100s of landlords sign up to commitments in the CIH domestic abuse pledge

Make a Stand was launched in June 2018 as part of Alison Inman’s presidential appeal in June 2018 .

http://www.cih.org/makeastand

It centres around a pledge  developed in partnership with the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance (DAHA) and Women’s Aid.

There are 4 commitments:

• To put in place and embed a policy to support residents who are experiencing domestic abuse

• To make information about national and local domestic abuse support services available on your website and in other places which are easily accessible to residents and staff

• To put in place a HR policy and procedure on domestic abuse, or to incorporate this into an existing policy, to support members of staff who are experiencing domestic abuse

• Appoint a champion in your organisation to own the activity you are doing to support people experiencing domestic abuse.

Organisations have until September 2019, until Jim Strang’s presidency comes to an end, to put the commitments in place.

For more information click here.

A full list of the organisations which have signed up is available here.

Police investigations continue after the Hackitt review is published

The Metropolitan Police has expanded its investigation into the Grenfell Tower fire to look at 460 companies now thought to have been involved in the tower’s refurbishment.

At the same time….

The Chartered Institute of Housing have produced this excellent summary for  us on the Hackitt review of building regulations published a few weeks before.

WYNTK Hackitt Review

 

 

Accessibility to housing for disabled people

Here is a helpful report from Equality and Human Rights Commission:

housing-and-disabled-people-britains-hidden-crisis-easy-read-report

housing-and-disabled-people-britains-hidden-crisis-main-report

 

The report suggests:

  • disabled people are too often demoralised and frustrated by the housing system
  • there is a significant shortage of accessible homes
  • installing home adaptations involves unacceptable bureaucracy and delay
  • disabled people are not getting the support that they need to live independently

Lessons and case studies in working together for transformation

Grant Thornton, in collaboration with the District Councils Network (DCN) has produced a report showcasing some case studies on how working together can transform the services councils deliver for their residents, capitalise on the opportunities available and help them manage transformation in the most efficient and effective way in the 21st Century.

They admit that this is not a prescriptive guide on how to work well together or thrive successfully in the current economic climate but they have produced guidelines on how to manage such challenges effectively.

The report can be used by Scrutiny Panels and all Governance collaborators – take from it what you will.

Please click here to read the full report – beware its a large document 😉

5 lessons for great scrutiny

The Institute for Government has written a blog directed at new councillors and the top 5 questions they need to ask their officials.

With research to back up this article, it makes an interesting reading and is also suitable for Boards and tenants:

Here you go from CfPS:
Please follow this link to discover these 5 important questions.

 

 

10 lessons from Grenfell from LSE and National Tenants Centre

Anne Power at LSE has been working with the National Tenants centre in Cheshire.

Here is her fabulous blog:

How a tragedy changed the way we think about housing: Ten lessons from Grenfell

Lesson 1: There should be a single point of control for any multi-storey block so that everyone knows, whether it is staff, residents or emergency services, where to go and who is responsible whenever an emergency arises.

Lesson 2: A full record of work that has been done must be kept, including the costs, the rationale, the specifications and implementation, with a continuous sequence of recorded information from start to finish, handed over on completion to the responsible owner/manager.

Lesson 3: There should be the equivalent of an MOT test for all multi-storey, high-rise and tower blocks as they have complex and linked internal systems, involving the interaction of many different technical features including plumbing, electrical wiring, heating, lift maintenance, roofs, windows, walls, fire doors, fire inhabitors, and means of escape.

Lesson 4: The containment of fire within each individual flat (commonly known as compartmentation) is absolutely crucial. A breach in the party or external walls of flats, often caused by installing television wiring, gas piping, electric wiring, plumbing or other works, creates a conduit for fire.

Lesson 5: In-depth fire inspections should happen every year in every block, using qualified inspectors, checking walls, doors, equipment, cupboards, shelves, etc. to ensure there are no breaches of fire safety or containment.

Lesson 6: Knowing who lives in all the flats within a block, including leasehold properties, private lettings, and subletting with the right to enter, inspect and enforce where there is a potential hazard affecting the block, is essential to exercising control over conditions and safety. Leasehold agreements should specify the obligation to provide access keys in case of leaks, fire, or breaches of containment.

Lesson 7: On-site management and supervision maintains basic conditions and is essential for security. The landlord can then enforce a basic standard, both in the stairwells and within units. The proximity of neighbours makes enforcement of tenancy conditions vital.

Lesson 8: The maintenance of multi-storey blocks is an engineering challenge where precision and quality control are essential. Judith Hackitt’s Interim Review of Building Regulations recommends higher standards, stronger enforcement, and far greater professionalism in designing, delivering, and running complex multi-storey buildings.

Lesson 9: There should be no shortcutting on cost and quality as short term savings can lead of long-term costs, as Grenfell Tower shows.

Lesson 10: Tenants are entitled to have a voice in the safety, maintenance, and general condition of their blocks. They often know more than staff about who lives in blocks and about earlier works as they have often been around longer than housing staff. They know what changes have been made. They are valuable conduits for vital information, and can thus help their landlords and their community.

Government publishes final reports from the Grenfell Tower independent review

The review’s final report which was commissioned by government following the Grenfell Tower fire to make recommendations on the future regulatory system.

The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety is being led by Dame Judith Hackitt.

Its purpose is to make recommendations that will ensure we have a sufficiently robust regulatory system for the future and to provide further assurance to residents that the complete system is working to ensure the buildings they live in are safe and remain so.

It examines building and fire safety regulations and related compliance and enforcement, with a focus on high rise residential buildings.

This final report sets out over 50 recommendations for government as to how to deliver a more robust regulatory system for the future.

 

Here are the main reports from Dame Judith Hackitt’s report into fire safety from the Grenfell tower:

Building_a_Safer_Future_-_web

Building_a_Safer_Future_-_print

Appendix_B_-_Mapping_the_new_building_safety_regulatory_framework

Building_a_Safer_Future_-_foreword_and_summary

 

Here are the main recommendations from Inside Housing in summary:

“Tower blocks

Dame Judith Hackitt’s reportas tipped by Inside Housing, recommends a “new regulatory regime” for tower blocks. However, in a somewhat surprising move, this new regime will only apply to buildings with 10 or more storeys. The report does not specify why this particular threshold has been chosen.

Up until now, building regulation guidance has drawn a distinction between buildings with fewer than six storeys and those with six or more, recommending that greater care be taken for fire safety on taller buildings.

Some have suggested that this places unnecessary risk on buildings with five storeys, and there have been calls for the limit to be reconsidered.

This would not remove current requirements for buildings with between six and nine storeys, but would leave in place the current framework. It is important, therefore, to note that the new changes apply only to buildings above 10 storeys.

 

Banning combustible materials

Despite numerous groups calling on Dame Judith to ban combustible material in cladding systems, her final report has stopped short of calling for such a measure.

She writes: “A totally prescriptive system creates an over-reliance on the system by those working within it, discouraging ownership and accountability for decisions.”

The report adds: “The aim of this review is to move away from telling those responsible [for tower blocks] ‘what to do’ and place them in a position of making intelligent decisions about the layers of protection required to make their particular building safe.”

However, after widespread outcry over this decision, the government decided to ignore Dame Judith’s suggestion and potentially do the opposite – announcing a consultation on banning combustibles just hours after her review was published.

 

Large-scale testing regime

To reform the large-scale cladding testing regime, Dame Judith recommends that test houses should produce an annual report providing summary details of tests carried out and the number of passes and failures.

She does not, however, recommend any new oversight to the testing regime or that reports should be made public. At present, test reports are considered commercially confidential.

So-called ‘desktop studies’ have been used by industry to clear untested materials for use by extrapolating results from previous tests. Many groups, including MPs from five political parties, have called for this controversial practice to be banned.

This report stops short of a ban, but recommends that desktop studies should only be carried out by organisations accredited to run large-scale tests. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) runs the only large-scale cladding testing facility in the UK, so it would likely take on much of this work.

One aspect of desktop studies that has been criticised in the past is the substitution of products. For example, despite only one kind of aluminium cladding being subject to a large-scale test, numerous kinds have been cleared for use by desktop studies.

Dame Judith appears to sanction the substitution of products in limited circumstances, recommending only the “significantly reduced scope for substitution of any products used in a system without further full testing”.

 

Building control

Before Grenfell, many in the building industry have claimed, the privatisation of building control had led to a ‘race to the bottom’.

Dame Judith acknowledges this problem. She proposes that private ‘approved inspectors’ can still be used, but if they provide regulatory oversight they must be independent of builders, as opposed to the current system, which many have said amounts to builders choosing their own regulators.

The report recommends the rebranding of the Local Authority Building Control as ‘Local Authority Building Standards’.

This new body would have additional powers to issue ‘stop’ notices to builders, require changes to building work and work with an increased time limit for bringing prosecutions.

Builders would also be required to prove safety to building control more regularly than is currently the case: before getting planning permission, again before starting work, again before the building is occupied and regularly after occupation.

Approved Document B

Approved Document B is the government’s official guidance on how to comply with building regulations on fire safety. According to Dame Judith, the government is currently working with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and industry experts to redraft the document, including “clarifying the language used”.

This could be aimed at removing some of the ambiguities around the use of combustible materials in cladding, although Dame Judith has denied that there is any room for interpretation of the document around that point.

The report also recommends the publication of a new “over-arching Approved Document” that would cover how different parts of a building interact with each other.

 

Fire risk assessments

Before Grenfell, the vast majority of fire risk assessments were only ‘category one’, meaning they only looked at common parts, not including cladding, and did not look inside walls.

They were to be carried out by ‘competent persons’, but regulations provided no specific definition of competency, which has led, according to the Fire Protection Association, to hundreds of unregistered fire risk assessors operating in the UK.

Despite significant criticism of this system, Dame Judith does not recommend any change to the category one practice. She adds that government should not decide what makes a competent person.

One of her recommendations is that professional bodies should come up with set criteria for competence, but she stops short of saying that certification by one of these bodies should be compulsory.”

Unconference notes 26th April, Limelight Trafford HT

Thanks for all your support and the great feedback.

Here are the flip chart bullet point notes of the Unconference:

Unconf FChart NotesV2 26Apr2018

 

Here is the feedback:

Thanks its great and the ideas are good.

I like the idea of splitting up the bit at the beginning too, so i don’t have to talk so much and so you can all engage better – consider it done for next year

Unconference Feedback Form Summary 28Apr2018

 

Here is my policy and regulation presentation:

Environmental scan Unconf 18 26Apr

 

The newsletter will follow in a few weeks i promise ad i will send it out! ;)

Enhanced scrutiny in your business

CfPS have been reviewing how governance and scrutiny can be enhanced by the worforce.

Tim Gilling at CfPS says in their newsletter:

“A priceless asset of any organisation or business is insight from the workforce – the knowledge, skills and experience that people use every day to get the job done. But how many organisations or businesses make best use of that insight – to help identify risks and opportunities, build organisational resilience and improve the performance of projects or services? How do senior leaders or an executive board know that the decisions they make are informed by good insight from every part of the business or organisation?

Refreshing your approach to governance and scrutiny can help provide that assurance and help you deliver better outcomes for citizens or customers and better financial performance for your organisation or business. This means that governance and scrutiny need to become everyone’s responsibility, just like health and safety for example. All employees need to understand what good scrutiny is and do it well, as part of the ‘day job’. And there need to be effective ways for the outcomes from scrutiny to influence decision-making.

Creating the right culture and behaviours is vital, as well as training and processes. There is no quick fix, but by helping leaders and managers to change how they run meetings, interrogate data and work and think differently, scrutiny can become integral to your governance arrangements to fuel future success.

Skanska UK is a global construction company renowned for its value-based approach to business. In 2016, CfPS starting working with Skanska on a a new Quality of Scrutiny programme aimed at improving the quality and quantity of scrutiny carried out at all stages of their projects. As well as introducing new project gateways, the programme focused on scrutiny behaviours, skills and techniques with coaching and training aimed at the most senior leaders and now being rolled out UK-wide.

You can read a full case study of the programme here.

Councils, NHS organisations, housing associations, education providers, voluntary/community sector bodies and private businesses can all learn and benefit from this approach by:

  • increasing the confidence and ambition of your employees to spot risks and opportunities in projects or services and speaking up about them
  • developing a culture where everyone takes responsibility for better quality projects or services, supporting each other to succeed
  • planning a more solution-focussed approach to project or service review meetings
  • providing assurance for decision-makers that they have the best insight from the frontline
  • reducing risk of project or service failure and increasing prospects for better financial performance and/or outcomes for citizens or customers

 

Housing First – a homelessness support solution?

Housing First is an evidence-based approach to successfully supporting homeless people with high needs and histories of entrenched or repeat homelessness to

live in their own homes. It has been widely adopted across the US, is central to the national homelessness strategies in Canada, Denmark, Finland and France, and is growing in popularity in countries including Italy, Sweden, Spain and, increasingly, the UK. Successful Housing First pilots are operating in Newcastle, London, the Midlands, Greater Manchester, on the South Coast and in Wales and Scotland.

The overall philosophy of Housing First is to provide a stable, independent home and intensive personalised support and case management to homeless people with multiple and complex needs. Housing is seen as a human right by Housing First services. There are no conditions around ‘housing readiness’ before providing someone with a home;

……….rather, secure housing is viewed as a stable platform from which other issues can be addressed. Housing First is a different model because it provides housing ‘first’, as a matter of right, rather than ‘last’ or as a reward.

Here is one of the many useful publications on the shelter website on Housing First.

Many LAs have started to look at this collectively and are working together to use the methodology in this pilot here in the UK:

Housing First in England The Principles