Report attached.

It was reported that the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 introduced new consumer standards, enabling the council to inspect Housing Associations and require Performance Improvement Plans.

It was stated that Housing Associations account for a third of social housing in the borough. For low cost rentals, the general needs stock consisted of 8153 LARP units and 4243 PRP units. The average weekly net rent for LARP units in Havering was £112.78. For PRP units, it was £133.39.

It was reported that the council has nomination arrangements with all Housing Associations in the borough. There was a large degree of cooperation between the council and Housing Associations. Some of the larger Housing Associations load their properties onto LBH’s LC system, to be advertised online. Other Housing Associations send property details to LBH, to be advertised online. There have been meetings between Housing Association nomination staff and LBH staff to make sure the system operates effectively.

It was reported that there is significant cooperation regarding housing development, especially concerning section 106 agreements. When a private developer or Housing Association is developing housing, they have to provide a certain proportion as affordable housing. A recent problem is the inability of developers to find a suitable housing association to purchase the social housing on new developments. It was stated that the council has some regeneration arrangements with Housing Associations, for example with Notting Hill Genesis in Rainham and Beam Park, which was an effective joint venture.

It was reported that there is significant cooperation regarding housing management, and particularly cooperation in the maintenance of properties. The council’s Housing Strategy and Partnership Service leads the development of this working relationship. Regular meetings and forms have been held to discuss nominations and letting arrangements. Nonetheless, Havering’s relationship with Housing Associations is less developed than those of other boroughs (which have joint repair services, for example).

It was stated that every Housing Association has their own structure for resident engagement, which helps them to manage their stock well. Some have tenants on their board.

It was reported that there are a lot of arrangements between the council and Housing Associations regarding anti-social behaviour. The council can issue Community Behaviour Orders and Noise Abatement Notices. The larger Housing Associations in the borough have attended forums with the council, to discuss common approaches to anti-social behaviour and tenancy management.

Attention was drawn to appendix 1, which contains detailed figures on the numbers of Housing Association Stock. Anchor Hanover Group operated in 245 other local authorities, London and Quadrant Housing trust operated in 139 other local authorities, and The Guinness Partnership Limited operated in 133 other local authorities. The number of other local authorities Housing Associations operate in has changed their relationship with each local authority in the last 15 years. In Havering, there was now no local Housing Association based here.

In response to a question about how and why Havering’s relationship with Housing Associations is different to other boroughs, it was stated that local authorities used to have Housing Association Liaison Officers to manage the relationship through HALO meetings. In boroughs where that was effective, there was usually a core of Housing Associations active in the borough (that core could be as few as 20 Housing Associations). As associations have amalgamated, the connections they have with local authorities has diminished, their head office has become more distant, and their ability to send someone to a meeting with the local authority has changed. Whereas Housing Associations used to have a statutory duty to cooperate with local authorities to help homeless households, that incentive for cooperation no longer exists. Local authorities have also become less involved in the regulation of housing associations.

A question was asked regarding the 4000 Housing Association properties that the council uses, and how many of them are occupied by Havering residents or residents from out of the borough. The response was that all of these are let through the council’s allocation scheme, and 95 to 100% of tenants in these properties were local.

In response to a question about the council’s nomination rights on new lets and re-lets, and the possibility of residents from outside the borough moving in, it was stated that in practice, most housing associations don’t have a list. If you’re a Housing Association tenant and want to move, you have nowhere to put your name on a list, so you put your name on the council’s list. It was suggested that this is cheaper for Housing Associations, because maintaining a list is expensive. Some boroughs subsequently charge Housing Associations for nominations.

In response to a question about Swan Housing Association Limited’s 290 general needs bed spaces (compared to zero for all other housing associations in Havering), it was suspected that this is simply a data issue, and only Swan submitted data for this column of the table.

A question was asked about potential other arrangements to manage housing, given the difficulty of finding suitable Housing Associations to purchase social housing. It was responded that Housing Associations have shifted their focus from new builds to maintenance of their stock. This has meant Housing Associations are more cautious about where they invest in new stock, focussing on building themselves rather than purchasing from private developers. Some associations have been stuck with stock bought from private developers that turned out to be lower quality than they expected. So they are being more cautious in the market, and in which developers they work with. There has also been a size issue: in Havering, there are lots of medium size developments which produce 5-10 affordable units. These are not attractive to associations, due to issues of management and price. This presents challenges for the council. The council has tried to bring Housing Associations and private developers together so that affordable housing comes through. One challenge of the management model is that section 106 agreements require developers to deliver affordable housing in perpetuity, and it can be difficult to show housing will continue to be affordable if it’s on a fixed-term management agreement.

A question was asked regarding the possibility of Housing Associations being reluctant to take up large numbers of social homes built by developers, and the possibility that the council will end up receiving small section 106 payments instead. It was responded that commuted sums are often asked for by developers. Big developers want to reduce affordable housing, and local authorities want to increase it, so there are complex negotiations. It was observed that section 106 needs reviewing.

In response to a question about what the council needs to get Housing Associations to develop social housing, instead of the council receiving commuted sums, it was responded that the council can influence the type of social housing built when the council has had some control and influence over the design (eg. at Quarles, where the quality of stock turned out well).

A question was asked regarding the council’s degree of quality control over the property advertisements on its website, given that internal photos and room sizes are often omitted, and potential residents are sometimes denied the opportunity to view the property in person. The response was that the council does lots of work with Housing Associations on their adverts, but our current allocations policy doesn’t help Housing Associations to sell their properties: people aren’t shown enough information about the property online, and there are insufficient opportunities to view the property in person. It was reported that the council is moving to a system where people can bid for as many properties as they like, and go to see them. It was hoped that this will expose the hard-to-lets, and landlords will have to work harder to let properties (by including better information on adverts, and showing off their flats when people see them).

A question was asked regarding how communication and collaboration can be measured. The response was that this isn’t measured scientifically, and is more of a feeling. The council didn’t have a single officer responsible for managing the relationship with Housing Associations. Lots of officers do their bit.

In response to a question about the council’s ability to acquire an association’s properties if that association got into financial difficulty, it was stated that the council can, in theory, acquire properties from a variety of sources, but only if it is affordable within the HRA business plan. There are reasons to be cautious about buying stock that another landlord is selling.

In response to a question about the legislative levers the council has to make Housing Associations help to improve the quality of life of residents in Housing Association stock, it was stated that the council has very few levers to pull. Section 106 agreements relate to who can live in a property, so the council has some influence here. There were some other arrangements for stock transfer agreements. The council has some control on the planning side, to influence what Housing Associations can do with properties and the sale of properties. Some Housing Associations ask the council to lift restrictions so they can sell properties. It was reported that the council has some influence with the Housing Ombudsman, but this is very limited. The council has no influence on the regulator.

A question was asked about whether the council needs the resources to appoint an officer to be responsible for managing the relationship with Housing Associations. It was responded that this may be useful, but the proposal could be financially difficult because it would be a general fund position. In particular, the council doesn’t have the capacity in the Strategic Performance Service to negotiate effectively on section 106 agreements. It was stated that the council would benefit from negotiating effectively and early enough.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration was asked whether the council is bringing larger Housing Associations into conversations around the local plan refresh, including in Beam Park. The Cabinet Member responded that most of the new developments will be owned and controlled by the council. He added that the local plan is not yet advanced enough to discuss Housing Associations. He would prefer for the council to have greater control because, for example, Housing Associations don’t put enough money into managing anti-social behaviour.

It was stated that councillors should be respectful of Housing Association colleagues, given some shortcomings in the council’s Housing department in the past.

A question was asked about why the council might prefer to receive commuted sums. In response, it was stated that the council would always prefer to get the property, and a commuted sum would be a reluctant compromise. The council only has a small number of commuted sums.

It was agreed that the Planning Team will find out how many commuted sums were received in the last few years, and the reasons for them.

Regarding the possible need for a specific resource to manage relationships with Housing Associations, it was responded that the level of development in the borough is low. This business is not currently sufficient to justify a resource for managing the relationship with Housing Associations.