This morning's Brent Cabinet discussed progress on addressing the improvement plan demanded by the Social Housing Regulator after the Council's self-referral. 'Historic failings' on repairs and maintenance were condemned.
Lead Cabinet member Donelly-Jackson said that the progress report was 'necessarily frank' but the council was now aiming to be easy to contact, quick to respond and with clear communication.
Leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt, said, 'Even one failing for one resident is a reflection on all of us...we are the only ones they can come to. They can't go anywhere else.'
Summarising he said, 'We hold ourselves accountable for all our failings.'
Fine words but the entrance door on a South Kilburn block above, reported on November 14th if not before, has still not been repaired. It is not a fire door as first thought, but is a security door. Despite a council claim that it has been 'made safe' pending repair, it is still open. This is way byond the 8-10 days promised and well outside the new regulations for urgent safety issues.
Just yesterday in Harlesden I spoke to a tenant in a Brent Council block where gound floor sewage leakage had been reported frequently for months but never effectively irradicated.
Clearly there is much to be done before the Council can claim to have solved its long-term 'historic failings.'
Cllr Jumbo Chan at Brent Full Council on September 15th 2025
Cllr Jumbo Chan, who has quietly and assiduously been doing a very competent job as vice chair of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee, took just 2 and a half minutes at Full Council to inform his fellow councillors of the upcoming serious financial issues facing Brent Council. There was no reaction or questions from his colleagues. Cllr Chan is one of the recently deselected councillors.
His Committee meets again on Thursday and will consider the Interim Auditor's Annual Report LINK , a report on Council's work on actions following the Social Housing Regulator's finding of serious failings in Brent Housing Management LINK, and the Council's Risk Register.
It is clear that whoever forms the next adminstration after the May 2026 local elections will face a very rocky, if not perilous ride.
The biggest impact and most likely risks include the number of people needing homeless accommodation, the High Needs SEND grant deficit, financial resilience (including the Housing Revenue Account following the repairs needed in the light of the Social Housing Regulator's findings) and a decline in Council reserves.
The Auditor's report, despite the bland language, suggests that without further cuts and revenue raising the Council might have to apply for additional emergency government funding (Exceptiona Financial Support) at high interest rates.
AUDITOR'S REPORT
Here are some of the key points (my highlighting in bold):
Background
The Council faced continued
financial pressures in 2024-25, with a £15.5 million overspend driven largely
by rising temporary accommodation costs. While reserves were used to balance
the General Fund, the situation remains challenging. Saving plans delivered
targeted £8 million in savings. A balanced budget of £431.4 million is set for 2025-26,
including an additional £15 million for homelessness, which will cover current
demand based upon 2024-25 numbers. However, homelessness pressures are expected
to grow, adding further strain. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and Housing
Revenue Account (HRA) also face financial pressure, with deficits and housing
regulatory concerns highlighting the need for a robust, long-term financial
recovery plan.
Key Recommendation 1
The Council must urgently take additional
difficult decisions to ensure that a realistic budget can be set for next year
and in the medium-term, so this can be delivered without the need to further
draw on reserves nor Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) from central
government
The funding gap
The difference between any
council’s annual income and expenditure is the ‘funding gap’. The budget
process aims to close this gap by identifying expenditure savings, additional
income or using reserves to provide a balanced position. Any increase at the
Council in demand or costs, higher than the growth forecast in the Medium Term
Financial Strategy (MTFS), will require more savings or additional income to
offset.
The MTFS, dated February
2025, anticipates a cumulative budget gap of £28 million by 31 March 2029,
highlighting increasing financial pressures. Chart 1 sets out the savings and
growth delivered to date and projected over a six- year period.
• Forecast growth for
2026-27 to 2028-29 in the MTFS is reduced to approximately £26 million per
year, which is around 50% lower than the £53.3m million growth budgeted for in
2025-26.
• Forecast savings for
2026-27 to 2028-29 are only marginally higher than those required in 2024-25
and 2025-26.
This indicates considerable
pressure in the current MTFS with limited scope to absorb unforeseen cost
pressures.
Current spending levels
across the Council are deemed unsustainable and pose a risk to the Council's
financial sustainability. Without
additional income, additional savings
(which links to Key Recommendation 2), or
service cuts, the Council is at risk
of delivering overspends which
cannot be supported by remaining reserves.
Impact: If the Council fails
to manage demand for services and deliver against budgets the reserves levels
will threaten its financial sustainability. Exceptional Financial Support (EFS)
may be necessary for 2027-28, which would entail borrowing
at a premium to cover revenue costs.
Key Recommendation 2: It is
critical that savings through the Embrace Change Transformation Programme are
quantified and integrated into the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) providing
a pipeline of
sufficient recurrent savings and income generation schemes supported by robust business cases through
collaboration and business transformation.
Areas for Improvement - disposal of property assets
Using the property strategy
to identify assets that are not operational and not required for service
delivery could provide the Council with a pipeline of potential capital
receipts which could support the financing of the capital programme. This could
reduce long-term borrowing and mitigate additional financing costs. Any plans
for asset disposal should be built into the Medium-Term Financial Strategy with
realistic timescales, to mitigate potential Exceptional Financial Support needs
in 2027-28
Improvement Recommendation 1
Area for improvement: Using
the property strategy to make best use of assets, including the identification of
non-operational assets.
Area for improvement:
Strengthening the medium-term financial strategy to reflect and mitigate risks
from the Direct Schools grant (DSG) and Housing Revenue Accout) HRA balances.
The statutory override on
Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) deficits is extended to 2027-28, but the
Council’s £13.6 million cumulative deficit remains unresolved, posing a
material risk to the MTFS beyond the override period. Alongside pressures in
the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), where compliance risks and rising costs
threaten long-term sustainability, these issues require urgent financial
planning and reserve management.
Evidence: Many councils are
reporting significant deficits in their DSG accounts due to rising demand for
SEND services, especially Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs).
Management has actively
managed the cumulative deficit DSG position from a high of £15.9 million in
2021-22 to £13.6 million at 31 March 2025. It is a strong achievement to have
reduced the cumulative deficit and curtailed significant increases, with £1
million received from the Department for Education to mitigate in- year
overspends, helping to maintain the deficit and prevent further growth. The
Council's DSG Deficit Management Plan has been updated to cover up to and including
2027-28, in line with the extension to the statutory override, by which time
the forecast DSG cumulative deficit could be £20.3 million mitigated or £31.3m unmitigated.
Uncertainty remains around how the DSG deficit will be managed if the statutory
override is not extended beyond 31 March 2028, and this is not built into the MTFS.
Meanwhile, the HRA shows a
provisional £2.1 million surplus for 2024-25, but long-term sustainability is
threatened by housing stock refurbishment costs and debt.
The HRA faces significant
risk, indicated by the Council's self-referral to the Regulator of Social Housing
which resulted in a “C3 – significant improvement needed” grading for failing
to meet the Safety and Quality Standard in relation to accuracy and completion
of fire safety data and housing repairs, highlighting compliance risks and
potential cost increases.
Continuous monitoring and assessment are
necessary as the Council develops a recovery plan which needs to be funded by
the HRA reserve.
BRENT HOUSING MANAGEMENT
The Brent Housing Revenue Account (HRA) had an underspend of £2m in financial year 2023-24 but will be under strain as a result of the works needed to satisfy the Social Housing Regulator and to ensure tenants and leaseholders safety, which is the main consideration.
The Action Plan on the issues raised by the Regulator was due early this summer and delayed until September the but still not published. The report before the Audit Committee threfore does not contained a costed programme to ensure compliance and we don't yet know its impact on repairs and rents.
Extracts from the report: [My coments in square brackets]
The Health and Safety Specialist have been contracted to support ongoing improvement work, providing additional objective and independent oversight, as well building safety expertise.
Caldiston Ltd have carried out an independent forensic audit across all key compliance workstreams (including fire, gas, electrical, water, asbestos and decent homes requirements) which was completed in August 2025. The audit involved desktop reviews, staff interviews and validation of data from multiple systems in use by the service, including True Compliance, NEC, and LifeSpan. [Will audit and recommendations be made public?]
The audit aligned with officers' concerns, validating the referral to the regulator confirming that there were significant systemic issues, particularly in data management, governance, and policy implementation. The overall outcome of the audit was that the housing management service has inadequate assurance in relation to managing building safety and compliance.
Key recommendations from the audit include developing a comprehensivecompliance framework, resolving data integrity issues, closing overdue fire risk assessment actions, establishing central registers for smoke and CO detectors,and providing staff training on compliance processes. It is also recommended to implement dashboards for real-time KPI monitoring and align the Strategic Risk Register with actual risks.
The findings from the audit have highlighted and clarified several areas that the service had already identified as needing focus as well as some additional key learning. These findings will now feed into the development of a robust action plan for improvement. [Publication when?] This action plan will also include root cause analysis (as recommended by The Regulator), to ensure permanent solutions are in place to prevent similar issues arising in the future and will form a key part of the agenda and monitoring for the relevant project board under the newly established Housing and Tenant Improvement Programme.
Ongoing improvement work
Whilst the reflective audit work is vital for lesson learning and effectively mapping robust and long-term improvements to our management of building safety, it has been important to us as a service to ensure we are driving forward rapid improvements on the ground to strengthen oversight quickly and provide re-assurance for our residents
The Compliance Team have been onboarding additional contractors to expedite the completion of works as a consequence of Fire Risk Assessments, and as of 1 September it is confirmed that all outstanding high-risk fire actions in high-rise blocks have been satisfactorily addressed; either closed with evidence, completed and closed with evidence or work booked. [Figures for each category?]
The rebuild of True Compliance and the NEC asset register is underway [Expected completion date?], and additional governance has also been implemented around the management of data, in particular restricting property creation access which provides a more controlled approach to new properties being added to the system and feeding into compliance workstreams accurately.
The compliance team has been progressing with recruitment. A Compliance and Contract Manager, a dedicated electrical manager, a Quality and Delivery Manager and an interim Contract Officer all started in September. Two permanent Contract Officers are being shortlisted currently, all with a focus on compliance and safety.
Furthermore, the Housing & Tenant Satisfaction Improvement Board met for its initial meeting in September. [Please publish Minutes for transparency and accountability]
This Board, chaired by the Chief Executive, will oversee and drive initiatives aimed at improving the quality of housing services and increasing tenant satisfaction.
The Board will provide governance and oversight by monitoring the progress of improvement initiatives and ensuring compliance with housing standards. [Will results be pubished?]
Significant progress has been made in addressing the data issues highlighted in the audit report. Our priority has been to validate the ownership and the council’s compliance responsibilities of all properties on our Housing Database, NEC. This work is essential to build confidence in our data and provide a reliable foundation for reporting.
We are currently in the process of systematically reviewing each compliance stream, starting with Gas. This will confirm the properties that fall in or out of scope, and importantly, for what reason. Whilst the audit highlighted that confidence in the reporting number is low, we are using these figures as a baseline so that improvements can be clearly appreciated as our validation work progresses. This will result in the reported asset numbers changing as properties are validated and confirmed in work streams, and percentages fluctuating because of this.
This data correction work is not limited only to the properties we report on to the Regulator (i.e. council owned homes) but has been expanded to all residents in our properties e.g. leaseholders, i4B and FWH tenants etc. This ensures a consistent, council-wide approach that strengthens both safety andassurance moving forward.
A section of the report deals with financial considerations but not in detail:
Financial Considerations
Like other local authorities, Brent is facing significant financial pressures and is continuously needing to look for efficiencies to address budget challenges. Some of the main challenges that could affect the long-term viability of the HRA Business Plan along with rent levels are major works and repairs.[How, increased rents and reduced works and repairs as in Kensington and Chelsea?]
As the Council adds more stock to its portfolio and complexities of new additional requirements to building standards are increasing, such as fire safety works and decarbonisation, the cost of major works are rising. At the moment, there is insufficient government subsidy available to address these changes.
The Asset Management Strategy and investment plans must be approached cautiously and allow for flexibility to scale back on schemes where required. Careful budget monitoring and financial planning are crucial. With a current 5.75% loan rate for the HRA, £1m in borrowing costs the HRA circa £28k per annum in interest costs.
The specialists that have been appointed to assist with the recovery of the compliance breaches, are currently undertaking an initial assessment of the situation with the intention of developing a recovery programme. [Cost of specialists?[
Upon completion of the initial assessment, a paper will be presented setting out the anticipated costs and financial implications. For comparative purposes, a registered provider with 21,000 homes that were in a similar situation, spent £2.3m on their recovery programme. [Brent Housing Management manages approximately 8,000 council homes, 4,000 leaseholds, and 31 Gypsy and Traveller pitches]
It should be noted that whilst operating under a regulatory notice, access to grant funding for housing developments may be reduced or ceased, until the council can evidence a position of compliance.
As of the 1st September 2025, the
council claim that all outstanding fire risk action in all of their high rises
has been addressed, after they were self-referred to the regulator by Brent
Council.
The council claim they are making good
progress towards meeting all the safety compliance standards identified by the
regulator and are working on an Improvement Plan to rectify all the compliance
issues.
They also claim they have been keeping
tenants and leaseholders fully informed about the progress they are making with
the plan, but I have not seen any evidence so far that supports their claim.
However, the council report that they
have set up a multi-channel engagement strategy to communicate with residents
over their response to the regulator’s judgement. One of the key
components of the strategy will give us an update on the new repairs contract,
as all the costs of meeting the compliance standards are coming from the
Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget which includes repairs.
I assume this new strategy replaces the
Tenants and Resident Engagement strategy that was implemented in 2024.
Cllr. Donnelly-Jackson is working on an
E-newsletter in which she will provide an update of all the progress the
council have made since their self-referral to the regulator at the end of
April 2025.
As for how much this will cost, the
council have not worked it out yet, but it will be at least a million but
probably a lot more. The council also report that they are facing
ever increasing costs of Major Works, which is likely to affect leaseholders
who have to pay a share of the costs.
Brent Council told us they would keep
residents up to date regarding their response to the Social Housing Regulator
by providing updates through their two scrutiny committee meetings. The regulator graded the council at C3 which
means the council has serious failings in the delivery of consumer standards
and significant improvement is needed. LINK
However, the Council have not published
anything in either scrutiny committee but instead announced that they will give
us an update at the 19th November Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny meeting.
At the Audit and Standards Committee
meeting on 16th June 2025, several councillors suggested that the council
needed to restore the Housing Scrutiny Committee. The council replied there was
no need as housing was already covered in their two scrutiny committees. LINK
But with nothing published regarding
the council’s response to the regulator, how will residents ever find out if
their homes are safe?
I thought the response to the regulator
might be discussed at next week's Full Council meeting, but it seems no one is
interested in this very important issue that affects the lives of everyone
living in a council home which currently stands at 8400 tenants and 4000
leaseholders.
At the end of May the Council reported
that they would take 6 weeks to carry out the housing repairs audit but then
extended it to 8 weeks. They were due to discuss it at Monday’s cabinet meeting
The Council will now publish an update on the performance of their housing
services on the 3rd October in papers tabled for the October 13th Cabinet
when they will also publish their Action Plan which responds to the regulator.Previously the Council reported they had major concerns with the Wates
contracts that were only given an extension back in April of this year and I
expect it will be highlighted in the report.
Obviously, there were several housing
delivery failures identified by the regulator, so all these reports are likely
to affect service delivery, especially on repairs for several years to come.
The Council have not explained why it
is taking so long to publish anything The audit should have been ready before
the end of July.
I can only speculate that the council
have uncovered so many issues, that they are finding it difficult to cover
everything before they give us the full picture.
Wembley Matters has recently pubished guests posts by Brent Council tenants of the St Raphael's and South Kilburn Estates LINK as well as the findings of the Regulator of Social Housing on brent Council's serious failings in housing management.
Asif Zamir of St Raphael's wrote to Spencer Randolph, Brent Director of Housing about the issues. His reply is below along with Asif's response.
Dear Asif Zamir,
Thank you for taking the
time to write on behalf of the residents of St Raphael’s Estate and sharing
your concerns regarding the condition and safety of your homes on the estate. I
want to begin by acknowledging the distress that the recent findings from the
Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) judgment, have understandably caused. Please
know that we take these matters extremely seriously, and yours and all of our
tenants safety and well-being remain our highest priority.
When we identified
inconsistencies in our safety data earlier this year, we acted swiftly and
responsibly by referring ourselves to the RSH. This was not a decision taken
lightly, but we believed it was the right and transparent course of action to
begin addressing the issues at hand with the seriousness they deserve.
Since then, we have taken a
number of urgent steps. We appointed an external health and safety consultancy
with experience in supporting organisations in similar situations. They have
engaged directly with the RSH and are supporting us in making rapid and lasting
improvements. Their work includes helping us to verify and update our
compliance data and to ensure all necessary safety checks are clearly recorded
and acted upon.
We have also commissioned an
audit of our systems and data, due to conclude in mid-July. This review will
identify the root causes of the failings and inform a detailed recovery plan,
underpinned by clear timelines and actions to ensure accountability.
In the meantime, we are
reviewing all compliance data and building safety actions using a risk-based
approach, prioritising high-risk issues. To help us move at pace, we are
increasing capacity in our teams, including recruiting additional officers and
contractors dedicated to this work.
We are also taking visible
action across the Borough and on St. Raphael’s Estate. Over the coming weeks,
residents will see more surveyors and contractors on estates as we carry out:
A new round of Stock
Condition Surveys to update our understanding of the condition of every home
Fire Risk Assessments for
all blocks of flats on estates
Pre and post-inspections to
make sure building safety actions are completed to a high standard
We will communicate clearly
and in advance about any visits to our tenants homes or buildings, and we are
committed to improving how we engage with you going forward.
Finally, I want to reiterate
that Brent Council is fully committed to learning from these failings and to
restoring your confidence in the safety and quality of your homes. We know that
words alone are not enough, you deserve to see real, sustained improvements,
and we are determined to deliver them.
Thank you again for sharing
your concerns.
Yours sincerely,
Spencer Randolph
Director – Housing Services
Dear Spencer Randolph,
Thank you for your prompt
response to my letter and for acknowledging the concerns of St. Raphael's
Estate residents following the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) findings. We
appreciate your transparency in referring Brent Council to the RSH, and we
understand that steps are being taken to address the issues.
While we acknowledge the
measures you've outlined, including the appointment of an external consultancy,
the audit of systems, and increased capacity within your teams, the residents
of St. Raphael's Estate require reassurance and immediate, tangible results to
ensure their safety.
The recent fire on St.
Raphael's Estate in May, which tragically led to the tragic loss of life of our
neighbours, has significantly heightened anxieties among residents. This
incident demands an urgent and thorough investigation into why the building experienced
accelerated combustion and further to this why the fire was not contained and
spread to the ajoining property.We need
clear answers regarding potential concerns with insulation, cladding, or the
overall build quality of the affected building and others on the estate.
Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about a potential correlation between this
tragic incident and the previously identified lack of safety data from Brent
Council.
While the planned surveys
and risk assessments are a welcome step, residents need to see these actions
translated into fast results. The fear of another incident is very real, and
waiting for audits to conclude in mid-July and for the implementation of
recovery plans does not alleviate the immediate anxieties.
We urge Brent Council to:
Prioritise the investigation
into the St. Raphael's Estate fire, providing residents with immediate updates
on preliminary findings regarding the cause of accelerated combustion and any
links to building materials or construction.
Share a clear and
accelerated timeline for addressing the most critical safety issues identified
by the RSH and through your ongoing reviews, particularly those related to fire
safety.
Demonstrate visible and
proactive measures on the estate now, beyond just surveys, to address any
immediate high-risk concerns.
Establish a direct and
ongoing communication channel with residents to provide transparent updates on
progress and address specific concerns arising from the fire and the RSH
findings.
We understand that systemic
changes take time, but the safety and peace of mind of St. Raphael's Estate as
well as residents from wider Brent cannot wait. We look forward to seeing swift
and decisive action that translates your commitment into demonstrable
improvements in the safety and quality of our homes.
Yours sincerely,
Asif Zamir
An old map of the original estate
Meanwhile Pete Firmin, a tenant on the South Kilburn Estate, has submitted a Freedom of Information request on the remit and makeup of the housing Advisory Board. LINK
Dear Brent Borough Council,
I
understand a Housing Advisory Board has been set up. Can you please tell
me:
1) Its remit.
2) Its composition - who is on the board and their qualification for doing so.
3) If there are residents on this board, how they were recruited and
what qualifications they were required to have to be on the board.
4) All correspondence relating both to the establishment of this board and the recruitment of its members.
