Auckland Home Solutions CIC is non-compliant with the Governance and Financial Viability Standard, the Regulator of Social Housing has ruled.

The organisation joins a list of fellow lease-based providers and exempt accommodation providers who are falling foul of the standards the Regulator expects.

The March 2021 SDR stated Auckland owned and managed 817 units of social housing.

In this judgement, the RSH say:

  • Auckland has not ensured its governance arrangements deliver an effective risk management and control framework and has not demonstrated that it has managed its resources effectively to ensure its viability can be maintained.
  • Auckland has not been able to demonstrate that it has managed its affairs with an appropriate degree of skill, independence, diligence, effectiveness, prudence and foresight as part 2.2 of the Governance and Financial Viability Standard requires.
  • Auckland has also failed to ensure that it has an appropriate, robust and prudent business planning, risk and control framework in line with part 2.4 of the Governance and Financial Viability Standard.
  • Auckland has failed to ensure that any arrangements it enters into do not inappropriately advance the interests of third parties or are arrangements which the regulator could reasonably assume were for such purposes (part 2.6 of the Governance and Financial Viability Standard).
  • Auckland has been unable to demonstrate that it complies with the Rent Standard. Auckland has reported a significant majority of its stock is Specialised Supported Housing (SSH) or Temporary Social Housing (TSH) and therefore is excepted from the standard, but we lack assurance on how the board has satisfied itself that it is meeting this exception criteria.

Going further in the detail of the judgement, the Regulator has some strong words for the provider, for example in response to shareholders approving conflicts of interest: “We have not seen evidence that the board had considered the risks of leaving Auckland open to reputational damage and criticism as a result of individuals, with influence and connected to the parties involved, being perceived to benefit from those transactions”

You can see the full judgement here.