Council estimates it could save £250,000 per year by managing own homes
Slough opens talks on ALMO closure
Share
Slough Council has launched talks with tenants about becoming the latest council to close its arm’s-length management organisation.
It started negotiations as Hillingdon Council made the final decision to close its ALMO last week.
Council officers in Slough have estimated that closing the 7,500-home ALMO, People 1st, could save £250,000 each year.
Slough cabinet members voted to bring its housing management services back in-house in January, pending a ‘test of tenants’ opinion’.
The two-star ALMO has finished its decent homes programme, and its lease for managing the borough’s homes is due to expire in December.
Members have decided to pursue returning management services as quickly as possible, as the ALMO is due for re-inspection towards the end of this year. The report said: ‘This situation itself justifies an early resolution of this options appraisal process.’
James Swindlehurst, commissioner for neighbourhoods and renewal at the council, said: ‘The organisation was set up to deliver the decent homes programme, which it has done well, but will prove an expensive body to simply manage homes.’
The move means at least three councils are looking to close down their ALMOs and take services in-house. Ealing Council plans to close its ALMO by March 2011. It is looking to secure contracts with external firms for management services and will not run them directly.
Hillingdon Council will be the first in the country to take its housing services back, with members aiming to complete the process by October.
After Hillingdon tenants voted overwhelmingly in favour of returning to the council, the cabinet decided to pursue closure of the ALMO at the earliest possible opportunity.
A report recommending the closure admitted bringing the dates forward could cause problems on the ALMO’s board. It said: ‘It would be reasonable to assume that there may be some members of the board unhappy with the council decision and under these circumstances it could be more difficult to maintain a constructive relationship during the return period.’
ALMOs - closure timeline
15 September 2009 Ealing Council cabinet members vote to close Ealing Homes.
25 September 2009 Hillingdon cabinet decides to consult tenants over closing Hillingdon Homes.
18 January 2010 Slough cabinet agrees to consult tenants over closing People 1st.
17 February 2010 Consultation on future of People 1st begins.
18 February 2010 Hillingdon cabinet makes final decision to close ALMO.
October 2010 Hillingdon Homes to close.
March 2011 Ealing Homes to close.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (9)
B.S.Townroe | 26/02/2010 7:37 am
"...saving £250,000 a year". Wow. And how much did/could an ALMO bring into the authority? That's the price you pay for having no long-term vision for the sector, CLG.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 26/02/2010 9:25 am
I can't profess to know a massive amount about it, but do people think that the "bringing back" of housing stock, presumably to the council with the closing of the ALMO has anything to do with the proposed changes to the HRA? Assuming a council doesn't have to kick back a load of theor rent to the centre, and if they've met decent homes through the creation of the ALMO, then possibly the ownership of the houses is potentaially a big money spinner for a council?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mynahbird | 26/02/2010 4:31 pm
Does anyone remember all the rhetoric from the government when ALMOs were introduced? ALMOs were all about separating out the strategic from the operational arms of housing provision, about driving up standards of management, making management more accountable to tenants - not at all about being the only way of getting much-needed resources for improving social housing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Norman Blunt | 27/02/2010 6:09 am
Perhaps this is what People 1st were bound to get for appointing Kevin Lowry as their interim CEO, in the wake of his outstanding successes at Three Valleys (cf IH passim ad nauseam) and 2010 Rotherham (lasted seven months before resigning, did he not?).
Maybe in fact that was the fiendish ploy of some Trojan Horse elements on the People 1st interview panel when they picked him?
I think we should be told!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
B.S. Townroe | 27/02/2010 8:31 am
"Does anyone remember all the rhetoric from the government when ALMOs were introduced? ALMOs were all about separating out the strategic from the operational arms of housing provision..."
Indeed. No-one explained precisely how the separation of the two functions would enhance either - it was just dogma, a belief-based policy and nothing more. If there was substance to the separation argument then there might be some evidence to back it up. But where, exactly, was the evidence to support such a conclusion then or, rather more pertinently, now?
The trouble with ALMOs is that they were seen as nothing more than a decent homes delivery vehicle by most councils and sold as little else to the tenants. And CLG never came up with much more than a few all too hollow-sounding sound bites around the edges of that. Now the money's been had for capital improvements, those who started with that view are bound to wonder why they're still around.
The carrot of ALMOs being able to bid to the Housing Corporation to build new stock offered another 'reason' for a council to stick with its ALMO. But now that councils, some of which have do not have good Audit Commission, performance ratings, have been given access to grant from the Homes and Communities Agency to build new stock, that will hardly register in any authority's assessment of the merits of keeping them now.
It's a shame that the real achievements of many ALMOs in terms of improved service delivery and tenant involvement, not just stock condition, will be put at risk as part of a drive to save relative pennies. But if Government can't explain its own vision for them, especially in the context of cost-cutting times, then who should be surprised?
R.I.P. ALMOs 2002-2010. Those that aren't brought back within an authority over the coming months can only be waiting for the outcome of the HRA review before a decision is made to transfer the stock to an RSL.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Max | 01/03/2010 7:57 pm
Many ALMOs are steadily approaching the end of their usefulness as their decent homes programmes are nearing completion. It is positive that many have completed their improvements and also raised the quality of housing services. However, we must not forget that they (ALMOs) were chosen as a delivery vehicle to deliver decent homes first and foremost by those local authorities that did not want to or could not pursue the alternative options. Horses for courses etc. Why are we then surprised when we hear about a council terminating or not renewing ALMO agreement when decent homes works are concluded? If there is a compelling argument for retaining an ALMO beyond the delivery of decent homes I am still waiting to hear it. Yes ALMOs can new build houses for people in need, run apprenticeship programmes for long term unemployed and build space stations but I am almost certain that there are many better placed and experienced organisations in existence to achieve those outcomes. Let’s not get too emotional or get carried away with this debate because in the current economic climate why would any rational organisation extend or renew the ALMO’s existence beyond the reason why it was set up (the successful completion of the decent homes improvement programme). Local authorities have difficult choices to make and sometimes its easier to get hysterical about the consequences rather than deal with the big issues life after ALMO. To Hillingdon and Slough I raise my glass, their ALMOs had a specific role and did that successfully, lets congratulate them that were brave and commissioned ALMOs as a route towards a successful outcomes but mourn their demise, don’t make me weep in my beer!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
sbbaggies | 01/03/2010 9:05 pm
So Ealing are "bringing back" their housing stock into the local authority and, at the same time, issuing an OJEU for ongoing housing management services (presumably by an RSL ?). Have the TSA got any thoughts on this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ken Dodd's Accountant | 02/03/2010 7:05 am
£250,000 - If you took away the plush offices, grossly inflated salaries, leased cars, tiers of pen pushing bureaucrats, the unecessary interims brought in to sustain the unsustainable I am surprised you only get £250,000. Best to get some consultants in to double check those figures!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mac | 16/03/2010 6:10 pm
Looked at their web site and Slough haven't completed Decent Homes. Still £5m to draw down. Either they can't do sums (give up £5m to save £250K) or they don't reckon ALMO will keep two stars. Explains the hurried consultation I guess?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment