Election panel: readers back Clegg’s warden plans

Other comments

‘It should be the responsibility of the local authority as commissioner who ballots sheltered housing tenants about the removal of the warden service. Also, we need to be clear how binding the vote will be.  If it is not binding then there are much better ways of involving older people in decisions about the support and care they receive - a vote is a very crude way of doing this.’

‘Yes they should have to ballot residents and they should have to take into account future residents.  So if the housing provider/local authority can demonstrate demographic need for accommodation for people with considerable support needs e.g. Very elderly they should not be able to withdraw 24 hour wardens’

‘No - unless the ballot also affects whether the wardens are funded through Supporting People, the idea is daft.’

‘Yes.  All tenants have the right to express their opinion on matters relating to the property they occupy especially if it has a direct impact on their future safety and security. A number of older and frail residents may rely on the daily contact with their warden and feel reassured by it as will their families. For those with no family or care worker it may be an even greater lifeline. Using mobile wardens reduces the amount of time on site and although it saves money it also negatively impacts on the ability of the warden to have any personal knowledge or relationship with the residents. There is also the question of service charges – How many of the RSL`s who include a charge for a resident warden reduce the amount when they transfer to a mobile service?’

‘In theory this is a good idea, but what happens if they vote no, and then future residents want a 24hr warden?  It is a thorny issue, but I believe that the providers should not be allowed to arbitrarily remove 24hr wardens.’

‘I think that sheltered housing residents should be consulted fully on any changes to their housing provision.  I think that thorough information should be given about the ongoing cost of resident wardens, and ensure that advocacy and equality issues are considered when consulting.  However, I don’t believe that a vote would be particularly helpful.  If the consultation is thorough and any changes made fully consider the views of the residents, then a vote shouldn’t be needed.’

‘I have no problem with a ballot or any other form of decent consultation.  The issue is who is going to pay for a 24 hour ‘warden‘ type service. The most progressive H. A.s got to grips with this issue in the very early days of Supporting People.  Supporting People funding was clearly never intended to pay for what is in effect a ‘care’ service if people want and need a 24 hour service.  Where is the money going to come from?    The solution has to be using the technology with a ‘roving’ member of staff for quieter times (usually nights).  We also have to think of staff -  it is a very different type of person who is willing to live-in and be on call 24/7/365 from a person who is able to deliver high quality support.  (even if it was legal to employ someone on that basis.).’

‘Ballot for residents - personally, I support this because a lot of elderly residents have been put through traumatic changes because of the loss of wardens and their replacement with mobile support that often fails.  But I think it is dishonest of the LibDems to promise this - wardens are being lost due to lack of funding and they have not promised more resources to enable sheltered schemes to keep their wardens.  This is about money and they cannot be cutters and protectors of services at the same time. If residents vote to keep their warden, will the LibDems come up with extra money?  Of course not.  It’s just a pretence’

‘Having spoken to some senior housing officials in NI the view is that tenants should be consulted and given a chance to vote for their preferred level of service, including hours of warden cover.  They should, however, be furnished with the facts beforehand about the budget constraints, so if they want 24 hour cover it means loss of other services. Indeed although one particular housing association has consulted in 38 schemes where new staff management arrangements for wardens has been an issue when staff are leaving or changing. In all cases tenants voted for the reduction in hours and have felt no loss of service or support. As one Director stated ‘it would make sense and would be great to be able to give all sheltered tenants the choice and ability to vote on whether or not a resident warden should be maintained.  But what if the money isn’t there to fund it – what sort of real choice would that be.  It would be futile to pretend that they do have choice and to give them a vote to retain something that is unsustainable.’