Agenda item

The Head of Audit and Assurance introduced the report and advised the Committee:

1.  The Property Compliance April 2021 Final Audit Report had been assigned a Level 2 ‘Limited Assurance’

2.  There had been a further update to the December 2021 Committee which had reported progress against 3 high risk recommendations:

a.  Lack of clarity relating to the role and responsibility of groups providing Scrutiny of Property Compliance.

b.  Inadequate reporting to management/groups on Property Compliance responsibilities.

c.  Failure to formally assign responsibilities to qualified Officers.

3.  Following the December 2021 meeting, the management responsibility for the property compliance functions had been transferred to the Director of Regeneration and Housing who was in attendance to give a further update.

The Director of Regeneration and Housing reported that:

1. The vision and aim of the new structure were to ensure that all assets were corporately managed.
2. In relation to the first identified high risk, appropriate governance was now in place and scrutiny groups were operating with new terms of reference.
3. In relation to the second risk, there were monthly updates to the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee and monthly Property Health & Safety meetings were taking place with key managers from Property and Health & Safety to understand the risks and agree actions to mitigate.
4. The Team had undertaken a gap analysis and a plan was in place for interim resources.
5. In terms of technology, an integrated asset management system, Zetasafe would be introduced.  There was currently several different systems in place that did not interact with each other, for example, there was no corelation between repairs and maintenance and asset income generation.  Once the new system was implemented it would be possible to run dashboards on compliance.
6. In relation to the third high risk, the staffing structure had been changed and job descriptions amended to include dedicated compliance officers.  This process was ongoing as not all officers were in post.
7. In relation to medium term risks, as well as the work on implementing an integrated data system, a leaseholder pack would be developed to outline compliance requirements.

The Director of Regeneration and Housing responded to questions as follows:

1. It was hoped that the new IT system would be ready to use in the next budget setting cycle and would inform future plans.  It would allow the data to be easily accessed and help where obligations needed to be passed on, for example, to tenants.
2. In relation to the Curo estate, Bath and North East Somerset Council still had landlord obligations in relation to 72 of these properties.  Compliance checks were in place, but some works still needed to be carried out.
3. The overall aim was to improve compliance where the Council was not currently compliant, the risk needed to be managed and mitigated.
4. In terms of the records not being kept in a timely manner, he undertook to report back with further detail.

In considering the officers’ recommendations, it was agreed that a further update should be given to the committee near the end of the financial year and in view of the pre-election period, this meeting should be moved from April to March.

RESOLVED that

(1)  The update provided by the Director of Regeneration and Housing be noted.

(2)  A further update from the Director of Regeneration and Housing be received at the March 2023 meeting of the Committee (to be moved from April due to the pre-election period).