Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Melanie Carr of Democratic and Scrutiny Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Friday 6 June 2025, three working days before the day of the meeting. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:
· at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);
· when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.
If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not
wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct anyone who
may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
Ms Amanda Griffiths attended the meeting remotely via TEAMs to present her submitted public statement as follows:
‘As a NYC tenant whose local authority
owned home has been deemed unfit for human habitation due to category 1 HHSRS
hazards caused by damp and mould, I was unsurprised by the Regulator for Social
Housing C3 judgement due to serious consumer standards failings: ‘a lack of
reliable information about the condition of its homes, a failure to meet some
aspects of landlord health and safety requirements, a lack of reliable
information to support its understanding of and response to the diverse needs
of its tenants, and limited and inconsistent meaningful opportunities for
tenants to influence and scrutinise its services’.
It may assist the members to know that I am one of the 105 housing disrepair claimants with an active case against my landlord. I instructed legal representation due to my landlords knowledge of the poor condition of my home and matters remaining unresolved for over 15 years. In mid-July 2023 I was decanted from my primary home for the second time due to failed repairs, and for remedial works that were intended to take 9 weeks. However I remain in prolonged temporary accommodation almost 2 years later. To add to this wretchedness the decant property, which is a recently ‘refurbished’ void, is also in a state of disrepair, with rainwater cascading down bedroom walls and toxic black mould due to my landlords refusal to carry out repairs. Ultimately I am in the unenviable position of having 26 years lived experience of the unsuitable social housing conditions in the Selby District, that in my case culminated in entirely avoidable legal action.
During the Pre-Action Process, to my dismay I learned that tenants exercising the legal right to independent expert witness inspections that seek an understanding of the condition of their homes, are intentionally subjected to landlord cultural maladministrative practices. The harmful, unprofessional focus on institutionally accepted systemic abuses of power diverts resources from working to meet regulatory standards. However, if my landlord prioritised respectful engagement with tenants whose homes are in disrepair, they would develop insights into the real-world context of the challenges to those directly impacted, whilst acquiring a more accurate understanding about what stock condition surveys fail to capture, and why tenants resort to legal action. They would also gain a better understanding of tenants diverse needs from a first person perspective.
Reliance on data-driven approaches is insufficient to capture the true scale of the human impact of material failures. Especially where tenant participation is extremely limited.
Improvement to both the Safety and Quality Standard, and the Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard must begin with a revised approach that broadens tenant engagement, taking a wider range of views into account. Firsthand knowledge is integral to shaping both policy and practice. Therefore forging new ideas with those who ask provocative questions is crucial. The rapid improvement my landlord aspires to achieve only occurs when policymakers generate evidence that reveals how policies are working, whether they are fair and equitable, and how they play out in tenants lives. It’s vital that meaningful tenant engagement includes diverse views with critical voices to increase scrutiny of landlord policies, services and strategies. This would identify areas for improvement and promote accountability, ensuring the focus is consistently on landlord/tenant relationships, delivery of decent homes and regulatory standards outcomes.
None of this is rocket science. Nevertheless until there is a willingness to pro-actively engage with wider groups of tenants, the aim to achieve a C2 regulatory grade cannot be realised. Unless there is radical reform to comply with the consumer standards, and a commitment for meaningful tenant engagement, the only fast track journey NYC are on is in the direction of the Regulators forewarned C4 judgement.’
Andrew Rowe, Assistant Director for Housing thanked Ms Griffiths for her statement and confirmed that in light of the on-going disrepair claim, he was unable to comment on her individual circumstances. However, he expressed gratitude for her feedback, acknowledging the problems she had experienced. He also confirmed his intention to reach out to Ms Griffiths outside of the meeting to try and find a solution to the problems she had experienced.
He went on to note that Ms Griffiths’ statement highlighted the very real impact on the lives of tenants when social landlords get things wrong, and that the points raised within the statement around the impact of poor housing conditions and the need for meaningful tenant engagement to inform the strategic planning were very well made.
Andrew Rowe recognised the position inherited by the new Council was challenging and the consequence of several factors including in some areas the lack of investment into homes. The former district Councils were simply not sighted on the scale of the challenge or their level of non-compliance against the required consumer standards. They had no long-term investment plan. Data around stock condition and levels of decency was inadequate. There were gaps in information around compliance with health and safety requirements and opportunities for meaningful engagement by tenants were limited.
Acknowledging the scale of the challenge and the council’s non-compliance against the consumer standards, he confirmed that North Yorkshire Council was absolutely committed to turning the situation around quickly. He referenced the C3 regulatory judgement that followed the Council’s own self-assessment and self-referral last year and confirmed the new Council had adopted a new Housing Revenue Account Business Plan that set out ambitious levels of future investment into Council homes over the next 30 years. He noted the adoption of a bold improvement plan and strategy, that included a host of actions to ensure future compliance with the Regulatory Standards, including an on-going programme of stock condition surveys, activity to address gaps in data around health and safety compliance and a whole new strategy around tenant engagement and involvement. He confirmed additional funds of around £2M had been set aside within the business plan to support the Councils journey towards compliance, which included a bolstered approach to tenant engagement.
Andrew Rowe also drew attention to the additional funds that had been levered in from the Governments Social Housing Decarbonisation Programme and the Council’s ambitious programme to fully retrofit and revamp over 1600 of its homes over the next few years. He confirmed the investment was being targeted at those homes in most urgent need of intervention, many of which were likely to be in the former Selby District Council area.
He confirmed that aligned to all of those changes, was a push to change the culture of the Council as a landlord, suggesting the Council was committed to putting tenants at the heart of everything it did, listening to the views of tenants, both through the on-going tenant satisfaction survey and through opportunities for one-to-one engagement, including the new tenant scrutiny arrangements and panels. He confirmed that future strategy and planning would absolutely be informed by both the data held on homes, and the views and needs of tenants.
Finally he confirmed that the Council’s planning was informed by learning from complaints and how to improve when things went wrong. With that in mind he offered to personally visit Ms Griffiths in her home over the coming weeks to hear about her experience as a Council tenant over many years and get a better understanding of her views on the changes that could be made to improve going forward.
The Chair thanked Ms Griffiths for her contribution to the meeting and the work of the Committee, noting it would help inform their consideration of future agenda items.