By Alistair McIntosh, HQN CEO

Another batch of RSH judgments have arrived. The council reports are useful; the association reports less so.

HQN is pleased to see that Castle Point has climbed from C4 to C3. Our Damian Roche sits on their housing improvement programme board, so we know how hard they’re working to get better. As the RSH says of its role: “Through our intensive engagement, Castle Point has provided evidence of its ability to put matters right.”

The RSH finds that there’s “…a comprehensive improvement plan that has driven significant change across its housing service”. Here are a few of the results.

Castle Point now has surveys for 80+% of its homes – and is on track to get to 100%. Health and safety compliance is a lot stronger. And a new repairs contractor is in place. Castle Point is using feedback from complaints to streamline the repairs service. It’s not all plain sailing. The council doesn’t know enough about its tenants so it cannot yet tailor services. The RSH will be keeping an eye on this.

The inspectors note that the council has a new policy on domestic abuse. The RSH will check that this works well as it rolls out. We know that the RSH often quizzes landlords on their approach to domestic abuse. But this rarely features in the reports. We think this is a positive move by the regulator.

Can Castle Point move on to C2 or even C1? HQN has seen great strides at Norwich and Guildford – will Castle Point follow suit? The RSH points the way. They’ll keep engaging to test that:

• Changes are “fully embedded”
• Staff with “appropriate skills and expertise” are in place
• Councillors and senior leaders “maintain effective oversight”
• New systems to “manage and use data” are installed.

The Castle Point improvement plan is SMART, so we have high hopes for this council.

North Kesteven rose from C3 to C2. Congratulations. It’s a similar story to Castle Point. They tightened up on stock knowledge, health and safety, and repairs. But they need to get better at tailoring services. All in all, it’s a positive report and C1 must be in sight if they keep going.

City of York, Newlon and Peabody sit on C2. Let’s pick out a few points of interest for now:

City of York

• Repairs performance impacted by “significant challenges in staff recruitment and retention”
• Doesn’t carry out periodic internal audits of compliance
• Inspectors probed responses to areas of low TSM satisfaction such as satisfaction with communal areas ( 43.63% at 24/25) and treating tenants fairly and with respect (57.55% at 24/25)
• Is C1 on the cards? York is “working constructively” with the RSH, demonstrated “self-awareness” and showed “positive evidence of progress”.

Newlon

There’s a frustrating lack of detail in this report. I’ve no doubt they’re doing good work. But this is a short – six paragraph – summary, which says little. We’ll try to talk to Newlon to do them justice.

Peabody

This is even more frustrating. Peabody owns over 90,000 homes and this report simply doesn’t explain how the RSH reached its conclusions. I see the great work that Peabody is doing on the old Holloway Prison grounds. Many people will get homes on this fine location. But the public deserves to get a clearer report from the RSH. That’s the job of a regulator.

Then we move on to Guinness. Well done for scoring C1. It’s a great achievement. I pass a Guinness block near me most days. So, I was very interested to read the views of the RSH. Yet again they say very little. I’m none the wiser. How can I explain the results to locals? When I talk to my neighbours, they have an acute sense of which landlords are stronger than others. Should this be a feature of our regulatory regime?

I’ve looked at the Guinness annual report to tenants on TSMs. It’s excellent. They don’t shy away from difficult areas and Guinness states clearly what it’s doing to improve. I really liked the way they broke satisfaction down by seven regions. It’s not one size fits all.

The RSH has commissioned a review of how it performs inspections. HQN will be lobbying to get a bit more detail into the reports.

Surely the regulator needs to show its working to some degree – otherwise we take the risk of running a closed shop. Those of us in the housing bubble know how it works – but do the public? By the way, I’m not pushing for the 100-page reports from the Audit Commission days.

Striking the right balance of the level of detail would allow all of us to spot good practice and give due credit to the landlords that are pulling out all the stops to do well. And, you never know, the public might cotton on to what we’re saying. That’s meant to be the main point of a post-Grenfell regime.

Final note: the RSH is asking lots of questions about radon. If you work in an area where this is prevalent, get ready to explain what you’re doing.

Right: go out and enjoy the Bank Holiday. See you on the other side.