WHAT'S THE POINT?
09/03/2011 12:44 pm
Tenant partcipation/resident involvement -- doesn't really matter what it's called but in our case it's resident involvement because our landlord (transferred housing association) is stepping up its involvement in making communities better places to live in for the benefit of all not the individual --- what's the point of it all?
For me personally, it's to drive services, hold our landlord to account and improve things for the benefit of others.
I would like to hear what others think please.
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
14/03/2011 7:58 pm
I am not saying involvment is awaste of time,,, that would have been quite acceptable. I am saying involvment has been used to hoodwink and brainwash tenants that through involvment they would be safe and protected with their tenancies, and instead they have been stabbed in the back by landlords and governments. These are the thanks you get for all your hard work and for all your involvment.
14/03/2011 6:13 pm
In many respects they are anon- they have affordable rents, good repairs services and for the moment security of tenure. Private renters do not always enjoy this.
Surely this is why tenant involovement is so important- to protect the interests of social tenants and help to ensure that these things continue?
I wonder if we are talking at cross purposes here as I don't disagree with anything that anyone on this thread, other than comments sugesting that involvement is effectively a waste of time and that that tenants should be demanding their rights.
14/03/2011 4:16 pm
Don't you realise, whether you mean it or not, with your comparinson you are saying social tenants are better off than private ones?... why would you make a comparison in the first place?... they are two different kettle of fish and they are not comparable. Like a state pension is not comparable to a private pension. One is born from a private personal economic situation, the other from a general social need...
14/03/2011 4:07 pm
"Blaming social tenants for being better off than private tenants really makes no sense."
Can you do me a favour and read the post you were responding to again. I did not raise the matter of blame. I commented on the fact that tenants can choose to get involved (or not) and that social housing has more plusses than minuses compared to other tenures. I recognise that tenures are not the same, just as you suggest with healthcare. However, with healthcare you have a simple choice: pay more, get better care, NHS, take what you're given. No such true comparison is available for housing as most can't choose their social landlord and rents are based on a formula! I'm simply using the only comparison available!
14/03/2011 3:53 pm
Anon at 3-47pm
Indeed so and the stabbing in the back is not just confined to governments and landlords either.
14/03/2011 3:21 pm
Anon @ 3-11pm
Nothing there for me to quibble about except "it is all a joke" --- it's all very serious but there are those who cannot see the wood for the trees or may just be blissfully unaware.
Gresley @ 12-44pm on "Associations face losing charitable spaces" says profoundly :-
"With a compliant media and thirty years of social attitudes informed by officially sanctioned greed, spite and intolerance, people see what they are doing as right even when it destroys their own lives."
14/03/2011 3:19 pm
you cannot compare private tenants with social tenants they are two different kettle of fish... As you cannot compare patient in a dhs hospital and patients in a private one... The private tenants have their own uphill battles to do and the reason they are badly off is because private tenants have not been fighting for their rights and improvments against their private landlords and governement for all private tenants. Blaming social tenants for being better off than private tenants really makes no sense. It like private landlords housing workers blaming social landlords housing workers that their job is easier in the social sector
14/03/2011 3:11 pm
I am sure you have noticed governement and landlords telling tenants they will be given more involvment. Why do you think they never say will give you more rights? Like more security of tenure? More protection against rent rises? Mor propetctions against evictions? More rights about transfer? More rights about landlord and contractors harassment?... The only thing I hear is that we are getting more involved?... Surely you do not to be exceptionally bright to understand that involment without rights to tenant to guarantee it (like calling the board to accound and even disbanding it if they do not fulfill their involment duties) it is all just a joke and taking tenants for a ride?
14/03/2011 3:10 pm
Anon 2.33. I'm not naive at all- I'm a former housing officer of sufficient years experience to have seen enough fads in housing come and go and am a former social tenant too. My experience is that tenant involvement makes the job harder for staff, not easier- it's slow, it's hard work, it's hard to engage with people and harder still to convince people that you actually do want and need their input. Many an expereinced housing officer will tell you that it's far more efficient to just get on with running a 'patch' than involving tenants in decision making.
Ultimately, it's a tenants choice whether to get involved, if you don't believe in it, don't get involved- but don't expect your views to be listened to by your landlord either....no vote no voice, after a fashion.
Trust me tenants don't "have nothing" and it's only by experiancing private rented, social tenure and home ownership that this becomes quite so clear. In an economy that is quite frankly, stuffed, private renters are faced with increasing rents at the landlords whim and cuts to HB levels, homeowners are often faced with repossession if they cant pay the mortgage, but private rents that are often as high as the mortgage they were unable to pay. Social tenants too, face increases, but increases limited by government, they face less restriction to HB levels paid (if they live in accommodation of a size that fits their housing need) they have a quality repairs service, a decent home and a housing officer to deal with problem neighbours and a sympathetic ear and support and advice if they get into rent difficulties. They have lower service charges to pay and more security of tenure than private tenants.
Whilst it ios more difficult for social tenants to move and neighbourhoods may be less desireable than many private neighbourhoods, there really are far more plusses than minuses to be being a social tenant!