Walsall Council is proposing to award GreenSquareAccord a domestic abuse accommodation contract worth up to £1.4 million after the housing association was downgraded over serious governance and financial weaknesses. The council says keeping the existing provider will protect support for people escaping abuse.
Cabinet members will consider the proposal on 28 October. Officers recommend awarding it directly to GSA, without a full competitive tender, arguing that changing providers could disrupt a specialist service with few suitable alternatives. For residents rebuilding their lives, continuity matters. So does the resilience of the organisation they depend on.
But an examination of the council’s own papers raises questions about the assurances underpinning that recommendation. Alongside its explanation of the safeguards, an accompanying equality assessment contains entries dated April and October 2027 describing reviews as completed. The main report and assessment also give different start dates for the new arrangements.
The proposed award, reported by Local Democracy Reporter Rachel Alexander in the Express & Star, puts a practical question behind the argument about accountability; what evidence is sufficient to keep entrusting public services to a housing association after the regulator has found that its earlier improvement efforts have not demonstrated lasting results? expressandstar.com
What Walsall proposes
The initial contract would run from 1 January 2027 until 31 December 2028, costing £700,000. An optional further two-year extension could bring the total to £1.4 million.
Annual spending would rise from £300,000 to £350,000, an increase of 16.7%.
The Domestic Abuse Walsall Service provides eight refuge units and 19 dispersed accommodation units. It supports different households, including women with children, men and people whose needs may not be met by a traditional refuge. Its work includes safety planning, housing support, advocacy and therapeutic help.
Annual spending would rise from £300,000 to £350,000, an increase of 16.7%. The report attributes the extra £50,000 to a dedicated children’s therapist lead post and associated room hire and service costs. Two of the existing dispersed units would become step-down accommodation at general-needs rent, intended to improve affordability for people in work. The proposal retains the overall total of 27 units.
The council’s case for continuity deserves serious consideration. Its report says market engagement found few organisations able to combine suitable local properties, specialist expertise, safeguarding arrangements and housing management. A transfer could involve moving responsibility for properties, staffing, referrals and people already receiving support. Delays could leave vulnerable households with fewer places to go.
Keeping that support available is a responsibility. The question is how confidently the council can protect it through an organisation facing significant financial and governance pressures.
These proposals and the council’s reasoning are set out in its cabinet report.
With so few who can, perhaps that’s why we keep going back to those we know can’t.
The downgrade and the council’s assurances
On 7 October, the Regulator of Social Housing downgraded GSA to G3 for governance and V3 for financial viability. Both mean it does not meet the relevant regulatory requirements. Its C2 consumer grade was unchanged because consumer standards were not reassessed in that exercise.
The judgement identified weaknesses in financial governance, risk management, information and internal controls. It found reliance on selling social homes to maintain financial resilience. GSA remained compliant with lender covenants, but continued compliance depended on disposals, cost reductions and transformation programmes. These are organisation-wide findings; they do not establish a failure of Walsall’s domestic abuse service. GOV.UK
Jonathan Walters, the regulator’s chief executive, said: “In this case, our investigation has found a continued failure to address previously identified weaknesses in governance. This is unacceptable.” GOV.UK
The council describes monthly performance and safeguarding reviews, monitoring of property standards and complaints, financial and governance assurance, and an annual assessment of GSA’s continuing capacity to deliver. Significant deterioration in performance, finances or regulatory status would trigger escalation and corrective action. The optional extension would depend on performance and assurance requirements being met.
There is positive service evidence in the report. A review of 14 cases in November 2025 found support plans for everyone sampled. Average recorded domestic abuse risk-assessment scores fell from 11 at referral to eight at the latest assessment. These findings cover the 14 cases sampled. The council’s housing standards team also regularly inspects the service.
GSA has accepted the regulator’s findings. In its published response, chief executive Ruth Cooke said: “we fully accept the Regulator’s findings and recognise we still have work to do”. The organisation says it is strengthening oversight and risk management and that services will continue normally. GreenSquareAccord
Those commitments matter. The difficulty is that the regulator had already considered GSA’s reviews and improvement programmes and found insufficient evidence of sustainable improvement. Continuing confidence therefore needs to be supported by demonstrable results. GOV.UK
Questions in the council’s own paperwork
The equality and health impact assessment published with the proposal is supposed to help the council understand the service’s effects on the people who need it. On page 14, its updates section contains an April 2027 entry beginning “Six-month review completed” and an October 2027 entry beginning “Annual EHIA review undertaken”. Both go on to describe positive findings about the service.
Those dates were still in the future when Housing Sector examined the papers on 22 October 2026. The entries are not labelled as examples or anticipated outcomes. A dating or drafting error could explain them; the council’s published assessment does not explain the discrepancy.
The same assessment gives an October 2026 start for the new arrangements, while the main report proposes January 2027. Councillors need a clear account of which arrangements the assessment covers and which statements describe completed work. These documents support a decision affecting people who depend on reliable services. They should be clear enough to support informed scrutiny.
The direct-award explanation also merits a closer look. The report cites Schedule 5, paragraph 7 of the Procurement Act 2023, concerning additional or replacement provision where a supplier change would create differences or incompatibilities causing disproportionate technical difficulties. GOV.UK
Although it explains substantial continuity risks, the report does not identify the particular systems or incompatibilities underpinning that part of its legal justification. That is a point requiring clarification, not evidence that the proposed award is unlawful. The council says the required procurement notices will be published.
Trust beyond Walsall
Questions about GSA’s leadership and institutional confidence extend beyond this contract. In March, GSA announced it would retain 39 homes and three commercial units in Stirchley rather than complete the intended sale to Stirchley Co-operative Development.
But public bodies should be able to explain why they remain confident, particularly when the regulator has found serious weaknesses and another council’s leadership has publicly questioned the organisation’s approach.
GSA said the community group could not meet the project’s costs. Cooke argued that absorbing a £1.16 million gap between development costs and the co-operative’s offer would compromise investment for existing customers. The organisation pointed to construction difficulties, including the original contractor’s liquidation. GreenSquareAccord
In an August open letter to Cooke, Birmingham City Council’s leadership acknowledged cost pressures but questioned GSA’s social purpose and urged renewed negotiations. It expressed “serious reservations about future partnership working between the Council and Greensquare Accord”. Stirchley Co-operative Development
Walsall’s decision concerns a different service and must be judged on its own evidence. But public bodies should be able to explain why they remain confident, particularly when the regulator has found serious weaknesses and another council’s leadership has publicly questioned the organisation’s approach.
For someone escaping abuse, stability depends on the accommodation, the staff and the organisation behind them. GSA’s reliance on property sales makes protection of that service a legitimate concern, although no evidence examined here identifies these particular homes as earmarked for sale.
The responsibility now falls on Walsall’s cabinet to test the assurances, resolve the discrepancies and explain what would happen if GSA’s position deteriorated. Residents need continuity today and confidence that support will still be there tomorrow. Continued trust should rest on evidence that can withstand scrutiny, not on another promise that improvements are coming.