Idea to safeguard private funds could see ALMOs run by communities
Plan to split ALMO owners
Local communities could take control of arm’s-length management organisations in a bid to gain access to more private investment.
The National Federation of ALMOs is looking at a new model for the housing management companies which would see housing stock remain in council ownership, but the ALMO transferred to the community.
Existing ALMOs could become ‘community-owned, council-owned’ organisations under plans sketched out by the NFA which would safeguard ALMO funding at a time of constrained public spending. The new organisations could be known as COCOs.
Gwyneth Taylor, NFA policy director, said the COCOs would mean councils could avoid stock transfer while still attracting private investment in their properties. ‘If an organisation is 100 per cent local authority-owned, then any expenditure comes out of public sector spending, which is obviously difficult as we know there isn’t going to be any money available over the next few years,’ she said.
‘But if you have a 50-50 split then you can get around that public sector spending issue, which allows you to access private finance.’
The NFA would want councils to ballot tenants on the proposals before any change was made, Ms Taylor added. She said plans were at an early stage and no formal discussions with ALMOs had taken place.
The NFA is considering COCOs as one of a number of responses to reforms to the housing revenue account subsidy system.
Dennis Rees, vice-chair of Derby Homes, said it would consider a COCO when it resumes its stock options review, which was postponed pending last week’s HRA announcement.
‘This would enable an ALMO to borrow money from the private sector, which would be very helpful,’ he said.
A spokesperson for the Communities and Local Government department said: ‘The department will consider proposals that ALMOs and their local authorities bring forward, including new ownership models.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (5)
Bill Caddick | 01/04/2010 9:40 am
Better renamed Cuckoo I think.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
EssexMan | 01/04/2010 11:30 am
COCOs??
For crying out loud it's hard enough trying to explain to people what an ALMO is and they come up with this name.
It's high time ALMOs changed their name altogether but to something sensible - I can hear my tenants now agreeing with Bill totally!
COCOs whatever next!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
layman | 01/04/2010 12:16 pm
A side from the semantic confusion that this will cause from another accronym. It is interesting for the NHF to consider a 50/50 divide in ownership when 100% tenant owned models such as the Community Gateway Model would have to be able to bid for additional funding (excluding rent and housing benefits) and be more efficient and competitive to survive. This model would still use public funds, which could be reduced, and have offer a lesser degree of tenant choice and tenant accountability.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr. M | 01/04/2010 1:39 pm
Why make it difficult? Surely its simpler to make all Affordable Social Housing become Housing Associations' a model that has been working for some years, tried and tested, etc. With many having financial resources or assets to obtain funds.
ALMO's could either join a HA as part of a group structure or merge entirely, or if via PFI several ALMO's could form their own Group. Benefits would include; everyone understands what a HA does, can create greater local communities, better VFM, and many more besides.
Another tounge in cheek comment being; Channel may take offence to reference of COCO's, one of their main ranges of perfume!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Lyons | 01/04/2010 3:11 pm
One look at the date confirms the seriousness of this proposal, or at least the name anyway.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment