Following a scheduled inspection, the Regulator of Social
Housing has given LB Newham a C4 grading, indicating "very serious
failings" in delivering consumer standards, such that "the landlord
must make fundamental changes so that improved outcomes are
delivered."
The
inspection report states:
"Our judgment is based on the scale and breadth of the issues
identified during the inspection and the significant impact, or
potential impact, on LB Newham's tenants. The issues include a
failure to meet legal fire and electrical safety requirements, a
lack of accurate information on stock quality, repairs not being
completed on time, and homes not meeting the Decent Homes Standard.
LB Newham did not complete the Tenant Satisfaction Measure (TSM)
surveys within the specified timescale and has very limited
meaningful opportunities for tenants to influence and scrutinize
its strategies, policies, and services. LB Newham has indicated a
willingness to address the issues; however, it had not
self-referred to us before the inspection, nor had we seen evidence
that it had communicated with its tenants about the issues
identified. Fundamental changes are required to the service to
improve outcomes for tenants. LB Newham's response to date has not
yet provided evidence to assure us of its ability to put matters
right."
This is the first time a judgment has resulted in a C4 grading.
Gradings have been given to 15 local authorities since the new
consumer standards came into effect on April 1, 2024. Of these,
five are C2s-"some weaknesses - improvement needed"-and eight are
C3s-"serious failings - significant improvement needed." LB
Southwark's grading is under review. However, of these 15
judgments, only six have followed scheduled inspections, which
include all five C2s, along with Newham. The C3s all result from
what the Regulator calls "responsive" engagement, which in most
cases means self-referral by the authority due to a breach of
standards.
It seems clear from the judgment that Newham's failure to
communicate with its tenants about the problems it faced or to
self-refer to the Regulator contributed to the conclusion that the
council had not provided evidence of its ability to put matters
right, hence the C4 grading. The lesson for other councils faced
with a failure to meet one or more of the standards is that it may
be better to self-refer and take the "responsive" engagement route
rather than wait for a scheduled inspection.