APPENDIX 1
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Housing Corporation (Pac 00-01/174)
Question 21
An analysis by type, size and region of those
RSLs who are failing to submit their annual accounts on time:
RSLs are required to furnish to the Corporation
a copy of their accounts and auditor's report within 6 months
of the end of the period to which they relate (para. 16(5) Part
III, Schedule 1, Housing Act 1996).
Accounts for financial years ending October
1998 to September 1999 for which the required date for submission
fell between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000:
| Accounts due | 2,104
|
| Received by the required date (ie within 6 months of the end of the accounting period)
| 1,406 (67%) |
| Received within 6 months of the required date (ie within 12 months of the end of the accounting period)
| 2,065 (98%) |
Analysis by size:
Of the 698 RSLs which failed to submit accounts by the required
date:
| Less than 100 units in management | 77 per cent
|
| 100-250 units in management | 7 per cent
|
| 250-1,000 units in management | 8 per cent
|
| Over 1,000 units in management | 8 per cent
|
In all 84 per cent of RSLs submitting late accounts had
less than 250 units in management.
Analysis by type:
Of the 698 RSLs which failed to submit accounts by the required
date:
| 29 per cent were Almshouses |
| 27 per cent were mainstream RSLs providing housing for letting and/or hostel accommodation
|
| 19 per cent were Co-operatives |
| 15 per cent were Abbeyfields |
| 3 per cent were Co-ownerships |
| 2 per cent were YMCAs/YWCAs |
| 2 per cent were Large Scale Voluntary Transfers (LSVTs)
|
| 2 per cent were RSLs providing housing for sale or lease (of which nearly half then had no stock)
|
| 1 per cent were recently registered non-asset holding parent bodies
|
Of the 698 RSLs above 224 (32 per cent) submitted their
accounts within 7 days of the deadline. The vast majority of RSLs
with more than 250 units came into this category.
Analysis by region
Of the 698 RSLs which failed to submit accounts by the required
date:
| | London
| South East | South West
| East Midlan7ds |
West Midlands | North East
| North West | Merseyside
|
| | %
| % | %
| % | %
| % | %
| % |
| Almshouses | 14
| 34 | 42
| 43 | 28
| 61 | 19
| 3 |
| Mainstream RSLs | 30
| 28 | 17
| 30 | 34
| 24 | 29
| 28 |
| Co-operatives | 42
| 5 | 4
| 2 | 8
| 4 | 9
| 40 |
| Abbeyfields | 6
| 27 | 24
| 19 | 11
| 6 | 28
| 10 |
| Co-ownerships | 2
| 2 | 3
| — | 11
| — | 3
| 13 |
| YMCAs/YWCAs | 2
| 2 | 3
| 6 | 3
| 3 | —
| 3 |
| LSVTs | 2 |
— | 7
| — | 1
| 1 | 9
| 3 |
| RSLs providing |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| housing for sale or lease | 2
| 2 | —
| — | 4
| 1 | 3
| — |
Question 22
Record of RSLs taken to court for late submission of
accounts, and what fines were imposed.
The Corporation has the power to prosecute registered social
landlords for failing to submit accounts within six months of
the financial year end, or for failure to comply with the accounting
requirements (paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1996).
Fines not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale may be imposed
by the Magistrates Courts.
However, experience shows that this is neither an efficient
nor effective means of dealing with recalcitrant RSLs (most are
able to show that they have done everything they can to comply
with the law, which is a defence to such a prosecution, and that
the delay is caused by accountants/auditors). In the two years
1993 and 1994 the Corporation pursued five such prosecutions and
four RSLs received fines ranging from £100 to £500 (as
against a possible maximum of £1,000). The process was time
consuming, yet minimal costs orders were made. Most importantly,
however, the Corporation still received no accounts. As a consequence,
this remedy has not been pursued other than in exceptional circumstances.
An alternative redress, which would require primary legislation,
would be for the High Court to have jurisdiction to make such
orders as it thinks fit in order to remedy the default, as it
has for failure to respond to a notice requiring other types of
information (Section 32(4) of the 1996 Act).
Housing Corporation
24 May 2001
| 
