Brent Council has referred itself to the housing regulator after a review found weak follow-up on risk assessments despite full estate inspections being completed.
Brent Council has voluntarily referred itself to the Regulator of Social Housing after identifying shortcomings in how it managed follow-up actions from building risk assessments across its housing estates.
While the council confirmed that all estates have undergone the required safety checks, a review under its new Housing Improvement Plan found weaknesses in how resulting actions were monitored and completed.
In response, Brent has notified the Regulator and begun a comprehensive review, led by housing safety specialists, to ensure that all required follow-up works have either been completed or are now scheduled. Tenants have also been informed of the findings and next steps via direct communication.
Keeping tenants safe – next steps include:
- A detailed audit of outstanding actions by specialist safety contractors.
- Deployment of teams to complete any unresolved works.
- Direct updates to tenants, explaining what work is needed in their building.
- Ongoing collaboration with the Regulator to improve oversight and compliance.
Councillor Fleur Donnelly-Jackson, Cabinet Member for Housing and Resident Services, said:
“The safety and security of our tenants and leaseholders is absolutely essential and I am determined to improve the quality of our council homes.
While we’ve made real progress, we fell short in this area. We will work closely with the Regulator to strengthen our systems, and families will be kept informed every step of the way. Listening to our residents is key to building trust – that’s why the new Housing Management Advisory Board will play a crucial role in shaping what comes next.”
Brent Council has already begun wider improvement efforts, including:
- Launching a damp and mould rapid response squad
- Running repair blitz days on estates
- Appointing new leadership in the Housing Department
However, the council acknowledged that in this instance, it did not meet its responsibilities as a landlord — and fell short of the standards tenants rightfully expect.
