Amian Amahar
Recent activity
Comments (10)
-
Comment on: Cestria boss quits despite bullying acquittal
Bullying and harrassment appear to be alive, well, and flourishing in the social housing arena. Tenants and conscientious staff members alike are subjected to it. Incidents involving both over a number of years are well-known to me, but are unable to be rehearsed here due to IH's nervousness over possible libel suits (not unreasonable, given the evidenced ruthlessness, power, and financial resources available to large RSLs, and hence to their Executives and Boards). The TSA appears to be aligned with these increasingly invulnerable and unaccountable bodies. 'Social Housing' is now an industry with all the negative attributes of 'big business' - including self-seeking, career-conscious businessmen who will employ any kind of bad behaviour to deflect justifiable challenge.
What a sad indictment of an enterprise (the provision of homes for those in need) that was so often in the past begun by truly philanthropic, caring, and humble individuals! -
Comment on: Tenant protection fears as sector backs housing regulator
[apologies for typos in the above - still not au fait with new Word programme...]
-
Comment on: Pickles scraps Audit Commission
As one who has battled over many years (and is still doing so) with the 'HC-now-TSA', Audit Commission, and Housing Ombudsman (having expended enormous energy battling initially with the RSL itself) I welcome the demise of these current organisations. All the above comments about e.g. overpaid and personally ambitious senior executives, perceived unhealthy bias by these bodies towards RSLs, fruitless box-ticking et al. are perfectly justified in my long experience. Whilst there may well be quango etc. employees at grass roots level who genuinely want to provide a good and fair service, they are unable to do so within the present structures and under the present executive regimes. A clean sweep would appear to have been needed, and my then local MP (Tory) was perfectly honest with me in a meeting in August 2009 that that would be the intention and action of any future Tory government.
However then, and now, I wondered/wonder what could possibly be put in their place that would actually work in terms of fairness, economy, and efficiency. Privatising anything at all seems to be inimical to the interests of the consumer, and thank you to those above who reminded us that privatisation in some way or another involves shareholders who require their dividends.
I am due to have a further meeting with my (new) Tory MP in the autumn. How can I suggest that social housing be regulated in the future? I am not naive enough to imagine that he will be able (or even want) to influence government policy on the basis of any suggestion I may make, and especially at this late stage, but if we condemn what is now the status quo, we do need to have some kind of concrete idea as to what could replace it.
Could someone with more knowledge and understanding than I of the complexities involved, provide a reasonably simple outline of a suggestion for a future regulatory modus operandi (unadorned by further criticisms/commendations of current regulatory machinery, or of who on this thread has written what!!!) -
Comment on: Wardens call to deputy PM
Whilst the general principal expressed above (anon. 6.8.10 8.29 a.m.) is quite correct, one wonders: How were resident wardens paid for in the past, and how much real difference would they now make to the overall budget of each sheltered scheme - would not any increase be reflected in the service charge to residents?; How much money could be saved by the withdrawal of all the glossy PR, self-congratulatory, propaganda material which is so copiously produced and liberally distributed to all tenants (often by post) by RSLs, whether tenants want it or not?; How much money could be similarly saved by the withdrawal of countless 'surveys', similarly mailed, which most tenants bin because they are of the box-ticking variety with limited questions often calculated to produce the response preferred by the RSL, rather than reflect the real views of tenants (a simple personal canvassing of the views of interested tenants by front-line staff who are personally familiar with their differing housing circumstances would produce a far more valid picture)?; How much money could be saved by somehow preventing the ability of social housing organisations to employ career-obsessed senior executive staff at obscenely high salaries, when there must be those with a true vocation to help the less advantaged - and who have the skills (not too demanding, judging by the performance of some of the former) to fulfil their duties with integrity?; How much money could be saved by in some way prohibiting RSLs from chasing tenants, and sometimes taking them to court, for arrears which they do not owe, but which have been flagged up on systems because of staff incompetence or flawed technology? Some of these practices may need legislative review in order for RSLs to feel secure in their information and consultation practices, but some have become part of dubious and ill-conceived routine or tradition.
No doubt tenant readers could think of many more such economies which would in no way affect their own standard of housing, but would perhaps help RSLs to provide live-in staff for any sheltered schemes they may run. Most elderly and frail folk in sheltered accommodation are profoundly grateful for their modest homes and treat them with respect. They deserve the best that can be achieved, and the mere knowledge of the normal residence amongst them of a younger person (or family) can be of enormous moral support, even if that person is 'off duty'.
Another aspect of the removal of resident staff is the disposal of their accommodation, which seems more and more to be let to 'general needs' or 'emergency' tenants. Without the confidence promoted by the presidence of a resident member of staff, and the reassurance that they do not risk being exposed to the kind of ASB sometimes associated with other types of tenant, for what are sheltered scheme tenants paying their often very high rates of service charge?
As for 'decent homes' - my experience of such stock improvement is that after years of conscious neglect and stock mismanagement it is now being rushed through to meet dead-lines, with the attendant economies and poor workmanship. I wonder whether the extra £3.2 billion is required for additional projects, or to put right those already undertaken which have produced more problems (in terms of repairs and maintenance) than they have resolved?
Admin. costs? We have surely all observed these multiply through the incompetence and foolishness of some of those working in the field who are ill-equipped to do so................ -
Comment on: Ombudsman sees 43% rise in complaints
Whilst there it is true that some RSL tenants do have unrealistic expectations, and by their behaviour add to the problems, there is certainly no doubt that RSLs contain staff members who are inefficient, duplicitous, self-serving, and very conscious of their invulnerability. I have personally encountered these as a tenant representative, and there appears to be little that tenants can do to hold them accountable and effect their removal. Some are, regrettably, senior executive personnel. Others have a more immediate responsibility for many potentially vulnerable customers.
It is hard to think of ways to combat tenants' impotence and RSL's abuse of 'power'. Perhaps the money currently wasted on complex regulation, the HO, and their staff, would be better spent on providing legal aid for tenants, but with legal aid eligibility so proscriptive, many tenants on low incomes with modest savings would not qualify, whereas justice in this arena should be free to all. Blanket eligibility seems currently (and ironically!) only available to those involved in crime! Again, the current law as relevant to housing and human rights would have to be reviewed if tenants were to obtain reasonable satisfaction through the courts.
Big business and career ambition attract corruption. These are what dictate to the social housing sector now. It has long ceased to be the province of those original well-meaning philanthropists who merely wanted to assist the less fortunate.
Discussions (0)
Amian Amahar has not added any discussions yet.
Posts (0)
Amian Amahar has not added any posts yet.