29/06/2009 3:16 pm
Hi Sancho,
Sorry was not sure how to respond to your reply originally, and then other things took up my time. If I have misunderstood your meaning I apologise.
As you mention RSL I assume the landlord is not a council.
I am aware that there has been a lot of animosity between TMOs and ALMOs and RSLs who inherited them.
Unless there is a serious issue around the governance of the TMO, or it is not performing it's contractual obligations in all honesty TMOs are a huge bonus. Even when the above issues are present it would be worth while supporting the TMO and getting things put right than simply trying to force its demise.
Very few RSLs are able to match the performance and satisfaction that TMOs achieve, and this is just for housing services. Research has shown TMOs to be one of the most effective models not only for improving the upkeep of the stock, but also for tackling serious social issues including ASB, crime, drug and prostitution, social exclusion, youth and in some cases even unemployment.
Even though some of these studies were commissioned by the government their findings have not really had much of an effect in policy. The social inclusion unit in reporting ways to reduce exclusion completely ignored this model.
My limited understanding is that TMOs are often seen as being in competition, this should not be the case, rather there should be a partnership between the TMO and the landlord. Although run as a separate entity tenants and property remain with the landlord so in turn the successes of the TMO reflect on the landlord. Why destroy something that improves your figures, or cause a decrease in the satisfaction of your tenants?
