Skip to content

Agenda item

Housing Association Scrutiny - The Guinness Partnership

Minutes:

The Committee received a presentation from Nahide Cook, Regional Manager, and Jon Milburn, Group Development Director, on Guinness’ work as a landlord in the borough.

 

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The Guinness Partnership managed 633 properties in Islington. Following the Grenfell Tower fire, flats on Hungerford Road and Percival Street had been found to have flammable cladding, and as a result the organisation was working closely with the council’s Emergency Planning team. Guinness commented on the importance of being honest with residents and communicating risks to them regularly. Vulnerable residents had been offered person centred fire safety assessments, and escape routes were checked daily. Fire wardens were on site 24 hours a day and carried out observations every 15 minutes. The organisation had carried out repairs to all fire doors in the blocks, regardless of tenure. Fire alarms at Hungerford Road had also been linked to The Bridge School, which was located below the flats. Details of vulnerable residents were located in a locked fire-proof safe which the Fire Brigade could access in an emergency.

·         There had been relatively few cases of anti-social behaviour associated with Guinness properties in the borough.

·         Guinness believed that there was further scope for more joint working with Islington Council, particularly in helping to minimise litter and fly tipping around Guinness properties.

·         It was commented that Guinness was keen to develop social housing in the borough, however was concerned by the seemly slow planning process in Islington. It was commented that Guinness had received planning permission for 500 houses in Milton Keynes within six months, however a 25 unit scheme in Islington had taken 30 months so far and had still not received approval. The scheme would deliver 9 social rented units and three shared ownership units, as well as nursery space. It was suggested that such delays influenced the organisation’s investment decisions.

·         Resident satisfaction was behind target; however data was only available at a national level. The level of resident satisfaction was comparable to many other national housing associations, and Guinness recognised that there was work to be done to improve services for tenants.

·         Five Guinness properties had been let in Islington over the past year; two had been allocated to those on the Council housing register, three had been let via internal transfer.

·         Guinness processed voids in 16 days, significantly below the 27.5-day target.

·         Arrears in Islington were slightly higher than expected, 3.65% as opposed to the 3.5% target. Arrears had increased since the introduction of universal credit and welfare reform.

·         All Islington properties had received a gas safety check in the previous year.

·         Guinness let properties at affordable rents, which was a maximum of 65% of market rental value.

·         Nationally, Guinness completed 84.2% of repairs on time. Guinness considered this to be satisfactory. Repairs were completed by one contractor in London. A new contractor had been appointed last year, and although there had been some initial performance issues, indicators suggested that the service was improving. It was explained that the organisation had an in-house provider in the North and South of England and it was hoped that this in-house service could be offered in London in future.

·         Guinness achieved a surplus of £96million in the previous year, however it was commented that this was an extraordinary year in which Guinness’ finances were boosted by property sales in London and Brighton. Guinness had budgeted for a surplus of £53million in 2017/18, however this would not be achieved as around £6million had been spent on fire safety improvements. In 2018/19 the organisation would seek to achieve a 30% operating surplus, which was comparable to other national housing associations. Following a question from the Committee, it was emphasised that this surplus was re-invested back into providing housing services.

·         The Committee expressed concern that Guinness did not pay the London living wage.

·         Investment in Guinness properties was prioritised in accordance with safety, stock condition, and resident feedback. The organisation spent £70million on maintenance each year.

·         The organisation had not sold any properties in Islington in recent years. Although there were no immediate plans to sell properties in Islington, this could not be ruled out.

·         Arrears had increased following the introduction of welfare reform, and around 20% of tenants on universal credit were now in arrears. The organisation was targeting communications at affected residents, and had not yet evicted any tenants as a result of those arrears. The organisation was also helping residents to apply for relevant benefits and a hardship fund was available in certain circumstances.

·         The Committee expressed concern that 20% of universal credit tenants being in arrears was not sustainable. A member suggested that the organisation should guarantee that it will not evict any tenants if they are in hardship as a result of welfare reform, and suggested that further work with local authorities may provide vulnerable people with more targeted support.  Guinness had revised its business plan to account for higher debt levels.

·         It was commented that many Guinness residents in arrears were not in receipt of all of the benefits they were entitled to, and the organisation was therefore pro-actively contacting residents to signpost them to local services. It was emphasised that Guinness was keen to work with residents experiencing financial hardship; staff had worked overtime to provide advice to residents on evenings and weekends. 

·         A member commented that local ward councillors had been in contact with residents at Percival Street who were worried about fire safety. It was commented that the performance information provided did not correlate to the experiences of residents, and there was problematic damp and mould in some Guinness’ properties. The Guinness representatives advised that the damp and mould issues would be investigated further.

·         A member commented that Guinness rental levels were comparatively higher than Islington Council properties, and classifying 65% of market rate as affordable was roughly double the target rent level for the borough.  Guinness agreed that classifying 80% of market rate as “affordable” was not appropriate for London, and clarified that the rental level of some schemes was less than 65%; the organisation was developing housing in Brixton which would be rented for around 50% of market rent. It was commented that the organisation tried to keep rental levels within the Local Housing Allowance cap.

·         Following a question, it was commented that data on vulnerable residents was compiled from self-referrals and referrals from relevant agencies. The organisation did not have the resources to assess the needs of every resident, however referrals were made to relevant support organisations as appropriate.

·         A member of the public asked if Guinness would publish fire risk assessments for all of its properties, as Islington Council had. In response, it was advised that this was not possible as Guinness managed 66,000 properties nationwide. 

 

The Committee thanked Nahide Cook and Jon Milburn for their attendance.

 

Supporting documents: