Unsurprisingly local authorities are taking matters into their own hands. Slough and Hillingdon are the latest to confirm they will bring services back in-house.
With £250,000 of possible savings to be made, as Slough claims, who can blame them? But should the sector simply sit back and lament the passing of these organisations which have not only delivered decent homes but driven up service standards to boot?
Many excellent ALMOs have looked at the books and decided, like Tristar and Bolton at Home, that stock transfer is the only solution. However, others such as Barnet and Hammersmith & Fulham, have decided to try to sell their management expertise to attract new revenue streams.
ALMOs aren’t dead, but they are evolving.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (2)
kev | 01/03/2010 8:05 am
ALMOs have driven up standards. Service delivery and real tenant involvement have flourished under ALMOs. That isn't in doubt. Taking the management of housing back 'in-house' at a time when Council's are having to slash spending doesn't bode well for tenants. The TSA may well find themselves presiding over a sector of social housing in real decline. Yes the properties will be up to a 'Decent' standard but the service provision is in jeopardy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
max | 03/03/2010 6:40 pm
I refer to my comments made in response to another the sky the falling article. I am curious about what evidence there is that services are going to decline if the service is taken back in house and why should they?
Councils will be awash with the money they save should ALMO Management Agreements expire and that money is ring-fenced for services to tenants. Who knows services may even get better and tenants may get better value for money. There is no doubt that ALMOs have driven up standards but only because thats what they were set up to do and their survival depended on it. No Councils would rightfully retain an ALMO that was not improving services. Its a minimum 2 stars or you're out!
Many ALMOs are steadily approaching the end of their usefulness as their decent homes programmes are nearing completion. It is positive that many have completed their improvements and also raised the quality of housing services. However, we must not forget that they (ALMOs) were chosen as a delivery vehicle to deliver decent homes first and foremost by those local authorities that did not want to or could not pursue the alternative options. Horses for courses etc. Why are we then surprised when we hear about a council terminating or not renewing ALMO agreement when decent homes works are concluded? If there is a compelling argument for retaining an ALMO beyond the delivery of decent homes I am still waiting to hear it. Yes ALMOs can new build houses for people in need, run apprenticeship programmes for long term unemployed and build space stations but I am almost certain that there are many better placed and experienced organisations in existence to achieve those outcomes. Let’s not get too emotional or get carried away with this debate because in the current economic climate why would any rational organisation extend or renew the ALMO’s existence beyond the reason why it was set up (the successful completion of the decent homes improvement programme).
Local authorities have difficult choices to make and sometimes its easier to get hysterical about the consequences rather than deal with the big issues such as life after ALMO. To Hillingdon and Slough I raise my glass, their ALMOs had a specific role and did that successfully, lets congratulate them that were brave and commissioned ALMOs as a route towards a successful outcomes but mourn their demise, don’t make me weep in my beer!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment