We agree with much of the review. Our campaign asks what those changes should mean in everyday life: a real say, action and a council that puts its resources behind residents.
This is our assessment, not a judgement or endorsement from the regulator. HQN’s review is separate from the council’s current consultation.
HQN wants more tenants to have influence, including those outside RAs. It also recommends fairer improvement funding, resident scrutiny, joint strategy development and clearer reporting of results. HQN, pages 14-16.
Wider tenant engagement is common ground. RAs face the same difficulty getting tenants involved. They can help reach people through local relationships, information sharing and advice when a problem arises. Residents do not need to become members to benefit from that support.
Every recommendation should lead to an answer, a named person responsible and a way to follow progress. Agree acceptance criteria with residents from the start: what needs to change and how we’ll know it has worked. An accepted idea needs action; a rejected one needs reasons.
Our assessment of alignment with HQN’s recommendations. The stars show overlap with the review, not proof of delivery or a regulatory rating.
5 stars: direct alignment. 4: strong alignment with added detail. 3: partial alignment. 2: limited alignment. 1: slight overlap. “Beyond the review” means a wider campaign proposal, not a weaker one.
| Campaign demand | Alignment | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Co-design | ★★★★★ | HQN recommends developing the strategy with residents. |
| Resident scrutiny | ★★★★★ | HQN recommends a tenant scrutiny function. |
| Outcomes and follow-through | ★★★★☆ | HQN calls for assessing and reporting outcomes. We add agreed acceptance criteria, named responsibility, timescales and progress updates. |
| Access without RA membership | ★★★★★ | Directly addresses wider eligibility. We also want RAs supported in reaching more tenants. |
| Council outreach and practical support | ★★★★☆ | Shared direction; our campaign makes delivery more explicit. |
| Council as a platform for community | Beyond the review | Adds a wider community purpose and a fair value exchange. |
| Dedicated youth engagement | Beyond the review | Adds a specific approach through schools, youth centres, sports clubs and local amenities. |
Based on HQN’s recommendations, printed pages 14-16. No overall score: wider ambitions should not lower the alignment rating.
Opening panels to more tenants and supporting RAs can work together. The test is whether residents outside existing groups gain influence, while local knowledge still reaches decisions. Membership should not be a gatekeeper, and widening access should not mean losing what already works.
See the practical proposal for supported introductions to neighbouring RAs.
HQN accepts the basic formal structure while recommending changes to eligibility. It does not call for the pyramid to be reversed. HQN, page 11.
The council should connect what it hears through different routes, spot patterns and use that insight to improve services. Our question is what residents can actually change once they are in the room. We want priorities and chairing arrangements agreed with residents, scrutiny they direct and outcomes they help define.
The platform goes further still: reliable, affordable services, practical support and funding that help residents improve neighbourhoods and build community. That is our wider campaign ambition: a fair value exchange. Residents contribute time, knowledge and community work; the council provides backing and real influence. Good services remain its responsibility whether residents take part or not.
Eligibility rules and the route into council decisions can be structural barriers. Long presentations, resident priorities left to AOB and weak action tracking concern how meetings operate. Both need attention; changing the name or membership alone will not fix the second set.
Agree objectives and agendas with residents. Send accessible reports beforehand, focus presentations on problems and action needed, and give estate and community concerns proper time. Track agreed actions and report back.
Ask whether residents were heard, influenced the discussion and saw action. Compare results with previous meetings. If rules prevent a useful change, identify the rule and consider revising it with residents.
Widening participation and improving current AHP and BRF meetings can happen together. Use trials to inform what the review retains, improves or replaces. Do not assume a new body will work better without diagnosing why the current arrangements fall short.
The council’s published structure has several routes, not just one ladder. HQN flags uncertainty about how resident input reaches the newer governance arrangements. Our proposal makes the return journey explicit: answers, action and results residents can check. HQN, pages 10 and 13-14.
Simplified from the council’s published diagram and structure page. The arrows show connections, not proof of influence. RA nominations go through area panels; the other forums have their own routes.
The published diagram also lists surveys, focus groups, readers’ panels, online consultations, community champions, RA networking events and participation registers. Our criticism is not that there are no alternatives to meetings. It is whether those routes give people influence, and whether the results are clear.
An illustrative sketch. The detail is for residents and the council to co-design.
A proposal for co-design, not an adopted council structure. Councillors retain their statutory responsibilities.
The regulator requires meaningful influence and scrutiny, support for tenant-led work, accessible participation and information showing how views affect services. These are requirements about landlord services; our broader community ambitions extend beyond them. Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard, sections 1.3, 1.5, 2.2 and 2.4.
| Our proposal | Evidence it could produce |
|---|---|
| Residents help set priorities | A record of how resident priorities shape decisions. |
| Resident-directed scrutiny | Reviews chosen by residents, recommendations and action taken. |
| Reach people where they are | Who participates, who is missing and what support helps. |
| Public follow-through | Reasons, owners, deadlines and progress residents can check. |
| Outcomes agreed with residents | A baseline, regular review and evidence of improvement. |
We think this is a stronger answer because it makes influence testable. A new diagram alone cannot demonstrate success. The council must show that the arrangements work.
Co-design who decides what, fair representation and how residents challenge an inadequate response. Give estates without an RA a fair chance of improvement funding. Agree resources, named owners and a public delivery plan.
Young people need routes through schools, youth centres, sports clubs and local amenities, with measures of whose views are heard and what changes. Improving services and listening should happen together; residents should not have to wait for every problem to be fixed before having influence.