Audit Committee - Wednesday 9 July 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Audit Committee
Wednesday, 9th July 2025 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Okay. So welcome everyone to this meeting. My name is Councillor Joe Rigby and I will
chair this evening's meeting. So members of the committee, please switch on your microphone
to confirm your attendance.
Good evening, Councillor Caddy.
Good evening, Councillor Hedges. Thank you.
Hello. I'm independent member Elva Podini -Kana.
Hello, Councillor Sean Lawless.
Thank you. And we have apologies from the actual Chair, Councillor Warrell.
We also have a number of offices present who will introduce themselves when they address the committee.
So, Agenda Item 1, declarations of interest.
Are there any declarations of either precuniary or registrable or non -registrable interests?
Cool.
Okay.
Agenda Item 2, minutes from the 11th of March, 2025.
members, are the minutes of the meeting held on the 7th of November 2020?
Excuse me, 11 March.
I thought I was so confused.
Are the meetings of the minutes held on the 11th of March 2025 agreed as a correct record?
Thank you.
Okay, so moving on to Agenda Item 3, an update on the 2023 -24 accounts and the 2024 -25 accounts
and external audit, that's paper number 25247.
So I believe we're going to have a short presentation from Alicia.
Thank you.
Thank you. Alicia Atto, Chief Accountant. The paper provides an update on the 23 -24
accounts and the 24 -25 draft accounts and the subsequent audit. Starting with the 23 -24
accounts, as reported previously to Committee, the accounts were signed in
February 25 ahead of the backstop date of the 28th of February 25. Included for
information within this report is the auditor's annual report for 23 -24.
Moving to 24 -25, we are pleased to confirm the draft accounts were published as planned
in line with the statutory deadline of 30 June 2025. Some 25 % of public bodies didn't
achieve this deadline nationally, so we are very pleased to be in the majority's statistic.
The audit of the draft accounts for 24 -25 commenced this Monday, as planned, and EY
have provided their audit plan as at April 25 within these papers. Adrian
Barmar from EY is here who can answer any further questions that you may have.
Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions about this?
Councillor Caddy, Councillor Hedges. Thank you very much chair. First of all
thanks very much to the team obviously for working so hard on this and getting
such a good result and getting the accounts signed and the audit completed in good time
compared to a lot of other councils.
I guess a couple of questions.
The first one is just the issue on the valuation of the council homes.
I don't know if we can get a bit more background or a bit more information on that.
Why did the policy change?
What's the difference between the previous policy and the current policy or the new policy
and how's that going to affect the accounts going forward?
And should I just do that one first and then move on to the next one?
Thank you.
Yes, so I can take that one.
So effectively in the 23 -24 audit we identified an issue with around the valuations of county
dwellings.
And we reported back to this committee that there was a difference between the valuations
presented to the valuer because effectively what was happening was the valuer wasn't taking
account of additions in year.
So there was a lag year on year between when those additions were being recognised.
So when we looked at the accounts last year, we identified there was 135 million of additions which hadn't been recognised in the valuation.
So we reported those as part of our audit results report.
And we raised a recommendation to management.
So management have effectively changed their approach.
The policy has now been updated to reflect the fact that additions would be recognised in year.
So this is the first year that we'll have a chance to kind of look at that.
So we're requesting the valuation reports.
and want people to report back to this committee in the November audit results report to say
if we're comfortable with that.
We've had an initial look at the approach that's been suggested.
We haven't had any fundamental questions.
So I think we can give the committee some assurance that actually the council of tech
or the officers of tech have done that really seriously and changed their approach.
The valuation's been incorporated and actually we'll look forward to kind of auditing that
over the next few months.
Adrian, could you introduce yourself just for the live stream, please?
Yeah, of course.
My name is Adrian Bama, I'm a senior manager with EY External Audit.
Sorry, I've just got one more.
It was just in relation to page 30 and there was a reference to the requirement for a bus
savings plan given some of the challenges to the finances of the Council.
And I guess this is probably more of an internal question and it will probably come up later
But it was just in the context of some of the internal audit results later.
I just wondered whether EY had sort of seen any or looked at any evidence of those kind of robust savings plans.
Whether that work was sort of on the horizon for the future.
Yes, we haven't done our value for money work yet for 24, 25.
So that again will be reported back to the November committee.
Two questions.
One which is in relation to paragraph 11 where you say the plan identifies three areas of
increased risk from the previous year.
Just wanted to know one, how you plan on keeping the Audit Committee up to date if any of these
areas become more material.
And then the second question is again in relation to page 30 when we talk about funding gaps
And have we considered the fair funding review, which is obviously pending at the moment,
but that's obviously going to have an impact on the amount of grants that we get.
Also that will impact future gaps as well.
Thanks.
Well, I can take the first point around the risks.
So effectively, in the plan for 24 -25, we'd identified three different areas of focus.
So one was the council dwellings point that Councillor Caddy's just raised.
The other one was around the new accounting standard, which is IFRS 16 leases.
So this is the first year that council, like all councils, will have to adopt IFRS 16.
So it'll just be a change in interpretation of how leases are presented on the balance
sheet.
And again, the last one is around the group structure.
So there was a change in Winstanley York Road and how that was owned effectively.
There was a change in the structure of that.
The council changed that structure in December 24.
So effectively as part of our audit for 24 -25 we want to kind of review that structure.
Just to make sure that the accountant is correct and everything else is kind of interpreted in line with accounting standards.
So again we would report back to this committee in November as part of our audit results report for 24 -25.
and we would hope at the last stage that we would have substantially completed the work
in all those three areas.
Thank you, Chair. So I'm Fineda Mary, I'm the Executive Director of Finance. If I take
the second question about the impact of the Government's finance funding changes, we're
currently looking at that, we're crunching the numbers and I think it's already well
known that the impact is quite severe on London, in London in particular, and obviously Wandsworth
as an outlier in terms of council tax is going to be particularly hit. I'd expect EY to be talking
to us about our medium -term financial strategy which is being updated at the moment and we'll go
through the formal approval process in September, October and as part of that I think it will
feature quite heavily on EY's work programme for the next audit that comes up.
Any other questions?
So are the recommendations agreed?
Thank you.
Agenda item 4, recruitment of one independent member of the Audit Committee, paper number
25248.
Who is going to speak to this?
Thank you.
Hi, so I'm Paul Giordiotti, Director of Financial Services.
So the paper here before you, I'll give a brief background for those who probably haven't
gone through this sort of process before.
Up until recently, we didn't have independent members on the committee, it was solely, you
know, full -blown Council members.
We did a review on best practice on how all the committees work, and it was deemed to
the beneficial if we can bring some independence on who've got some expertise from their experience,
knowledge and background, who can give a different insight and ask more pertinent questions than
maybe councillors can.
So the terms of reference have changed and we introduced two members.
We have one with us today who's obviously, as you will see, does a very good job in asking
some good questions and highlights the benefits we can get from them.
So, we've got a vacancy, so we believe that we ought to fill that vacancy by bringing
in a second one.
So this is the paper just to approve that process and setting out how we're going to
recruit.
Thank you.
Does anyone have any questions or comments about how we'd go about doing this?
Councillor Lawless.
Thank you.
The recommendations seem fine to me and the body of three people seem okay.
How easy do we think it's going to be to find someone? Will we get lots of good candidates, do you think?
No, if I'm being brutally honest with you. If we get two or three really good candidates, I'm going to be really pleased.
If we can actually have a proper genuine selection process.
Audit is always a struggle, both for external auditors and for internal auditors to get them.
So to then find people with relevant experience, who then are willing to come and sit on a committee and go through it again,
from a different perspective is difficult.
Normally they will be local and have got a burning desire to give back to the community
or that they're looking potentially to want to become a NED in some way, shape or form
where I can see this as a stepping stone to help them.
So the universe of people who are likely to want to apply is narrow.
But we have been successful.
So the fact that we've been able to fill the roles with good, competent people
Whilst we get few applications, the applications that we get are normally good.
Just very quickly, I know last time we used a few different sort of outlets that we hadn't used before.
I just wondered whether there was something about maybe social media and having counselors or the council
and the council sort of social media teams putting something out there on LinkedIn or, you know,
kind of using all of those channels to try and get someone.
Yeah, I mean, we'll endeavor to use, you know, the right levels.
We'll liaise with our HR team to help promote, and clearly Mariana and Andrew, who have been
well versed in doing these, will actively look.
But because we know that, like I said, the cohort is going to be small, so we need to
make sure that we advertise as widely as possible in order to do that.
Okay, well, let's hope we get some good candidates.
And are the recommendations agreed?
Thank you.
Agenda item five, annual review of risk management, paper number 25261.
So again this is as it stands it's an annual review but there is a slight
change this year but for those that are going through it the first time I'll
talk you through the process and the the approach that we've historically taken
and then what we're looking to the reason why we're looking to review and
the potential changes that may come out from that. So historically we've operated
on a sort of the three sort of tier sort of structure where you end up having corporate
risks for where there are risk specialists who would give a report back through to directors
board.
You then have each service would report back on those service risks and you'd have specific
projects would have their own risk registers separate and that reporting mechanism would
be dealt with outside of it.
Recently we've done a peer review of the boroughs that work within the South West London
and Audit Partnership to see how they operate and what some of the differences are.
And whilst the areas that we cover and the sort of the templates that we use in order
to ask people to complete are very similar, some of the key differences is how that information
gets reported and how it then gets escalated up through to the directors on a local level,
then directors board, and then through to the committee.
So whilst it's a relatively small change in the sense of 80 -90 % of it is exactly the same,
that difference is quite fundamental in that there is not one particular site that locates
and keeps track of all of those underlying service risks.
We keep records of the 20 or so that come back here and you see it in the paper of those
core ones, but not how it then impacts directly on the service area.
So there's been some challenges in the past when people have been doing some service reviews,
whether it be external partners, whether it be CQC or whether it be Ofsted.
We just sort of identified where is this and to see it in one location has probably highlighted
some of the challenges, which is why we think it's right and proper that we review the process.
So you can see the outline in one of the appendices, what we're looking to try to seek to do.
We're going to engage with key stakeholders that include the chair of this committee,
with executive directors and relevant other individuals to get a flavour for
what they what do they need to ensure that they understand the risks and fully
embed it and integrate it into their day -to -day working environment because
risk management whilst it sits primarily at the starting point from this
committee it's everyone's responsibility and therefore we need to
evidence and demonstrate that it is being taken seriously and it's been used
effectively. So that's the proposals in this paper. We're not looking at, so we're
keeping the same sort of regime for this current year, so I know you've been asked to keep
that strategy, but it isn't something we can do overnight. You can see the pipeline,
so the plan is that we would come back with some draft sort of proposals for ratification
in November, sign for that committee, and then we can roll out some workshops to make
sure that we can start with the new regime for 26, 27 onwards. So that's the proposals.
I'm here to ask you to keep existing arrangements for the current year.
We'll do the review and then we'll report back on any proposed changes for next year.
Thank you. Are there any comments or questions on this?
Councillor Caddy?
No, only very quickly that it sounds like it's a very sensible approach and I'd be happy to
get involved if that was helpful given that I've been on the committee for some years.
Councillor Hedges?
Thank you for putting this paper together.
Mine was just a really quick one because I was looking on, I think it was one of the
local government websites or something, and they were talking about the August 2023 ransomware
incident at St. Helens borough council.
You may remember it up in Merseyside and it highlighted the need for workforce cyber
awareness, which I know we do here, and counselors do it as well.
But they mentioned – sorry, I'm just trying to read what I've written – mentioned
something about participating in sector resilience networks and sharing lessons learned.
So presumably that's with other councils.
And just wondered if we are – if we do that and if we don't do that, are we planning
to prioritize that?
Because that came up as something as a best practice, as one of the key things that we
would need to do.
The first one was obviously external audit, but we obviously do that.
But I thought this point was worth highlighting and just wanted to check if we do that.
Thanks.
I'll be honest with you, I don't know whether we do that specific item, that arrangement,
but the paper that comes on later in the annual governance statement, you'll see that cyber risk is a key issue.
We're not saying that there's any fundamental challenges or problems that we've got, but it is elevated as a key issue.
and Ian Robinson and his team have engaged with third parties who would have access to
that sort of data, not just on a local government level, but on a much broader one.
So we've engaged with external partners to provide that advice and support.
So whilst we're not doing it in that particular way that you're talking about, we have actually
recognised the risk and the need for us to engage third parties and commission them to
make sure that they're monitoring, tracking, keeping an understanding of all the other
key risks that are, you know, as we speak, what we think is a risk is gone. It's the
next one that's coming back. They are so quick at identifying it and we can't do
it ourselves. But that is why it's on the annual gunner statement and even
though that we've got measures in place, I can't see it really going disappearing
because it needs to have that high profile that you quite rightly are
highlighted now.
I've actually got a couple of questions. Yeah, so the, I thought the cyber
awareness training was absolutely brilliant it's like so it's very long
but it's actually a lot better than any I've done in any workplace so do we have
a good completion rate amongst all staff how are we doing for that so again so
that it's not my it's not our area and so I'm talking more broadly okay I've
just being told to go we have actually looked at one of the audits we've got
95 % but it is and that's normally the target what you'd be looking to do a 95
in essence is a hundred because you've got churn and you got vacancies and
doing that so in general we've got a the software system that is you know it
isn't just cyber that's mandatory there are a number of other ish cases like
fraud prevention information security which is slightly different to cyber and
a number of areas whereby we all get emailed and there's tracks you get
reminded and then there's escalation reports being brought up and when needed
it goes to directors board with a name and shame type scenario and that trust
me is a good incentive to get people to undertake the work. And the second
question is it's great we're looking into the sort of risks of AI and you
might not know the answer but do we have a task force looking at the opportunities
for AI across the Council?
I had a two hour discussion just recently before here
about the transformation and the future direction of that.
And I think we know that the Council is going to face
substantial challenges on its finances in regards to it.
So we need to be a lot more innovative in how we engage
and how we can utilize the opportunities to capture
and improve the offering that we've got.
So yes, and we've got a department called changing innovation and that's where you know sits within IT sits within in that field
To hopefully champion best practice to promote that
Thank you any other comments on one just
Note that there was a slight typo. This is a problem when we've got two councils and we're reporting back. So I think on
Just a reference on page 107. There's a reference to Richmond's and it's unfortunately should be Wandsworth
That's a great use of AI, you know, just set up an agent. Take away Richmond
Councillor Hedges
Thank you chair. I was going to ask about the Winstanley York Road development
But I think we covered that in the first paper and just how we were
How we were
Gonna be how confident are we about the JV's governance and risk?
Controls but I think we covered that in the first one. It's also covered in the annual governance statement
So we recognise the challenges with it being such a huge development, it is been put on
the annual government statement for monetary.
Yeah, and I was also going to ask about the £20 ,000 quotation and the rationale requirement,
will it be enforced and will internal audit be reviewed?
How will it be enforced and how will you be reviewing it?
So basically how are you going to keep compliance with that?
That's the changes in procurement thresholds.
So again that's an item on the annual government statement, the next paper, so it has been
highlighted and there is what we call continuous order tin testing that's going to be...
Oh yeah sorry I've jumped ahead, sorry.
So that will be covered through continuous order tin, so there will be spot checks that
will be done for those that would say would be above 10 ,000 below 20 ,000 and we'll look
to see was there any evidence to suggest that this delivery
in value for money.
But it would be done in a pragmatic manner.
Sorry, just one more question.
Going back to the cyber point, this
was the question I was meaning to ask.
I mentioned it before to you, maybe about a year ago,
about doing the spot check emails, like the phishing
emails, because I work for a corporate in the city.
And we're constantly getting the same as you
in terms of threats.
and we have those, we have regular emails where they're testing us to see if it's official or not
and you have to like report it whether it's official, so I wondered whether we did something like that with staff here
so that they can actively check to see if they are, and an easy way to report it via the email?
Not to the best of my knowledge, again it's not our area that would sit with INT.
There are a number of occasions where you get those,
you know, that there is clear and obvious
that you've got the emails.
There is a button at the top where you can report
if you suspect, so we've got the structure,
so it's if you're suspicious that you don't need to open,
you've got a mechanism where you can report through.
I use it several times.
I'm probably a lot more cynical than most,
even than a lot of emails that are probably half genuine,
I still throw over.
But the actual, the idea of doing that,
spoofing emails out to people we're not doing that not that's been reported back
but that might be something that when they're looking at their their whole
approach with that the cybersecurity that they will do in the future yes we
have those as well so are the recommendations agreed yeah great so
So, Agenda Item 6, Review of the Council's Governance Arrangements Incorporating Internal
Control and on the publication of the Council's Annual Governance Statement for 24 -25, Paper
Number 25262.
So, that's me again.
So, this paper is, again, it's another one that's annual by the nature of the report
itself.
So it's combined sort of three areas really.
You've got your annual governance statement, you've got your update and annual review
on the internal audit recommendations and the work that they have undertaken, together
with that of the fraud.
The main area, which is in Appendix D, which sits as part of the formula of the County
Annual Governance Statement, that's based on seven principles that's set out by the
for code last updated in in 2016 so when you he's currently going through it's
gone through a review so this is the last time you'll see it looking exactly
like this it will change for next year and whilst in historically it's been
backward looking there's going to be some elements of forward looking you
know in the next iteration of the report seven principles are laid out in in the
The main area for us to do is it's used for me to be able to give an opinion on whether
or not I think our internal control mechanisms are effective.
And you'll note in the paper that I'm deeming it to be so.
And the rationale for that is that 86 % of the audits that we undertook on an insurance
basis came back in a positive manner with 100 % of those in the key financial systems.
So, that's how we're able to give that style of an opinion.
Some of the key other information that you refer to, Tables 4 and 5, highlight the activity
that the FORE team has done and the notion of savings that's been achieved.
Appendix A gives you the overall summary of all the work that the internal audit team
has done, the assurance levels that they have assigned to each piece of the work, and the
number of recommendations that were made with Appendix B highlighting the more important
ones, those that were deemed to be priority one.
Priority ones are those that actually have a material impact on their ability to meet
objectives or have a high financial risk associated with them.
Appendix C gives you the outcomes of the fraud activity work, a bit more detail about what
they did and then Appendix D is that annual governance statement. What you'll
see in the annual governance statement is a number of areas where we're saying
as sort of like their key risk areas it's different from the risk report it's
not linked to that it's because it's more a broader wider area even if
they're listed on it doesn't mean we think they've got necessarily got
significant concern but they are such that they need to be actively considered
monitored and maybe audited more frequently. What you see on there is
devolved management organisations. For those that have been on this committee
for several years will know that it never goes away and what we mean by
those it's schools and it's our you know RMOs in the housing where you've got in
essence many businesses being operated and not by necessarily people who run
businesses you're likely to get more and more issues and recommendations and we
can't manage them directly. They are autonomous bodies who have their own governance arrangements,
so it's more difficult to influence and get changes. We've got information governance
and cyber security, which we've been talking about in depth. That's highlighted over there
for the reasons that we've been saying. Knowledge management is always and has been recently
a change in churn. Another new chief executive shows you the changes in approaches, knowledge,
skills, experiences disappearing. Contract management, hopefully that may come to a
point but soon where we can be confident to remove that. You'll know that we've
talked about it in depth over the last few years. We brought in a brand new
framework that the training has been provided. Last time we did refresher
training was well over 100 people attended it so I'm hoping that that can
then get embedded over the next year or two and we'll be able to be removed.
When standing York Road, again mentioned before, we recognise we've listened and so therefore
it's on this statement, not saying that there's any necessary concern, but by putting it on
here it gives that monitoring and that elevated that issue to make sure there is appropriate
oversight and then risk management and procurement thresholds we've talked about before.
So it just shows you how obviously conversations that are obviously pertinent to yourselves
can come through and sit on the annual government statement.
So that's it in a nutshell. If there's any specific questions on the reports and everything else, I'm more than likely going to defer to my colleagues.
But if it's anything more strategic, I'll try and answer them.
Do we have any questions or comments? Councillor Caddy, Councillor Lawless, Councillor Hedges.
The first comment or question I had was on, I mean it comes up throughout the report, but it's probably mentioned most clearly in paragraph 92 on page 162.
and it's the change program.
And obviously we've talked about the sort of
financial challenges for the council that are ongoing
and will continue to probably worsen.
And I was just really concerned that the change program
isn't being gripped in the way that one might expect
and these results were obviously concerning.
Is this something that is gonna come back and be reported
in terms of the improvements that are gonna be made?
Hello, I'm Andrew Hamilton.
I'm the head of the Shared Audit Service.
It will be, so there are a number of priority one recommendations made as a result of that
report, so we will come back and report in detail when those have been implemented.
I guess what I would say is that the Director of Change and Innovation is confident that
a lot of work has been completed and a lot of the recommendations have been completed
already.
So at the point when we started the piece of work, they had taken on a new change programme
or head of the change programme who identified actually most of, or a lot of the issues that
we found during the audit and work had started on some of those to address the issues.
So I'm reasonably confident that when we come back we'll be able to say that the majority
have been implemented, but we'll certainly give you a progress update, yes.
We have in the past had directors come and sort of report to the meeting, so I wondered
whether it was an area that was important enough to perhaps have them come back and
talk us through those changes and allow us to sort of discuss it with them at the next
meeting because obviously I was really concerned about these results.
It's in the committee's gift to, I'll use the plight to invite relevant heads of service,
directorates to come and if that's your wish on the update then clearly if that's the message
from the committee we will ensure a representative from that department is here to give an update.
Can I ask about fleet vehicles? Can we hear a little bit more about fleet vehicles, particularly
about how many are we talking about? It says that no consistent procurement process was
followed. So what process was followed? Is it that there were different processes being
followed, is that it was just completely inconsistent. How long has the process been like this and
has this come to Audit Committee before, do we know?
I'll try and answer those. It hasn't come to Committee before. It's an audit that, in
the scheme of things, would be warranted as reasonably low risk in our strategic audit
plan. It made its way onto the plan as a result of some concerns raised by directors, which
is why we did a full review. It does highlight some key issues. I guess you could say perhaps
some of that is because audit is a good function for making sure that departments stay on track
in terms of following processes and rules. Sometimes when they haven't had any oversight
for some time things can go wayward.
I guess one of the underlying things was there'd been significant change in personnel across
the department.
So this is one of those areas that we class as a corporate audit because it doesn't just
sit in one function.
So it cuts across HR, payroll, fleet services, procurement.
So there's lots of people involved.
And over a period of time, as key officers left, some of those links between those departments
failed.
So new people came along that weren't aware of the sort of the links and the relationships
that needed to be maintained to make sure that control was effective.
And essentially, I guess the underlying issue for me was around the governance of that whole
area itself.
So, you know, just if you were an officer, for instance, you'd find it really difficult
to find out what the rules were.
Monitoring of the vehicles themselves was patchy at best, I think it would be fair to
which potentially led on some issues or potential issues with HMRC in terms of P11D reports
or returns.
The procurement aspect, we didn't find that vehicles weren't being procured appropriately,
just that they were going through different avenues.
As a result of that, you didn't have that oversight at a global level.
The procurement team and the Council as a whole wasn't able to say, yes, we are satisfied
that all the, you know, we don't know where they're procured from or maybe they weren't
following the rules in terms of whether they were complying with the green policies and
things like that. So it was just a case of each department doing their own thing and
the audit was very much about pulling that back together and giving some oversight and
some sort of governance arrangements from the top. So Fleet Services and HR are very
much on board with that and have taken responsibility for the recommendations and have started making
I think it's fair to say that it's something that will take a little while just because
of the complexity of putting together a set of governance arrangements that covers so
many disparate parts.
But it wasn't an interesting one.
We didn't find, whilst there were risks identified, we didn't find specific non -compliance that
was a real concern.
Q. This is a follow -up to that specific point.
I was just going to say, are we going to have to retrospectively change P11Ds and fess
up to HMRC, or is that not on the cards?
A. I think the reality is there wouldn't be – we don't have the records to understand
whether people have done something they shouldn't have done.
There just isn't that record – there wasn't that record keeping, so we don't know how
how often people kept vehicles at their home address, which is the issue.
So my understanding is that's not the case, but it does sit with our payroll team at the moment.
Have a look.
Thank you.
Quick question on page 169.
You've got the summary of fraud referrals and data cleansing matches.
The total referrals in the period, obviously it looks like there's been some very positive numbers there,
dropped from 754 in 22, 23 to 519 now,
last year and this year, rather.
Can you remind me what we did
to make those numbers go down quite a lot?
Thank you.
I'm glad I made the phone call
because the person who's normally here,
Kevin Holland, who runs the service, is on leave today.
And I thought this question might come up.
So it's an NFIE year.
So every few years they'll do an NFI, which is a national sort of review when we get a
load of extra referrals that come out.
And the big change in particular was in the housing applications, and that was due to
an NFI phase that went in that year.
Councillor Cady.
On page 163, paragraph 93, it talks about officers confirming it has been agreed with
the Housing Regulator that the Council will complete the outstanding electrical safety
tests by the end of June 2025.
Can we confirm that they have been completed?
And then the tenanted properties by the end of December 2025.
Are we on track for that?
I will have to get back to you outside of the meeting with that one.
So Andrew, will you send an email to everyone with the answer to that?
Thank you.
Are there any other questions or comments on this paper?
I have just got one more comment.
There's another Richmond instead of Wandsworth on page 157.
Thank you.
So are the recommendations agreed?
So thank you.
The meeting has now finished.
Thanks very much for coming along.
Thank you.
Thank you.