding inconsistencies between the company's reports on the amount of waste it had handled - and for which it had to pay a fee - and the actual amounts disposed of.

Th judge said it was amazing how the company was able to transform large qualities of waste into 'sorting remnants' in a single day without any additional manpower, overtime hours or additional shifts - and amazingly it happened as soon as the landfill fee was  instituted.
Source: Haaretz 13.6.13

The Executive report on the contract will not contain full information: LINK

The report will contain an appendix wih confidential information as specified in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, namely: information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding the information); confidential information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Brent Council has been playing cat and mouse with Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign over legal issues to do with the procurement process. The withholding of information by the Council has led some experienced legal advisers to suggest that there could be grounds for a Judicial Review in the future.

The exchanges over an FOI request can be found HERE

Brent Housing Partnership Talkback meeting and surgery tonight

Brent Housing Partnership, Brent Council's 'arm's length' social housing provider, is holding its first  ever Residents' Talkback Forum tonight at Brent Town Hall. The BHP's Chief Executive Gerry Doherty, will be there as well as senior managers and other staff. The 7-9pm Talkback session will be preceded by a 'Surgery' between 5.30 and 7pm where residents can ask about repairs, anti-social behaviour, rent, leasehold or estate services. The meetings will be held upstairs at the Town Hall in Committee Rooms 1,2 and 3.

The BHP faces an uncertain future with the possibility that Brent Council will bring social housing back in-house in the future.