Damning report threatens Lambeth ALMO funding
Share
The future of London’s biggest arm’s-length management organisation has been cast into uncertainty after a damning inspection report was leaked.
Lambeth Living, which was set up in June 2008, needs to get two stars in an inspection later this year to access £251 million of government funding to make its homes decent by April 2014.
The organisation asked the Audit Commission for an inspection earlier this year to confirm it was on track. for the target grade.
But the watchdog’s draft report, seen by Inside Housing, describes the ALMO’s performance as ‘poor and deteriorating’.
Following the inspection in February, 11 out of 13 service areas were rated as a weakness or as having more weaknesses than strengths.
The commission also painted a bleak picture of the ALMO’s prospects for improvement, describing as weaknesses its track record in delivering improvements, its performance management, and its capacity to improve.
It also voiced concern about Lambeth Living’s steep rent increases, which are set to hit nearly 17 per cent this year.
‘Despite the high level of increase, there are no plans to mitigate the impact, such as engagement with advice agencies,’ the report says.
Sheltered housing tenant David Hart said the report ‘should be a wake-up call’ for the ALMO.
A spokesperson for Lambeth Living said it knew ‘there was a lot of work to do’ and it was committed to achieving excellence.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (8)
Simon Morton | 12/05/2009 6:13 pm
Is there a need for an ALMO board?
Interesting article on Lambeth’s Almo, I would like to question the need for housing ALMOs to have a representative board to oversee key management issues.
In some areas, 15 individuals were nominated to this board of trustees, including an equal representation of tenants, independents and councillors.
Despite the best of intentions, board members have conveyed the impression that their role is little more than a rubber stamping exercise yet, in some cases, recognition of payment is being made.
But if people are volunteering for the role, why should payment, other than out-of-pocket expenses be paid, for approving already agreed proposals?
A key issue is the fact that within the structure of these organisations, the SMT (Senior Management Team) tends to make all the decisions and outlining, with set procedures, a definition on how the company will evolve.
Therefore, how far removed are ALMOs actually from the old local authority-style management. Before the advent of ALMOs, the local authority was the main structure for social housing and their needs, with dedicated departments for the administration of the housing and the residents. With the majority of staff within the organisation being transferred over, has the ‘local government hat’ been surgically removed, I think not.
If I’m not mistaken, ‘getting involved’ is one of the key messages ALMOs want to get across to their tenants but as far as I can see the management structure has remained the same, dealing with the same issues and resolving them in the same manner, through the set procedures! Just an added administrater.
I’m not ‘knocking’ a management structure and feel the way forward for this regime has and will be, a very productive and worthwhile avenue for social tenants. Why though, is there a need for a board? It’s senior management who write the rule book!
We were critical of the masters in their ivory towers before, now the board have taken that role on. What happened to hands-on management? Has anything really changed other than the leaders? After all, the company is owned by the local authority!
Simon Morton
Older People's Assembly
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr. Sharabi | 13/05/2009 2:34 am
Let me get the violins out.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael, islington | 13/05/2009 11:21 am
You're nearly right. But it's much worse.
Almos are an artificial constructs and have no legal standing (as established by a decision in the European courts involving an Italian municipal car park, believe it or not.)
This means that the old housing department is properly in control which also means that the political party in control of the council is in control.
Almo's corporate structure, aping that of private companies with a splosh of resident involvement, is a pile of horlicks to conceal the real legal position.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tomhar | 13/05/2009 8:46 pm
Only in Lambeth . . . It is really depressing for residents. Our housing managers have managed to overspend by nearly £20 million, service is apalling, our rents and services charges have increased more than in any borough in London, and now this!
When is the government going to step in and put an end to all this waste and incompetence? There is no hope of the current management or councillors getting us out of this mess. Don't the Labour Party want to do something to help the working people of Lambeth, who alone of all the boroughs in London voted in an overwhelming Labour majority in 2006?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
R Hollis | 13/05/2009 9:22 pm
For those of us residents who have an interest in Lambeth Housing, the view taken in the draft report has come as no surprise. I heve represented residents in Lambeth housing in one guise or other for a few years now, and the findings appear to be spot on. One of the major practical changes is in residents representation at the Lambeth Living Board level.
In spite of the bill of goods sold tenants in the contentious advisory vote that the council held re creating the ALMO, (where councilors, including the leader of the council, Steve Reed, claimed that members of the board elected by the residents would represent resident interests, which those of us who understood basic company law knew was clearly false), and number of residents were elected or selected to be part of the board. This has generally been a total failure.
At least, under the old council committee system, members of the public could take part, and submit questions and comments, and generally make themselves heard.
Under the new ALMO structure, no residents representatives have the right to be heard, or are allowed to contribute to discussions, and inform decisions. There are no formal structures allowing proper residents consultation in any meaningful way. The result is that the board often accepts officers reports and recommendations that the officers would never have got away with if they were open to challenge by knowledgeable members of the public. Poor decisions based on dubious 'facts' and unchallenged assumptions are frequent. The board as a whole simply lacks the skills and knowledge to properly test officers recommendations, and exercise any meaningful control of the organization.
I would note that there is now some belated recognition that things need to be drastically overhauled; however, given the enormous financial problems that Lambeth Housing/Lambeth Living have, with very high increases in rents and service charges, savage cuts in staffing levels and considerable reductions in service levels, the chances of any improvements seem distant if not impossible.
And in the midst of all this, it should not be forgotten that this is not some technical failure, just of academic, professional or legal interest; this debacle has a direct and long lasting effect on many thousands of peoples lives. Failing to get 2 stars means that thousands of families will be condemned to spend more long years in homes with decrepit kitchens, and rotting bathrooms, for want of the funding to bring their homes up to the decent homes standard, (unambitious as that standard is). Condemned to spend more years of their lives in INdecent homes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Outraged in Lambeth | 08/07/2009 12:49 pm
Lambeth Living have increased the service charge on my building by 350% from last years figures.
I am sending in a complaint and a dispute letter, but does anyone have any suggestions of other official bodies I can write to. I really feel this needs to be addressed.
Many thanks
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ILAG | 09/07/2009 0:23 am
Michae, Islington is of course referring to the Brixen ruling and is course completely correct on all points. It is however a good thing that the freeholder, the local authority, is still in real control as no such accountability exists with stock transfer to a HA. The LA/ALMO relationship is no different from the Freeholder/Managing Agent relationship that exists in the private leasehold sector. The freeholder can always sack the managing agent and the LA can always abolish the ALMO. Arms length in name alone.
Outraged: Re the 350% service charge increase, if you are a leaseholder file an LVT. In terms of major works, remember the 18 month rule. Under S20B of the LTA 1985 no demand for payment which is greater than 18 months from the date costs were incurred is valid, unless a notice under that section has been served previously. Speak to LEASE whenever in doubt.
If you are a working tenant, liable to pay unpooled service charges, then sorry, you really do have no rights.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Mac | 07/09/2009 5:07 pm
Since the Almo came in there have been flats boarded up - more than ever before and it was unusual to see boarded up properties until the Almo came in, then it became a common sight on my estate in Lambeth.
Such empty properties lead to a glut of break ins by squatters in a block of about 24 flats (3 out of 24) 1 is still boarded up!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment