The Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee met on Wednesday 30 September 2026 to discuss a range of housing-related issues. Key topics included the effectiveness of the Community Works repairs service, the homeownership service and leaseholder experience, the major works process, and housing supply. The committee also reviewed the council's work programme.

Investigation into and review of effectiveness of Community Works - Repairs and Maintenance Service

The committee reviewed the effectiveness of Community Works, Lambeth Council's Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) for communal repairs. Councillor Danny Adilypour, a former Cabinet Member, welcomed the report, noting that Community Works was established by the previous administration to improve responsiveness, accountability, and quality control for communal repairs. He questioned whether the current administration's manifesto commitment to a direct repair service for all council homes was achievable within the current financial constraints and suggested a hybrid model might be necessary in the short to medium term. Councillor Pete Elliott, Cabinet Member for Housing, acknowledged the ambition to bring services in-house but stressed the need for data and scrutiny to ensure value for money. He doubted that 100% of services could be brought in-house realistically, but stated that basic services could be considered. Councillor Nicholson expressed disappointment with the report, stating it lacked information to judge value for money and comparisons with other councils. He requested information on when Community Works' performance could be assessed. Martin Greenway, Assistant Director for Repairs and Contracts, explained that the DLO's service was bespoke and difficult to compare directly with other councils. He confirmed that a wider review of repairs options was underway and would include further work on the DLO. The committee proposed recommendations including a report on benchmarking methodology for in-house comparisons, a timeline for considering in-house, hybrid, or outsourced repair models, and a report on the rollout of the SMS repair service, incorporating a previous council resolution on resident sign-off for contractor payments. Councillor Viktor Westerdahl suggested exploring a system for communal repairs to be displayed on notice boards.

The Home Ownership Service and Leaseholder Experience

The committee discussed the Homeownership Service and the experience of leaseholders. Tracey Gregory, representing the Lambeth Home Owners Association (LHA), stated that the provided report did not reflect the reality of leaseholder experience, highlighting significant errors in service charge calculations and administration, citing a First-tier Tribunal case where Lambeth was found to be careless and inattentive. Anthony Greenness, also from LHA, raised concerns about contract management, questioning who is answerable for authorised payments to contractors and the lack of transparency regarding recouping money from contractors for overcharging. He also criticised the use of Qualifying Long-Term Agreements (QLTAs), suggesting they could lead to cosy arrangements and overcharging. Councillor Pete Elliott committed to providing full responses to the comments made and supported the chair's proposal for a working group. Councillor Scott Ainslie, Cabinet Member for Planning and Development, Built Environment and Public Realm, agreed that contract management needed improvement. Councillor Elizabeth Fraser raised concerns about leaseholders struggling to understand their service charges and invoices, and the loss of queries in the system. Councillor Tom Palmer questioned the rationale for estimated versus actual bills for major works, suggesting a simpler system of actual bills paid over a year might be more efficient. Tunde Akinyooye, Assistant Director for Homeownership and Rent, explained that estimates helped leaseholders manage costs, but acknowledged that variations had previously been significant. Councillor Adilypour raised the issue of leaseholders carrying out their own home improvements, suggesting a tiered approach for low-risk properties. The committee agreed to set up a working group comprising three leaseholders and three committee members to develop an action plan, and to consider recognising the Lambeth Home Owners Association as a recognised body.

Pre-Scrutiny of Major Works Process

The committee reviewed the major works and investment process. Councillor Danny Adilypour expressed concern about the lack of detail in the report regarding the administration's plans for housing supply and estate regeneration, and its financial implications for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). He questioned the target number of council homes to be built directly by the council and the budget for this. Councillor Nicholson echoed the disappointment regarding the lack of detail on the new homes programme and specifically raised concerns about the Brixton Station Road and International House development, questioning the administration's stance and the Green Party's involvement. Simon Morrow, a chartered surveyor, criticised the report as a work of fantasy, detailing instances of tens of millions of pounds being overpaid to contractors due to mismanagement, including incorrect overhead percentages, payments for non-existent works, and overvaluation. He suggested the council should employ staff capable of professionally managing contracts rather than relying on the status quo. Councillor Viktor Westerdahl recommended exploring ventilation and external solar shading for future major works, considering the potential for overheating, and suggested looking into the role of a clerk of works and using framework agreements instead of long-term contracts. Councillor Burrell asked for details on the KPI for tenant engagement on contract performance. Councillor Ennis questioned the use of Qualifying Long-Term Agreements (QLTAs), suggesting they go against commitments to the local economy and local contractors. Councillor Adilypour requested to see the updated five-year plan for major works. Councillor Ainslie raised concerns about the potential conflict of interest with Savills conducting stock condition surveys, given they are a developer, and questioned the cost of previous surveys. The committee made several recommendations, including pausing the current condition survey procurement for clarification, considering alternatives to QLTAs, and incorporating points on sustainability, ventilation, and the role of a clerk of works into future reports. They also requested a report detailing specific schemes in the pipeline and their locations.

Housing Supply

The committee discussed the New Homes Programme, with Councillor Scott Ainslie, Cabinet Member for Planning and Development, Built Environment, and Public Realm, outlining the review of regeneration schemes, particularly Central Hill and Crescent Gardens, where initial appraisals indicated none of the options were currently viable. He stated that the administration's focus was on reviewing previous schemes to ensure they aligned with resident needs and the council's priorities, including increasing genuinely affordable and council housing. Councillor Adilypour expressed concern about the lack of detail on the administration's housing supply plans and the impact of potential cancellations of estate regeneration on housing targets. He questioned the target for directly built council homes and the budget for this, urging for timely and meaningful reviews of existing plans to avoid delays. Councillor Nicholson also voiced disappointment at the lack of detail and questioned the administration's stance on the Brixton Station Road and International House development. Councillor Pete Elliott, Cabinet Member for Housing, emphasised the importance of bringing empty homes back into use as the quickest and cheapest way to increase housing supply, outlining a target to bring 200 empty homes back into use by Christmas. He also addressed concerns about the Vistry partnership for the New Homes Hexagon sites, acknowledging the company's financial difficulties but explaining the contractual arrangements provided safeguards. Councillor Viktor Westerdahl highlighted the severe temporary accommodation crisis and the need to focus on building social rent units, suggesting a breakdown of estates into smaller units for development and pushing for a small sites programme. Councillor Elizabeth Fraser questioned how the council would learn from failings in the insurance blamber scheme and mitigate risks with direct delivery of small sites. Mr Morrow submitted a public notice question regarding the Vistry partnership, asking about the council's backup plan if Vistry entered administration and why the risk was not spread. Councillor Adilypour and Councillor Ennis requested more transparency on the administration's plans for estate regeneration and the calculations behind their assessments. The committee discussed the need for a clear plan, with Councillor Adilypour proposing a table outlining schemes, their status, and financial models, and a collective approach to problem-solving. Councillor Adilypour also suggested a recommendation for optimising small sites and estate development.

Work Programme

The committee reviewed its work programme and noted that officers had provided responses to recommendations from previous meetings, which were detailed in the action log. The committee agreed to collate new items for the next agenda and hold a pre-meeting in four to six weeks to agree the agenda for January.