Don’t panic!  All our previous content has moved carried over and we have a wider offer for customers in governance, financial viability, regulation, audit and value for money, from our new Lead Associate Mick Warner joining us exclusively, after 20 years at the Regulator of Social Housing.

Thanks to efficiency north for facilitating this importance conference in the light of the Social Housing White Paper and the Building Safety Regulator

Efficiency North 4.3.21

We will place the slides for you to view:

https://youtu.be/kfMZKza_0jw

Thanks to all the speakers and attendees for attending and interacting the conference.

We will be back in June with Resident Involvement Conference 2021 and the Tenant Panel Conference in November 2021.

The slides and a copy of the presentations as they were given for members on VC, are now available for the 7 plenaries and 6 workshops.

Here is the link to the  3 days conferences:

https://www.northern-consortium.org.uk/resources/delegate-resources/tenant-panels-2020-resources/

Thanks for all the great comments about the conference.

Here are my slides

Westminster Briefing, a new normal March 21

When the recording is available, we will add it here….

February was a relatively quiet month for the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) in terms of publishing Regulatory Judgements (RJs).

Only three RJs were published, with two resulting from stability checks and one following an In Depth Assessment (IDA).

As set out in the table below, all three providers had their existing grades confirmed.  Calico and First Choice Homes Oldham retained their ratings of G1 and V1 for Governance and Viability respectively, whilst Islington & Shoreditch’s was again assessed as G1 for Governance and V2 for Viability.

Islington & Shoreditch is graded as V2 for Viability due to the level of expenditure on major repairs, which is putting pressure on its interest cover ratios and consequently the provider has limited capacity to cope with any downside financial risk, including any under-performance in relation to development and property sales on the open market.

The Regulator placed five providers – 3CHA, Ash-Shahada HA, Concept HA, Hilldale HA and Pivotal HA – on its Gradings Under Review (GUR) list during February.

None of the providers have existing grades on the RSH’s website, either because they have less than 1,000 homes or because they have recently passed the 1,000 homes threshold.

In another packed meeting, we covered the following agenda items

Agenda Scrutiny Involvement staff Network 10.1.21

Here are the notes from Ian, who shared the experience of Leeds City Council of going digital. i have separately connected you all to Engagement HQ if you wish to receive a demo of the site:

Background

• Your Voice Leeds Purchased 1 licence, with a view to initial trial – went live in Nov 20
• Led by housing services – but kept name generic – as housing and community related consultations, and number of other council teams have come on board or shown an interest
• Currently 10 live consultations – mixture of issues/services – some citywide/some local.
• 4,100 visits to the site (people who are classed as ‘aware’)
• 717 residents better (people who have drilled down into additional content on a project page to be better ‘informed’)
• 60 residents are actively ‘engaged’ (participating making at least 1 or more contribution in terms of giving feedback, carrying out a survey etc)
• 143 site registrations – so small but steadily growing database of tenants, residents and others who can receive regular email newsletter updates about new projects etc

Hoping to achieve

• A platform to engage with a far broader range of tenants and for more diverse views and opinions
• An online home for all engagement that links with / supplements other person to person involvement.
• Closing the feedback loop – feeding back a summary of what heard and actioned as a result of people’s contributions.
• Ultimately – more responsive/customer focussed services – that’s reflected in what people think about us as a landlord
• More tenants and residents feeling that they feel listened to? and have the opportunity to give their feedback about projects and proposals (and to have this reflected in STAR?!)

Challenges

• Practical Hints/tips
  • Keep as simple as possible in terms of how engagement is presented
  • Use images to help bring to life
  • Use in-built survey builder – so people then register and we can stay in touch with them, rather than SMART/Survey Monkey etc – which takes them back out of the site
  • If something isn’t getting interaction – change the wording/pitch differently
  • Got some good feedback from trusted tenants before launched more widely e.g. some said ‘nervous about being the first’ to put in public comments – so now put in some comments from the team to get the conversation going.

• Rationale to invest clear (began prior to Covid) – but quite extensive work around Data Protection and the web team undertaking a website accessibility audit.
• 70% contact to council website through a smartphone – so likely similar for YVL – need to design content that’s smart phone user friendly
• Being patient –will take time to have high level of usage amongst tenants and residents – so lots of promotion– social media, texts, emails, local media coverage, radio coverage -– post covid – post-cards, flyers, door knocking, tablets.  Social media has been most successful to share projects so far.
• Not set ‘targets’ – but do track numbers
• Wider organisational support – some teams embraced, others more nervous – lots of questions about moderation, how we manage risks, are we raising expectations etc (but not new risks) – all things we should be able to manage.
• Building up evidence of impact
  • On a project by project basis
  • For the investment / VFM overall
  • To help demonstrate innovation and ongoing search for good practice – theme of resident involvement in White Paper?

Here is the link to the new Leeds Site

https://yourvoice.leeds.gov.uk/

Here are the links to the sites which are up and running now:

https://www.gateway2engagement.co.uk/

You asked about registration criteria for residents to comment -this varies -its up to the client – this might help as an example:

https://www.gateway2engagement.co.uk/register

Here is the link to Catalyst

Catalyst

Here is the presentation from Chris at Your Housing Group

Chris presented on their approach to tenant to tenant surveys work, under GDPR requirements:

Scrutiny Network presentation – GDPR

We discussed opportunities for joint training and the opportunity to support tenant training in the new era of influencing leaders and tenant board member training – we will pick this up and the next meeting.

The next meeting is on 11th March 2021, 10.30 to 12.30 on line – more information will follow, including the zoom appointment

For anyone who missed the meeting it was recorded, here you go:

https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/mY5TOSTHNCgB7tQmr6axY0TFBy9W3naYRfQ6QwiTt0aOxNjYZAnz7jntVObvdUv1.CPpGCz8N2smJUGau

You might expect that the meeting was dominated by the SHWP.

Here is my guidance note:

Our summary – Social housing White Paper, for residents

anyone who wishes to catch up on what they missed – give me a call and i can pass on the information

Here is the presentation we discussed at the meeting:

SHWP S.Net Nov 20

In the last week, the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) has published nine Regulatory Judgements (RJs), as well as placing one provider on its Grading Under Review (GUR) list. The RJs resulted mainly from stability checks (with some also featuring reactive engagement), with one arising from an In Depth Assessment (IDA).

Four providers – Brunelcare, First Garden Cities Homes (FGCH), Swan Housing Association and Watford Community Housing  – all had their existing grades confirmed. For FCGH and Watford Community, this means they have again been judged as G1 and V1 for Governance and Viability respectively. However, Brunelcare and Swan both retained gradings of G2 for Governance and V2 for Viability.

One provider, Hexagon Housing Association, saw its Viability regraded from V1 to V2 following a stability check. Hexagon’s headroom on its loan covenants is limited, particularly in the early years of its financial plan, which reduces the scope to cope with financial risks relating to development, housing sales and future stock investment needs. Hexagon’s Governance grade of G1 was confirmed.

Two providers –  Cornerstone Housing and Framework Housing Association – saw their Governance upgraded from G2 to G1 following reactive engagement and a stability check. Cornerstone’s Board’s oversight of strategic financial risk management and in particular stress testing had improved. Framework’s Board reporting on risk and performance had improved and it had completed its stock condition survey. The existing Viability grades of V1 for Cornerstone and V2 for Framework were confirmed.

One provider, One Housing Group, saw its governance downgraded from G1 to G2 following completion of a stability check and reactive engagement.  One’s decision-making has not consistently been supported by accurate data, which has impacted on the Board’s ability to foresee and manage risks from longstanding, legacy business activities. One’s Viability grade of V2 was confirmed.

The only RJ published following an IDA related to The Guinness Partnership, which confirmed the existing G1 and V2 grades for Governance and Viability respectively. However, the basis for Guinness’s Viability grade has changed, due to high levels of stock investment spend putting pressure on its interest cover ratios, as well as a sharp increase in the size of its development programme.

The provider which the RSH placed on its GUR list is Salvation Army Housing Association.  The RSH is investigating a matter which may impact Salvation Army’s compliance with the relevant elements of the Governance and Financial Viability Standard.  Salvation Army’s existing grades are G2 for Governance and V2 for Viability.

The full list of nine RJs is below.

Hello all

Thanks for supporting the conference in December 2020 and January 2021.

Here is your members only benefit .

You can now access to the slides and speeches of the RSH, HSE, NHF and some fabulous workshops from Thirteen, Salix, Together and Progress Housing Groups and much much more

Day 3 will follow on 3rd Feb – focussed on compliants with the Housing Ombudsman, health and safety with Orbit HG and digital engagement and scrutiny from Preston Community Gateway and Leeds CC.

https://www.northern-consortium.org.uk/resources/delegate-resources/tenant-panels-2020-resources/

Quarterly RJs, RNs and GUR listings – October to December 2020

In the latest quarter (October to December 2020) the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) published 142 Regulatory Judgements (RJs).

As a result, at 31 December 2020, the RSH’s website contained 212 RJs analysed as follows:

The final quarter of the calendar year is annual stability check season for the RSH and consequently 123 of the RJs published in the quarter followed stability checks. Of these, 117 confirmed existing grades, while in the other six cases the RSH also conducted reactive engagement resulting in grade changes:

• Five providers – bpha, Catalyst, Irwell Valley, Raven and Your – were re-graded from V1 to V2 on Viability. Factors cited in the re-grades included increased investment in existing homes (including fire safety and other building safety work), development plans, exposure to the housing market and increasing debt levels.
• Reside’s Governance was upgraded from G2 to G1 having addressed concerns, which the RSH had expressed in the RJ which it published in October 2018, relating to oversight of health and safety compliance, lease management, stress testing, its internal control assurance framework and management reporting to the Board.

12 of the RJs resulted from In Depth Assessments (IDAs).  The coronavirus pandemic had a significant impact on the RSH’s IDA programme in 2021.  Only 17 RJs were published from IDAs in the whole year and no IDA-based RJs were published at all between July and September.

Existing G1 Governance grades were confirmed in each of the RJs resulting from IDAs except one – Gentoo – which was upgraded from G2 to G1, due to the positive and continued progress which it had made in developing its governance arrangements, since the previous RJ was published in September 2019.  The publication of a G1 grading completes Gentoo’s recovery from being downgraded to G3 in October 2017.

Nine of the IDAs also confirmed existing V1 Viability grades, while Gentoo Group’s V2 grade was also confirmed. One provider, North Devon, saw its Viability judgement regraded from V1 to V2 due to an increased exposure to the housing market, while the Hastoe saw its Viability judgement regraded from V2 to V1, having reduced its development programme and its exposure to the housing market.

A further seven RJs resulted from Reactive Engagement (RE), with a mix of Governance upgrades and downgrades, and one first assessment.

• Prospect’s Governance was downgraded from G3 to G4, as, whilst it had made some progress since the previous judgement in May 2020, a number of further issues had been identified, including a failure to understand its assets, contractual arrangements and the needs of tenants; weaknesses in its control framework in relation to setting and collecting rents; weaknesses in procedures and controls over services delivered by third-party managing agents; and the failure to appropriately consult with tenants. As a result of Prospect’s ongoing problems, the RSH made three appointments to its Board, to increase the capacity and skills on the governing body. Prospect’s Viability judgement of V3 was confirmed.
• Ongo’s Governance was upgraded from G3 to G2, as, since the previous assessment in February 2019, it had reviewed and strengthened its governance arrangements, by refreshing membership of the Board, simplifying its structure, implementing a new risk management framework and improving transparency. Ongo’s Viability judgement of V1 was confirmed.
• My Space’s RJ was its first since it moved above the 1,000 home threshold. On Governance, it was judged to be at G3, due to weaknesses in its business planning framework, insufficient risk management processes and internal controls, and a failure on the part of the Board to manage the provider’s affairs well. On Viability, My Space was judged to be at V3, due to an inability to provide the RSH with a business plan based on appropriate and reasonable assumptions, as well as possessing no information on long-term stock investment requirements, or evidence that it undertakes stress testing. The RSH was also not assured that My Space’s rents met the requirements of the Rent Standard.
• Livv’s Governance was upgraded from G3 to G2, following a simplification of its governance and organisational structure, as well as implementing a new risk management framework to improve assurance that key risks are managed effectively. Livv had also strengthened its governance through a refresh of its Board and Executive teams, enabling more effective scrutiny. Livv’s Viability judgement of V1 was confirmed.
• GreenSquare’s Governance was upgraded from G2 to G1, as it had enhanced the skills mix in place on its Board, as well as improving the quality of reporting to the Board, improving health and safety compliance in turn. The recommendations of an independent review of GreenSquare’s governance were also implemented, improving its approach to risk management. GreenSquare’s Viability judgement of V2 was confirmed, although due to a large planned development programme, there is potential to significantly increase thitseir level of exposure to the housing market.
• ForHousing’s Governance and Viability judgments of G2 and V1 respectively were confirmed, with this judgement replacing a previous interim assessment which was published following a group restructure. The revised judgement follows whistle-blowing allegations relating to probity and a lack of transparency in decision making.
• Incommunities’s Governance judgement was downgraded from G1 to G2 in October due to a need to strengthen its risk management and control framework. In December, an RJ followed a Stability Check was published for Incommunities, which confirmed its published grades of G2 and V1.

The full list of 142 RJs is set out in Appendix 1.

As well as the RJs, two Regulatory Notices (RNs) and a Grading Under Review (GUR) listing were published in the quarter:

• Both RNs (for Trinity and Westmoreland Supported Housing) were published because the RSH had decided that they did not comply with the Rent Standard. Before the introduction of the Rent Standard, both were also required to comply with the legislative requirements of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 from April 2016 until March 2020 – both providers claimed an exception but they were unable to show the RSH that they met the exception criteria. Westmoreland was unable to provide assurance that most of its accommodation met the definition of Specialist Supported Housing (SSH).  Trinity was unable to provide assurance that most of its accommodation met the definition of either SSH or Temporary Social Housing (TSH). SSH and TSH are both excepted from the requirements of the Rent Standard.  Trinity’s Governance and Viability judgements had previously been assessed as G3 and V3 respectively in an RJ published in November 2018, while Westmoreland’s had been assessed as G4 and V3 respectively in an RJ published in September 2019.
• Towards the end of the quarter, a GUR listing was published for Brent Community Housing, as the RSH is investigating matters which may impact on Brent’s compliance with the Governance and Financial Viability Standard. As it has less than 1,000 units, Brent does not currently have published Governance and Viability grades.

All of the RJs, RNs and GUR listings published by the RSH can be accessed on the RSH’s website here.