The Regulator of Social Housing has ruled that two councils are in breach of part 1.2 of the Home Standard.

Because of the breach, “there was the potential for serious detriment” to tenants of both Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council and Cornwall Council.

After a self-referral, the Regulator said that Welwyn “failed to meet statutory health and safety requirements in relation to fire, water, electrical and asbestos safety.”

Going into further detail in the judgement, RSH said that on fire safety, “around 90% of applicable buildings had an overdue fire risk assessment (FRA).”

The judgement added: “There were also thousands of remedial actions identified in FRAs carried out in 2018 that had not been completed, around half of which had been given the highest risk rating and needed to be done immediately, or as soon as reasonably practical.”

On electrical safety, the Regulator found that “hundreds of its properties have never been inspected and a smaller number were inspected over ten years ago and the lack of recent inspections means the Council failed to have an assurance they were suitably maintained.”

It was a similar story for asbestos safety, with “over a hundred re-inspections and reviews of communal areas” being overdue.

There were also hundreds of homes without a compliant Legionella Risk Assessment.

On how the council will remedy the breach, the judgement concludes: “Since identifying these issues, Welwyn Hatfield BC has been working with an external consultant to develop and implement an action plan in order to strengthen its systems and return to a compliance.

“It has also looked to strengthen its housing compliance team. A programme of work has commenced, and we have been assured by Welwyn Hatfield BC that it has taken immediate and appropriate action to ensure the safety of tenants while the programme is being delivered.”

The story was a similar one for Cornwall Council, which has failed to undertake inspections on multiple safety related areas.

The Regulator found that “around 90% of applicable buildings do not have a current fire risk assessment (FRA). There were also hundreds of remedial actions identified in FRAs carried out between 2016 and 2018 that had not been completed” and that “hundreds of properties which had not had an electrical inspection within the last ten years, and inspections were also overdue for around almost a hundred communal areas in properties”.

For both water and asbestos safety, the Regulator reported that there were “hundreds of remedial actions overdue” and therefore these safety breaches posed a significant danger to tenants.

In terms of improving the situation, RSH said: “Cornwall Council has been working with an external consultant to undertake data reconciliation and develop and implement an action plan in order to strengthen its systems and return to compliance. A programme of work has commenced, and we have been assured by Cornwall Council that it has taken appropriate action to ensure the safety of tenants while the programme is being delivered.”

The Regulator of Social Housing also delivered other judgements, including a viability downgrade for CHP.

While keeping its G1 rating and being praised for having an “adequately funded business plan, sufficient security and is forecast to continue to meet its financial covenants”, the Regulator ruled that the organisation will move from a V1 rating to a V2.

The RSH say: “CHP has, however, material risks that it needs to manage. It is forecasting increased levels of expenditure on stock investment to improve energy efficiency and building safety. In addition, CHP is increasing the scale of its housing development and investing in a new operating model to deliver efficiencies. These factors put pressure on CHP’s interest cover performance.”

Bournemouth Churches Housing Association have been issued the same judgement, maintaining G1, but moving down to V2.

The reasoning behind this for the Regulator is: “The nature of BCHA’s business means that it operates with tight financial margins and it has material exposures which it needs to manage to ensure continued compliance.

“It has a material reliance on volatile contractual income; operating margins have reduced due to the loss of revenue from about 400 units, previously held under a management agreement from another provider, while some of the overhead costs remain; and it is in the process of finalising stock investment assumptions.

“BCHA also needs to manage its security position carefully as only limited unencumbered chargeable assets are available. This impacts on BCHA’s ability to access further funding.”

But it was not all bad news for councils and housing providers in the judgements.

Progress Housing Group received a governance upgrade from the Regulator, meaning it now sits at G1/V1.

In the judgement, RSH are pleased with the progress the housing association has made since the last assessment.

They said: “Our previous narrative regulatory judgement for PHG, published in February 2020, following an In Depth Assessment and reactive engagement, identified that the provider needed to strengthen its risk management and control framework to ensure that it was managing key risks with an appropriate degree of effectiveness.

“The judgement highlighted the need for PHG to improve assurance on health and safety compliance and rent requirements.

“Following reactive engagement, the regulator has assurance that PHG has now satisfactorily addressed both issues.

“PHG has strengthened its internal controls and improved board reporting and oversight of its key risks. It has introduced new processes to ensure data integrity around health and safety reporting, and to provide consistent, evidenced-based assurance on compliance with the requirements relating to rents in its specialised supported housing stock.”

There was another governance upgrade for a housing association, Nehemiah United Churches Housing Association, who now have a G1/V2 rating.

The RSH said in their judgement: “Based on evidence gained from an In Depth Assessment (IDA), the regulator has assurance that Nehemiah has strengthened both its board skills and the quality of reporting, facilitating improvements to its business planning, risk and control framework.

“It has also implemented recommendations from an independent review of governance which have strengthened its approach to managing risk and stress testing. The quality of its recent regulatory returns and the publication of value for money metrics demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements.”

And Great Places Housing Group were rewarded for their recent work, now being a G1/V1 organisation after a viability upgrade and comes after a merger.

“The previous V2 grade was an interim judgement, published in April 2020, following GPHG’s merger with Equity Housing Group Limited (Equity)”, the Regulator says.

“It reflected the regulator’s assessment of Equity at that time which was V2 due to weak interest cover from social housing lettings and limited covenant headroom. Equity relied on sales surpluses to support its covenant compliance and was exposed to potential increases in pension costs that placed further pressure on headroom.

“The merged organisation has increased covenant headroom. It has the capacity to absorb additional pension costs and is not dependent on sales surplus to maintain covenant compliance.”

Red Kite Community Housing are another housing association that received a judgement, but in this case their ratings didn’t change, staying at G2/V1.

The Regulator praised the organisation for making progress in improving their governance from the last IDA, but said: “We have concluded on the basis of the IDA that Red Kite needs to improve other aspects of its governance arrangements to support continued compliance.

“The regulator does not have assurance that the board has appropriate oversight of some of the key risks facing the business.

“Compliance reporting on landlord health and safety obligations and financial covenants is not sufficient to enable the board to exercise effective oversight. In addition, while Red Kite undertakes stress testing, its mitigation strategies are under-developed and require strengthening.”

There were G1/V1 retentions for several housing associations too, including: Housing Plus Group, Plus Dane Housing, Midland Heart, VIVID and First Garden Cities Homes.