Landlords handed money after agreeing to drop judicial review on funding
Decent homes cash released
Half the councils threatening to take the government to court over delays to their decent homes funding have been handed some money after agreeing to drop out of the case.
Havering, Sutton, Sedgemoor and Redbridge councils had planned to bring a judicial review of the government’s decision to hold back £150 million funding for new arm’s-length management organisations until 2011/12.
Havering and Sutton, though, have gained the two stars needed to unlock decent homes funding and dropped their part of the legal action in order to reopen funding negotiations with Homes and Communities Agency.
The HCA, which funds the ALMO programme, had said it would not negotiate while the judicial review was pending. However, it recommenced discussions with the two authorities after they pulled out of the case and later reached settlements with them.
Havering will get £9 million and Sutton £5 million to cover the first year of their decent homes programmes from April 2010. The HCA has given them ‘indicative allocations’ to cover the total duration of programme, which are a total of £112 million in Havering and £112.5 million for Sutton.
Meanwhile, Sedgemoor Council said it was in negotiations with the HCA and had not yet dropped the legal action. It may do so depending on the outcome of talks.
The council had expected to get £40 million of decent homes funding over five years. Its ALMO does not yet have two stars from the Audit Commission and will be inspected next month.
Lisa Marston, chief housing officer at Redbridge council, said the authority was still involved in the judicial review and was in ‘urgent discussions’ with the CLG and HCA.
The HCA said it had outlined to the four ALMOs what could happen if the judicial review had not been launched but it could not hold formal talks with them while the case was pending. Sir Bob Kerslake, chief executive of the HCA, said it could continue talks with Sutton and Havering owing to their withdrawal from the judicial review.



Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment