You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Luminus made £235,000 loss from market sale
Luminus made a £235,000 loss from its open market sale developments as it booked a £6.5m deficit for the year, its previously unpublished accounts reveal.
The 7,500-home housing association was made non-compliant by regulator the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) which accused it of a string of fundamental governance failures, including leaving more than 1,000 properties without a gas safety certificate.
Unlike most housing associations, the Huntingdonshire-based landlord does not publish its year-end accounts on its website, but Inside Housing obtained the 2015/16 statements this week.
They show turnover of £44.7m, with costs of £29.4m, £15.5m of interest charges and a £9.1m exceptional impairment charge, with a deficit of £6.5m.
The organisation also recorded a loss of £235,000 after raising £934,000 from open market sales in the year.
The HCA’s judgement last week said the organisation “does not have an effective system of risk management” and its board is not “exercising its role with appropriate skill or diligence”.
“Stress testing has been carried out but has not been adequately informed by an understanding of the housing market risks facing Luminus,” it added.
Despite this, Luminus’ published accounts praised its board, which it paid just below £18,700 in the year, for a 92% attendance at meetings and celebratory events, “the most notable being A Celebration of Christmas”.
The accounts also reveal that the highest-paid employee at Luminus earns between £200,000 and £210,000 – almost double the next highest-paid staff member, who earns between £110,000 and £120,000. In response to Inside Housing’s salary survey for 2015/16, Luminus claimed its chief executive, Chan Abraham, earned £174,000 in the year.
The accounts also show Luminus is largely funded by a £240.9m loan from Nationwide, with a further £50m of funding coming from Canada Life.
Luminus provided no comment to Inside Housing on the loss made from market sale products despite repeated requests.
The organisation also did not provide any explanation for the £9.1m impairment charge, nor did it make any comment over the fact that it had not previously published its accounts.
It was unable to quantify Mr Abraham’s actual wage and did not provide any explanation for the discrepancy between the figure submitted for the 2015/16 chief executive salary survey and the figures in the accounts.
