LONDON TENANT SCRUTINY NETWORK REFLECTIONS – PHIL MORGAN
1. It was encouraging to see so many people attending and the very wide range of landlords and tenant represented. There was a positive and supportive environment for people to share experiences and some common themes.
Recruitment of Panel members
2. The first common theme was a strand of thinking about the robustness of the interview process for recruitment of Panel members. There were strong views from tenants and landlords alike that the process needed to be clear and robust. This was reinforced by the feedback from some landlords about failure or enduring issues following the initial recruitment of members of scrutiny panels and needing to reboot them without tenants who were unable to demonstrate partnership working with their fellow tenants or staff. My view is that the process needs to start with an agreed person specification including partnership working and ability to reach consensus.
3. Otherwise there were recurring themes about the best approach including open recruitment to all tenants and taster sessions. It is worth considering having a reserve list of those eligible (if there are enough). This avoids time consuming and expensive repeat recruitment exercises and provides a succession strategy for Panels.
Out with the old, in with the new!
4. The second common theme was about moving away from traditional structures towards new ones, and that different attributes were needed to ‘get’ the more strategic approach required of tenants. This may mean that there are some profound changes needed in tenants and structures, and that simply sticking new scrutiny arrangements onto existing structures and tenants may not always be successful.
5. Instead successful approaches will start with a review of the involvement approach and accept that there will be a significant (and welcome) influx of tenants new to tenant involvement into the scrutiny arrangements.
Train and Develop
6. There was common ground about the need to train and develop tenants in their scrutiny role. There were a range of views about how this could be fulfilled but the taster sessions were the beginning of a process of supporting tenants in new roles. Some had explicit training plans whilst other tackled this ‘on the job’.
7. This also applied to staff – both working directly with Panels and more widely with those staff who would interact with them and have their work subject to scrutiny.
8. In most cases consultant support or mentor helped provide the external expertise through the recruitment process and into the initial training and support for Panels.
Support for Panel forming a Bridge with Landlords
9. Landlords also provided direct support for Panels, including through Tenant Involvement teams. This was important both in terms of ensuring they were well run (notices for meetings, agendas, minutes) and had informed access to decision-makers within the landlord. In effect this support acted as a bridge allowing both Panels to gain from staff understanding of issues facing their colleagues and Boards/Councillors, and for the same groups within landlords to gain understanding from the staff supporting Panels. This bridge is subtle but integral to making Panels work successfully.
10. This does mean that Panels are not truly ‘independent’. It could be that given time and maturity Panels will develop greater degrees of independence but at the beginning they will need support and guidance to develop their role and their ability to make an impact will be based on their ability to engage successfully than a nominal view of their being ‘independent’.
Link to decision making
11. For Panels to make that impact requires informed access to decision making. This needs to cover both staff, who operate at an executive level, and Board Members or councillors, whom operate strategically.
12. For most landlords the approach taken was to focus on service reviews. However both the principles of co-regulation and some specific areas such as the requirements for Designated Persons under the Localism Act meant that Panels may also need to consider wider issues including the landlords’ performance and approach to complaints.
Characteristics of Landlords do shape arrangements for Scrutiny.
13. Arrangements will differ for both Housing Association and Local Authority structures, and will take account of both geographical and size issues. For Housing Associations there will normally be a link to the Board (or a sub-committee) whilst for Local Authorities there will often be a sub-committe (not called Scrutiny due to the phrase already being in use). Landlords will also adapt if they are small or cover large areas.
14. The three national Housing Associations were distinctive in having both an approach that took into account a national role, some regional structures and a link at a local level.
Regulation Matters
15. It is worth bearing in mind that hidden away in the detail of the new approach to regulation is the acknowledgement that failure to set up a scrutiny panel is one of the indicative cases held up as serious detriment to tenants and therefore a matter for the Social Housing Regulator.
16. There was an interesting question about Panels being exclusively about consumer regulation. The key role of Panels is to underpin the consumer regulation role being held within landlords (subject to the serious detriment test). However there is no ‘bar’ to Panels considering wider ‘economic’ issues such as Value for Money or Rents (particularly with the impact of Welfare Reform). The consumer/economic barrier is one about the role of the Regulator not the role of Panels.
Communication and Review
17. Communication is important, both in the initial phase of setting up Panel and reporting their impact. This applies to both tenants and staff alike.
18. There should also be a regular review of the effectiveness of Panels and appraisals of members of the Panel.
Phil Morgan
07831-131021
phil@philmorgan.co.uk
