Regulator downgrades Merseyside landlord
A Merseyside-based housing association has agreed to be subject to an independent review after the social housing regulator downgraded its governance assessment.
Pierhead Housing Association, which owns and manages 1,800 homes, was downgraded to the second lowest G3 rating for its governance by the Homes and Communities Agency’s regulation committee.
The regulator’s judgement was critical of the landlord’s board and its executive team, as well as its governance structure. It also highlighted internal relationship issues and lengthy staff absences among senior figures as contributing to the organisation’s poor governance.
‘We have concluded that Pierhead’s governance arrangements do not provide adequate assurance that the organisation has effective leadership,’ read the judgement.
It continued: ‘Relationship difficulties at senior management and board have led to disputes which have diverted leadership’s attention away from directing and controlling the organisation’s business.’
The judgement concluded that it had ‘insufficient assurance that the board is adequately skilled to perform its role’.
Pierhead has not undertaken a governance review since October 2010. However, it has now agreed to commission an independent review, along guidelines agreed with the HCA. It has also elected an interim chair and appointed two ‘co-optees’ to the board.
The regulatory judgement is one of a number being published by the HCA today.
The majority of associations received top ratings for both governance and financial viability.
Flagship Housing Group received a G2 rating for governance, although this was an upgrade on its August 2011 judgement, reflecting improved arrangements following an independent review.
However, the new judgement concluded that the group still needed to improve aspects of its governance ‘to support continued compliance’.
One Housing Group also received a G2 grade, with the regulator highlighting the board’s need to improve the ‘oversight and scrutiny of the group’s activities to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements’.
It added that reporting to the One Housing board had not been frequent or detailed enough for it to be clear about the group’s performance.
