Erosh, the national consortium for sheltered and retirement housing, like the National Housing Federation and other various commentators, including Melinda Phillips’ letter (Inside Housing, 8 January), all share a desire to provide the right level of support to older people in a way that meets their individual needs.
While some people in sheltered housing require the extra peace of mind it offers, others have no need for support services and are simply there because of housing need.
Over the past few years there has been considerable debate around the respective merits of resident warden services compared with other forms of support services, including hub and spoke and floating support.
The High Court decision about the reform of warden services in Barnet Council and Portsmouth Council shows a need to consult properly and to reflect carefully on the needs of disabled people.
There are some excellent examples of innovation in supported and older people’s housing many of which we hope to be highlighted in the three Communities and Local Government department-funded guides launched on 29 January.
In our view what is needed when these difficult issues are addressed is a mature and creative debate about how to balance the cost of the service, the needs of the individual, and the choices providers can deliver while ensuring full engagement of those affected in key decisions.
Imogen Parry, director of policy, Erosh
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (1)
vernony | 09/02/2010 7:28 pm
Speaking of ERoSH . May I put this organisation into context. They are funded in the main by housing providers, or selling consultancy services. Indeed they were recently described in this magazine as a Housing Providers organisation !
Certainly SHUK which is purely a residents, and their supporters, organisation does not regard them as representative of resident expectations.
Looking deeper:- There are very few people who are in Sheltered Housing because of 'housing problems' Indeed, if they are, they are almost a nationally invisible statistic . Yet proponents of reducing Warden services latch onto these and the few misguided souls who opt to live in Sheltered housing to then discover afterwards that it provides a Warden service that they don't need. To my mind these are purely 'distraction' figures, employed in attempt to dilute the real facts in people's minds. One must not forget also that it was the Housing Providers who put such people into Sheltered Housing, not its existing residents !
And, NO, we don't want posh committeez wording speaking about 'mature and creative debate', nor 'outcomes' , for that matter . What we want to read about is what the residents of Sheltered housing want, not what ERoSH want, or the NHF want !
97% of residents tell us that they moved into Sheltered Housing, because it had a Warden. To remove the warden afterwards is trickery, inmoral, and unjust.
That it is now costing Housing providers more than they bargained for, well I am sorry to learn of it, but bad luck, and that applies to all people who entered into a contract which eventually turned bad on them. Legal history is littered with people who failed to maintain contracts. (some even go to prison). Let us point out too, that where where Wardens are retained, if any resident refused to pay service charges for them, then they would be taken to Court, by their Housing Provider. and probably evicted on the basis of a breach of contract. Whether the resident had committed this act on the basis of affordability would not be taken into account by the Courts. What, therefore, gives Housing Providers the right to break their side of the contract because the going is getting tough?
Equally well if things had turned out differently, would they be talking about 'creative debate' if the contract has produced somewhat larger return than they had anticipated ?
Despite people speaking learnedly about what residents of Sheltered Housing wanted and a series of self confessed experts explaining what they want. SHUK is the first organisation to actually undertake a national survey of the residents of Sheltered Housing. The figures have alarmingly proved to us that opinions of residents have been steam rollered over and had never been allowed to surface before.
And, p.s. The hub will not work if there is no Warden on site to organise it. In effect my own Sheltered scheme operated a hub with the elderly coming in on Mondays and Wednesdays for darts, card games, and bingo (something that has been going on for 20 years, or more) Ours live close by but others would have to have transport to come in, most cannot walk, or will not, contemplate walking any distance.
At the beginning of this year we have lost our site-specific Warden, so the 'hub' has collapsed.So it is one thing to talk cleverly about hubs and spokes, it is another thing entirely to put it into practice. Instead of just philosophy why not tell us how it can be done without a Warden, or similar ?
Vernon J Yarker
Chairman
The Sheltered Housing UK Association
www.shelteredhousinguk.com
mailbox@shelteredhousinguk.com
twitter.com/SHUKAssociation
Vernon J Yarker
Chairman
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment