The Housing Scrutiny Commission met on 26 August 2025, and members discussed the Regulator of Social Housing's (RSH) initial inspection of the council's landlord function, updates to the Housing Register and lettings data, and the current position of the Repairs and Maintenance Team. The commission agreed to note all reports, and that lead officers would take into account comments made by members. The commission also requested regular updates and future reports on specific topics.

Regulatory Inspection

The Director of Housing presented a report on the outcome of the Regulator of Social Housing's initial inspection of the council's landlord function. Leicester had received a C3 judgement, as anticipated, equivalent to the judgement received by comparable authorities, including Bristol, Nottingham, and Sheffield. The Regulator recognised the significant work underway toward compliance and praised the council for its open and transparent approach and was assured that the consumer standards were being met in safety and quality, with legal compliance in gas safety, smoke and carbon monoxide safety, fire safety, water safety and lift safety. The Housing division demonstrated an understanding of the diverse needs of tenants, taking into account their views in the decision-making process and was deemed fully compliant with the Neighbourhood and Community standards. Leicester was also deemed fully compliant with the Tenancy standard.

Gaps and issues were identified in Safety and Quality, and Transparency, Influence, and Accountability. Under the Safety and Quality Standards, improvements were needed regarding evidence on stock condition using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), completion of Electrical Installation Condition Reports (EICR) on a 5-year cycle for all domestic homes, additional oversight of Health and Safety performance, and strengthening repairs and maintenance services. Under the Transparency, Influence and Accountability standards, gaps were identified in providing additional performance information to tenants, increasing opportunities for tenants to scrutinise and influence services, enhancing complaints handling and reporting, and formalising reporting on learning from complaints.

The commission agreed to the following actions:

• Note the report
• That comments made by members of the Commission be taken into account by lead officers
• Provide regular dashboard reports on the HHRS inspection to the Commission
• Present tenancy scrutiny engagement outcomes to the Commission in 6 months, including proposals to integrate the tenant scrutiny engagement with the Council's scrutiny function
• Provide a future report on lessons learned from the complaints process and from other councils in similar situations.

Social Housing Allocation

The Director of Housing submitted a report that provided an update on the 'headline' Housing Register and Lettings data, relating to Leicester City Council's Housing Register, for the 2024/2025 financial year.

Key points included:

• There had been a national 3% increase across the households on registers.
• This was the highest number nationally since 2014.
• The average waiting time (nationally) for a suitable let was 2.9 years.
• In 2024/2025, Leicester's average wait in Band 1 was 18 months for a 2-bed property, 22 months for a 3-bed property and 25 months for a 4-bed property. These averages were shorter than the national average.
• The Housing Register was a register of need rather than a waiting list. The number on the waiting list was just over 6,000. This was a reduction of 5% at the same time in the previous year.
• There had been a reduction in households on the register, but there had been a 7% increase in homeless households.
• The numbers in Band 1 were 5% higher than the previous year, the numbers in Band 2 were down 1% on the previous year, and the numbers in Band 3 had remained consistent.
• Overcrowding was the biggest reason for people being on the register; however, there had been a 4% reduction in this since last year. Work had been done on overcrowding, such as the EasyMove scheme, which involved people exchanging properties for ones that were more mutually suitable.
• 'Housing need' was driven by population growth and socioeconomic factors, whereas 'Housing demand' was based on where people wanted to live.
• People could choose which properties they wished to bid on. People were advised to bid as often and as widely as possible to maximise the chance of being rehoused.
• The highest housing need was for three-bed properties.
• Family-sized housing was the most in-demand.
• The demand for wheelchair accommodation outstripped supply. It was aimed to source more of this.
• Those requiring partially adapted accommodation were achieving lets at a higher rate than their representation on the register.
• The number of lettings in the last 12 months had increased by 13%, largely due to an increase in build schemes.
• Band 1 had the highest proportion of people achieving lets. 65% of these were homeless or at risk of homelessness. This was an increase of 12% on the same time in the previous year.
• New Parks had the most lettings, followed by Belgrave and Rushey Mead.
• The average waiting times were only a guide and there were many variables on individual cases.
• The amount of time on the register was dependent on the activity and choices of the applicants.
• Waiting times had slightly decreased for wheelchair accommodation, and there had been an additional seven lettings to households for this kind of accommodation compared to 2023.24.
• Leicester Home Choice was provided with 50% of all available Housing Association properties and this was monitored.

The commission agreed to note the report and that the comments made by members be taken into account.

Repairs and Maintenance

The Heads of Service presented an update on the current position of the Repairs and Maintenance performance, including responsive repairs, voids, and damp and mould, the team's performance throughout 2024-24 and projections for 2025-26.

It was noted that:

• There was new legislation around Electrical and HHSRS inspections. The team, therefore, anticipated having requests through that route.
• One of the challenges had been around vacancies (with 32 currently, which represents 10% of the Council's craft workforce). This impacted the team's capacity to undertake as many repairs as it would like.
• A positive development was that outstanding repairs had gone down by 3,000 for total outstanding, and by over 1000 in the repairs that were out-of-category. Hence, the overall repair trend was on a positive trajectory.
• The overall repair trends had been stable, which was beneficial in predicting demands. Work was still ongoing to improve the overall position of the Repairs team.
• The four tenant satisfaction measures showed good progress in comparison to other local authorities. The transactional surveys were over 95% positive as well.
• The team was continuing work with contractors to explore additional capacity to get through the repairs. One of the major goals of the team this year was the investment in staff and an increase in the apprenticeship programme. This is due to a significant skills gap in the craft sector, and this was a way for the Council to proactively address this.
• The team was working hard to achieve its projections and targets for the year.
• On voids, it was noted that the merger of the damp and mould teams within the voids team had a minimal impact on voids, while there had been incredibly positive improvements with damp and mould.
• On Damp and mould, it was noted that the Council promptly responded to remedial works, and the Service had been focused on reducing outstanding works to meet the requirements of phase 1 of Awaab's law, which would become effective from October 2025.

The commission agreed to note the report, that comments made by members be taken into account, and that the Council's approach to implementing Awaab's Law be added to the work programme.

Maintenance Charges

The Head of Service presented a report summarising the findings from the review of cleaning and associated charges for communal areas in council-owned accommodation, and the improvements to the service.

It was noted that:

• Not every communal area was normally cleaned, because following the initial consultation with tenants when the service was first set up, some opted out to avoid additional charges.
• The need for this review arose after the New Parks enquiry on the level of cleaning. The service identified that the level of cleaning needed to be enhanced to meet the changing service needs.
• A review of the service had not been carried out since its introduction and the level of service had not been formally assessed.
• The tenancy satisfaction measure for satisfaction with communal areas was 49% and had increased to 70% this year as a result of the enhanced cleaning that took place.
• The council cleaned over 50 sites, and 550 properties were charged for communal cleaning.
• The review had led to enhanced cleaning at the Burns Flat, and this standard was now being rolled out across the city.
• It was discovered that in sheltered housing the service was not charging tenants the full cost of cleaning.
• The Service used the opportunity of review to see if flats that had previously opted out were interested in opting back in, because the Council was still having to carry out intensive cleaning in those communal areas, funded through the HRA¹.
• Formal monitoring arrangements were now in place with the Housing and Cleaning staff who meet regularly on the estate to ensure standards were being maintained.
• The Service was engaging with tenants to get their feedback so that issues could be picked up on quickly and brought to monitoring meetings.
• An annual review would take place to ensure services aligned with charges.
• A special project was planned for an in-depth review of all sheltered housing charges and the service provided.

The commission agreed to note the report, that comments made by members be taken into account, that feedback be provided to the Commission on how the Council benchmarks maintenance charges against other Local Authorities or Housing Providers, and that other maintenance charges be brought to future meetings.

Water Hygiene

The Director of Housing submitted a report to provide an update on how the Housing Division managed water hygiene safety in its communal areas and tenants' homes.

Key points included:

• Legionella was a key risk, and as such, the report had focused on it.
• Of the 1500 communal areas, only 36 had a water supply, so the legionella risk assessment was done on those blocks.
• All assessments were complete and reviewed on an ongoing cyclical programme on a three-yearly basis. There was confidence that all requirements were met.
• It was not mandatory to run checks on individual homes, but a 10% sample was taken of individual homes, usually when they were void. 81% of the housing stock did not have stored water (i.e. no tank in the loft). Overall, the remaining stock with stored water was at higher risk, and the strategy was to remove stored water as much as possible. There was confidence that of the stock with stored water, 96% was low risk from a water hygiene perspective.
• It was being looked at to remove stored water from sheltered housing and replace it with a different system.
• A Legionella Risk Assessment was carried out in voids. With proper management in place, all risks could be effectively mitigated. However, the long-term goal was to fully and fundamentally design out these risks—a process that would take time. In the meantime, mitigations were carried out to control risks to an acceptable level.
• Communications were carried out with tenants to advise them on water hygiene advice that could be followed, such as flushing out showers when a person had been away for a number of weeks.

The commission agreed to note the report and that comments made by members be taken into account.

Work Programme

The chair invited members to make suggestions on items that they wished to be included in the work programme. The work programme was noted.