LOCAL OFFERS

29/07/2010 7:24 am

"some tenants who are already paying "top dollar" will get less for more"

According the last Survey of English Housing, two third of social housing tenants are on benefits. Surely you mean the State is paying "top dollar"?

If the ALMO lesson is anything to go by, then the use of supine, educationally challenged head-nodding tenants with a badge labelled "board member" has not be been particularly helpful in creating VFM and driving up service standards. The officers write the papers and the tenants nod their heads. You either get them or somewhat cleverer but more venal types who go on to abuse their position by getting their brood plum jobs with the contractors. 

The entire concept of these "tenant led local standards" is a joke and the officers know it as they were the ones pushing for them, The only standards worth their salt are those that are set nationally by a regulator and apply to all, irrespective of location and status, Just like the Law. Anything else is a fudge. Which pretty much sums up the TSA. It will not be missed.

29/07/2010 2:53 pm

ILAG refers to two thirds of social housing tenants being on benefits. That may be so - and they pay taxes from within those benefits.

Does not "The State" not gets its resources via those very same taxes?

I am picking up (from various posters on Inside Housing) that those in need may well be about to suffer from various cuts imposed by the ConDems whilst those who may well not need benefits continue to receive "the state's largesse".

It is a pity that this post, designed to elicit discussion solely about local offers (and the potential pitfalls and/or benefits thereof) has been used for a rant rather than for 'constructive discussion ' which could 'profit' "top dollar rent and/or service charge-payers".

But that is the nature of society perhaps?

29/07/2010 8:56 pm

Christopher Webb - thank you for your succinct contribution, you said things better than I could have,

31/07/2010 8:57 am

ECONOMICS 101(a) entitlements are paid out by the State, those monies are used to purchase all sorts of things which attract TAX. people make and/or supply those things. people are employed to do so!

People pay TAX on earnings and profits.

TAX funds the State!

We all pay TAX.

I did not say that benefits are taxed!!!

This thread is supposed to be about local offers - about us who pay the piper calling the tune. The same applies to the State - we pay the state and we ALL should then have a say not just those of the "Daily Maul ilk" who may wish to demonise tenants, the vulnerable, the needy, the elderly, etc. (or indeed a combination or combinations thereof), 

31/07/2010 10:14 am

One of the reason that residents demonise other residents involved with the landlord is due to a very long history of the landlords selecting to work only with those residents they like to work with (i.e. those who agree with their decisions be they right or wrong).

If residents were to be democratically elected this would not be the case.   1 TENANCY 1 VOTE could provide this.

If the landlords are keen to involve residents and it really means to deliver residents services to a good standard it is in their interest deal with resident representatives elected democratically by all other residents so they can negotiate better and openly and legitimately any issue knowing who they are talking to are genuine and legitimate representatives.

31/07/2010 10:47 am

Dear Rick,

often 1 TENANCY 1 VOTE is attacked for being DEMOCRATIC!... And those attacking it on this principle so far have all been social housing professionals and NOT residents.

In this day and age it should not be necessary but It is important I clarify to all the opponents of my campaign that the DEMOCRATIC basis of it is its greates strength. To do so I am reporting below my comment in answer to a poster raising doubt about my 1T1V CAMPAIGN

STARTS REPORTED COMMENT

Whilst not disputing your experience as to what is going on in your organisation I think You have missed the gist of what my campaign for ONE TENANCY ONE VOTE in electing social tenants representatives really is.

It is about LEGITIMACY, social tenants representatives are elected by all other social tenants and therefore they would have the MORAL and LEGAL right to represnt them in their dealings with their social landlords and the landlords would not be able to dismiss them at their liking from representating tenants.

ONE TENANCY ONE VOTE elections could be done for each borrrough in the country applying the same rules for electing local councillors. There might be other ways, but this is the most democratic I can think of at the moemnt, as there would be a social tenant vote register and ALL social tenants would be entitled to vote, either personally or by post and email, etc. whehter they have a Tenants association or not.

Your argument that local councillors are ineffective, does not stand up. Because what you are really implying is that tenants are too stupid or not adult enough to be able to choose who to LEGITIMATELY represent them (which is highly offensive, by the way). In other words you are saying because councillors for you are not doing their job properly, we should abolish local elections (and the Parliament in this country).

with ONE TENANCY ONE VOTE you get all the risks you get with a democratic election HOWEVER, as all democratic countries all around the world have shown, those risks count nothing compared to having the right to democratically choose your representatives and not them being imposed on you, indpendently whether the organisation imposing them on you is well meaning or not.

Also ONE TENANCY ONE VOTE democratically elected representatives would greatly improve relationships between tenants and landlords.

It is in the interest of all good landlords not to deal with representatives selected by themselves or other dodgy means who would be quite rightly open to accusations of being just their puppets or being there just for some self-interest. If social landlords really mean to serve their tenants and their needs it is in their interest to be dealing with legimate representatives so that their endevours will be efficient, effective and legitimate.

ONE TENANCY ONE VOTE is the only way forward for real tenants representation.

31/07/2010 12:59 pm

I do sympathise with your situation Rick, but that one of the situations that 1T1V would get rid of.  Because if you were the 1T1V elected representatives no one would be able to brownbeat you, either landlords or other tenants because you have been legitmatley elected and are the one other tenants trusted with your vote.

If you were not a representative the 1T1V would also help you because you would tell your views to the 1T1V representative and work on them with him/her.

31/07/2010 6:18 pm

philipjohn001, so you are a tenant who is against the demcoratic election of tenants representatives....

Then you, rightly, complain about this governement doing anti social housing iniatives.

So who is representing these views of yours now? 

the number of tenants up and down the country doing good things?

that's not representation, these tenants doing good things, because they are allowed to and until it pleases their landlords to do so,

but they are not representing you or I or anyone else and the moment the landlord for some reason dislikes them they are booted out.

01/08/2010 6:27 pm

So, I take it then, with no evidence to the contrary, that the general feeling amongst posters is that there should be national standards (perhaps similar to the TSA standards) as a minimum supplemented by locally agreed standards.

Those local standards would be set on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis as dictated by the type of property (blocks of flats, bungalows, terraced houses, etc.).

Individual tenants should be encouraged to contribute to the formation of those agreed local standards and be the sole determining arbiter thereof?

Can it really be that simple?

02/08/2010 1:12 pm

Anon @ 11-47. Our landlord is doing a lot better than that - services charges will be a nightmare in the future. I feel that our involved tenants may well be in for a shock!