Cave Review of social housing regulation

It apears the cogs in the wheels of regulative bodies have drawn to a halt.

As a tenant of social housing i can see that the more excelent social housing orgs

will be in partnership with other renowned and progressive working social housing projects.

To add the percpective of a tenant, tenants
should be consulted directly on all accounts.

Most communities struggle to maintain any kind of real organised community tenant dialog, even when they are arranged, theres always a lot of compensatory talk..trust and time need to be developed.

One shouldnt be prejudiced without knowing the truthfull circumstances of people and families brought to ones attention.

Some councils are very dodgy and need investigating and auditing..some are good, but others..even there websites dont go anywhere..its like wheres the sherriff.

One last thing, low income families faceing disabilities, one parent families ect, the most vunrable on baseline benefits, should
not be expected to pay anything towards their rent or service charges which they have not opted for by choice. eg gararge.

I am currently dealing with several community groups in England, which basically have the same boundaries as the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders (HMRP). These community groups live in areas of low demand and most of them in council or housing association houses. I have been a housing professional for over 40 years and do not like the term 'social housing' and would prefer to use the term 'rented accommodation'.
It is very clear that these residents or tenants are governed or run by ALMO boards, housing association boards or local authority houisng departments. These 'governing' bodies are becoming outdated in the way that they deal with their customers and it is time for change!
The tenants and residents associations (T&RAS) have long been the guide on how to consult for some of the more enlightened lanlords, but this is still not an effective and effiecient way of regulation.
We need to look at creating or forming Local Community Parnerships that I am currently trialling in my work at Bury, Liverpool Manchester, Middlesborough and Salford. A LCP is created, without any political to deal with everything to do with that particular commmunity and is made up of voluntary representatives from the landlords, the private sector and the tenants and residents of that area.
After being created, they (LCP) come together to discuss issues like social housing regulation or regeneration and have an equal say in how it should be regulated in that area, based on basic guidelines supplied.
This will make the local area responsible, via the LCP for social housing in their area and will be different to any other schemes as it will be local to their area only.
It will be administered locally by the LCP, by way of a LCP fund and will take away the rigid central control which is currently beaurocratic, costly, ineffective and full of red tape.
This idea of a LCP has been created by me in the way that I am dealing with community groups to deal with Compulsory Purchase Orders and how they affect regeneration issues.
If you need any clarification on this topic or any futher information, then do not hesitate to contact me.

I am experiencing local authority housing decisions as a leaseholder and I for one am very glad that they have any form of external regulation applied, however it often seems much too little, too late. My ALMO don’t seem to have consulted tenants before the audit commission made it a tick box requirement. Their decisions could not be questioned, and tenants knew their place. Council tenants don’t even have the right to check how their rents are spent. As a leaseholder I know that ‘consultation’ is only put in place to impress the audit commission, but I turn up anyway, because if leaseholders give up then no-one is looking any more.

As an example -I recently spent six months with other leaseholders explaining in consultation that a windows planning application was defective, it had 18 objections from leaseholders and tenants. Leaseholders were actually supporting slightly more expensive measures that followed planning rules. The ALMO forged ahead and incurred site costs of £9,000 per week before permission was granted, but when the application was unanimously and sensibly rejected by the local planning committee on the basis of being detrimental to tenants lives, they had no contingency plan in place. The overheads they have incurred are 150% of the actual cost of window replacement, but there will be no windows. There is no point in complaining to these decision-makers, since six months of patient discussions got us nowhere. The Audit commission cannot intervene on time, they require us to complain locally and to wait as ALMO officers play the ten day vague response game. Besides a slapped wrist and a black mark for the ALMO is not much comfort for freezing tenants as they watch contractors laugh all the way to the bank to deposit their Decent Homes funds.

Social housing should not be driven by profit, but the need to provide affordable, decent housing for its tenants. Real concerns are that the introduction of market models into social housing would lead the sector to fragment to such an extent that it can no longer provide a comprehensive public service, or retain the link to local communities. Regulatory system has to safeguard the fundamental purposes of social housing. Tenants may be sceptical about the extent to which these purposes can be safeguarded in the context of the competing priorities of shareholders.

It is vital that any move to a single regulatory regime should not dilute the democratic accountability available to council tenants. Democratic rights of all housing association tenants should be extended. I draw your attention to recent examples where commitment to user voice and accountability has been lacking, particularly in regard to council housing reforms. Despite widespread support from tenants, the ‘Fourth Option’ of direct investment to improve council homes and estates has been denied.
Where tenants choose to remain under the management of their local authority, they should not be financially disadvantaged – funds available for stock transfers should be equally available to councils, ensuring a level playing field!