Hypocrisy

27/11/2008 5:10 pm

I voted against the ALMO when a vote was taken on it by tenants in the LB Camden. I didn't see any good reason for transfering management from one badly run tier of housing management to a second tier that would in all likelyhood be just as badly managed if not more so and with less accountability to tenants.

I simply did not have any confidence that the management of a ALMO would be any better than the present management we have here in Camden.

28/11/2008 11:07 am

The heading of my post was "Hypocrisy" s something we all are guilty of at times. Here in the North East, (I live in North Tyneside) every Council, except North Tyneside Council, have disposed of their homes, through either and ALMO or full or partial Stock Transfer. In all cases there was tremendous opposition from the tenants on the ground. Newcastle tenants made me proud to be a tenant and they turned out in their thousands to stay as they were. They were betrayed by so called tenant representatives like Mr Savage. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but if I recall, his Authority failed to even hire an ITA and it was left to the handful of selected tenants that purported to represent the people. Mr Savage, on a local bulletin Board professes to have represented tenants in his area and openly states that only a handful of people even know him, let alone speak to him.
I am sure that was the case throughout the Country, where a handful of interested tenants took part in Stock Option Appraisals and simply went along with the Councils proposed option, often being misled by consultants about the feasibility of retaining stock. I have met many tenants throughout the Country who have had no idea what their rights were and that transfer was decided by a handful of people put in place to represent tenant participation, many never even bothered to express a view. Apathy exists and is the biggest enemy of democracy. The system was unbalanced and the fourth option simply was not a feasible option. Tenants, thanks to the system put in place by Ms Armstrong to meet John Prescott’s demand to dispose of Council houses, was weighted in favour of Government policy and even the most experienced and proactive tenants were fighting a loosing battle and by 2010, when all Councils Capital receipts on meeting the requirement for DHS are presented to the Government Offices, most Council will not have met the target and they will simply be forced to seek an alternative Management method. That is a fact. So please Mr Savage, leave your pontificating and self praise to those who are unaware of the failures of Tenant Representatives like yourself, for I note you fail to mention what the views were of the majority you say you represent. Was it not a fact that you as other so called representatives were simply put in place to meet the criteria for Tenant participation and as a tenant empowered mechanism? I will say that I bow to the efforts of many tenants who got involved, without any thought for their selves or for glorification and truly fought a unwinnable battle. I have met many such as these throughout the Country who are still fighting for a lost cause and who will continue until the last shot is fired, there are some of course who will continue to fire blanks in war games.

02/12/2008 0:21 am

Thanks for the comments, but I fear that the call for unity among Social Tenants is as doomed as the Dodo. When Margaret Thatcher introduced the Right to buy in 1979, ratified in 1980, Tenants were given rights, or so we thought. One of those was the Right to Consultation, although Councils are not obligated to listen or honour the majority’s wishes. I challenged that right in 1998 when my Council introduced a Draconian alteration to the Tenancy Agreement using predominately Tenant Representatives to attain consent. I was a democratically elected Representative, one of 34 at that time, although 30 of them had outlasted their election term and just simply allowed to carry on. I came out of the woodwork and challenged the system and the apathy which allowed it. Labour, who had been in power since the creation of the Borough, suddenly put up a tenant candidate and ploughed in resources and manpower to deliver leaflets to get their man elected, I won and immediately attempted to make changes based upon the 1985 Housing Act. The first one was to get the Council to accept, that it was the right of every secure tenancy to be consulted in matter relating to their homes, in the case of husband and wife and partners, theirs was a duel tenancy and afforded a duel vote. When I met with hostility, I attempted to get assistance from Hilary Armstrong, who was busy at that time compiling the Tenants Charter, she simply ignored me, the Deputy Prime Minister said he was powerless to intervene and the Council went ahead. So I researched my argument and went to the Local Government Ombudsman and finally won a case of maladministration. I was flavour of the month and courted by all the of the Nationals and Housing Magazines, as the first tenant in the Country to establish the right to, one to one consultation. A long time has passed since those days and my Council have slowly slipped in to their old ways, although the still consider duel tenancy, only one voting paper is sent per household. A new Regime of new Labour Tenant Representatives have taken our place in a Labour run Council (Elected Mayoral System) with a Tory majority and the elected tenant representative system, once stood down by Labour and reintroduced by the former Tory Mayor in an agreement with me, was reintroduced and then controlled when Labour won power. We still have the same requirements for 34 Tenant Representative, which has never been achieved and now currently stands at 17, yet these 17 have agreed upon many changes, including PFI for Sheltered Accommodation and now to dispose of the whole Council workforce and replace it with a PFI Contractor. So you will excuse me, if I think that it is a little late for single representation that should have been demanded when they decided to dispose of our homes back in 2000

02/12/2008 11:20 pm

As far as I can tell the ALMO NO vote in camden was 77% and the turnout was 30% according to a council report I have seen. The judge ruled in favour of camden council in the legal challenge taken by some DCH supporters.

It has been ten years since camden council started its capital works/decent homes project to bring all council homes in the borough up to a decent standard, but still most council homes are below the decent standard. How much this has cost so far is anyones guess, but I do that camden council has lost millions in bad contracts and general mis-management.

Camden council has been given 2 years leyway on the 2010 deadline for homes to be brought up to a decent standard, but I cannot see how they are going to manage the new 1012 deadline without them obtaining some serious funds. 50-70% of council homes are still below decent standards which makes me wonder what the ell they have been doing for the last ten years? and how much money has been wasted?

04/12/2008 11:08 am

Jack Daniels, Come out Come out whorever you are!! One thing I cannot stand is a coward who hides behind fictitious names. It is obvious who he is, it is not the first time he has done it on other sites. Once it was under the name of Zenobie and then changed to Teacake and more recently adpted the name of socialworker and finally I suspect his most recent one is Wossisname. His usual format is to attack and then invent support, so I wonder how many times he will answer or support himself on here. I will not spoil an excellent debate by allowing personality clashes to turn into a slanging match. I expect most of the contributors would agree with me, on the other hand if you agree with the fictitious Mr Jack Daniels, feel free to give your views, after all that is what a forum is all about.

My record as a Tenant Representative is well known, this site has always known me as Supergob and on a number of occasions, Inside Housing has run stories on me and of our fight here on North Tyneside. I have made many friends and allies, I have also made many enemies and I include Ministers, Members of Parliament, Councillors and Officers, although my fame has never spread to America as far as I am aware. I am aggressive and have a big mouth, hence my psodoname and I make no appology, it saved our houses, against all odds from disposal.

05/12/2008 10:35 am

Kass your comment "But as tenants we got to fight back" is more relevant now than ever before and I will tell you why. The Government, with the backing of the opposition, are now considering scrapping tenancy for life. Remember we got that through the 1980 Housing Act and since then the rights of tenants are being further eroded. First we had introductory Tenancies, and then we got separation, by that I mean disposal and ALMO, there are few tenants left with the title of Secure Tenant and if tenancy for life is scrapped, it will have far reaching consequences for Social Housing. We already have Councils bullying tenants with threats of ASBO's and the introduction of Choice Based letting favour s those who can meet higher rents. Tenants failed to challenge the Government when they decided to dispose of our homes, and again when Prescott altered the “Right to buy discount, so I think it hardly likely that they will unite to meet the final hurdle. There are few Proactive tenants left and those who remain are growing old and weary. If you can mobilise a younger generation to fight for their rights, Social Tenants just may survive, but forgive me for being cynical when I say it is too little, too late.

05/12/2008 4:27 pm

Terry Harding, while cynisim is understandable and is all around us, as social tenants we are in a too desperate situation to allow it to overcome us. In fact cynisim is a luxury social tenants just cannot afford - things are that desperate!... Only those tenants who have gone through a lifetime of battles to stop our rights being eroded and social housing destroyed can inspire the new generations of tenants, who just have no clue about their roots and all the games governemnts and landlords have and are playing all around us.
So I am not asking too much if I say that if you manage to even inspire just one single tenant to be proactive you will have achieved a victory for us all.

10/12/2008 3:39 pm

SUPER BEAN, of course tenants should be allowed to vote whichever way they like. That's not the issue. The issues are: every tenant should have the right to vote; every tenants' representative should be democratically elected by the tenants themselves; each tenant should have the right to vote for his/her represesentative... Once tenants have achieved these basic rights de facto - not just as political propaganda - their votes would really reflect their wishes.

12/12/2008 9:30 am

TERRY HARDING "I have long argued for one to one representation and a Tenant Advocate to protect the individual and supply legal expertise, until that happens, tenants will have no real say in their destiny."

I totally support your view Terry Harding - and that's why we got to fight on and fight apathy amongst other tenants.

12/10/2010 3:14 pm

If you are a social resident please vote against any merger or transfer!

they are all about taking away from residents (rights and security).

There might be some rare exmaple of some good merger/transfer, but REMEMBER you got to look at the bigger picture for the benefit of ALL social residents and not just yours and those of your particular organisation.

If you are a social resident it is ONLY when you protect ALL social residents wherever they might be that you are protecting yourself. 

Everything else is lies and lies and even more lies you are given.