Friday, 25 May 2012

Provision of Resident Managers Accommodation

Posted in: Need to Know | Ask the Experts

Estate Manager Accommodation

05/09/2010 4:55 pm

Geoff Pearse

Geoff Pearse

Posts: 8

I'm not sure how different the situation is between leasehold and rented estates regarding this issue, but on leasehold at least it is now beyond doubt that the provision of accommodation is no longer necessary. Recent Working Time legislation has restricted the hours a manager can work and emergencies outside working hours are the responsibiltiy of the emergency call systems. But landlords and managing agents are not taking steps to make estate managers non resident and are continuing to demand payment. Surely it is against the law to demand money for something that is unnecessary?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this discussion

Post a reply

Sort: Newest first | Oldest first

Author

Message

Junior

Junior

Posts: 649

05/09/2010 5:22 pm

How I help my fellow Tenant's was to go on a "Walkabout" and get them to sign up to a Petition  We got a meeting in the end but i still have to fight  for month's for this.   Whereby the Tenant's got a meeting and got all the  accounts and met with the Estate Managerment Team whereby we work out a deal. 

We are pushing hard for Resident Estate Inpsection's.

We live in a area where we have alot negative tenant's and a number on some form of benefit's.  I come up with idea's how to get them on board and  financial support by way of Voucher's . We know  enough groups like CIH, TPAS got training programme's.

Do has I do raise it at very meeting and sent your complaint via the Chief Executive to the Chair of the Board.

If you are a Leasholder or Shared Owner or a Owner paying Service Charges take it to you next meeting and make sure its in the Minutes of the Meeting and the Chair should ensure this is actioned and you get a reply at least at the next meeting.

If not keep raising like I do saying when we getting this in writting and when will this be advertised asking for people to come forward and to be honest under Resident Profiling the data system should pick out the Tenant's

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Expert post

Nigel Rogers

Nigel Rogers

Posts: 16

10/09/2010 7:16 pm

There are a variety of circumstances where estate managers or wardens - or even so -called 'responsible tenants' - might be offered or required to live in tied accommodation as part of their remuneration package and the costs of this recouped in whole or in part by other tenants.

Much depends on the justification for such arrangements, the nature of the duties such staff are supposed to carry out and the contractual arrangement between landlord and tenant.

Offering a general needs tenancy will oblige the landlord to provide a certain range of standard housing management and maintenance functions (probably including emergency response arrangements and, possibly, concierge type security) which may be carried, in part, through the provision of an 'live-in' member of staff. As a non expert in general needs arrangements, I would tend to agree that the Working Time Directive makes this perhaps less practicable - and thus less legally justifiable - than it might have been some years ago.

But in sheltered and supported housing other factors can apply. It is still the case in many such services, at least in the sheltered sector, that the obligation to provide support- and to pay for it- is enshrined in the tenancy as a separate clause or set of clauses. In some cases, though admittedly a diminishing number, this can involve the provision of emergency on site support on a 24/7 basis and in such circumstances I would have thought there is a reasonable justification for loading the costs of the support orientated staff member’s accommodation (as well as salary) onto the support element of the overall charge.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Geoff Pearse

Geoff Pearse

Posts: 8

11/09/2010 4:39 pm

Junior - thank you for your comment. I think you have shown that there are significant differences between rented and leasehold estates although our managing agent appears to think otherwise! But that is good advice to keep bringing issues up, make sure they are noted and insist on a reply. But I'm afraid that unless it is possible to get a substantial majority of tenant or leaseholders to support a case, all that happens is a reply on the lines of corporate policy and no changes will be agreed to.

Geoff

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Geoff Pearse

Geoff Pearse

Posts: 8

11/09/2010 4:58 pm

Nigel -Thank you. At our estates, all managers whether resident or not, on rented or leasehold estates, are paid the same. But if resident they pay a rent. Duties only required during office hours although job description says '...if called out by the emergency control centre they will respond when on-site during off-duty hours.' This is contradictory to what is widely understood now, that providing an on-call service, which surely this must be, is not practicable, affordable and contrary to the EWTD and National Minimum Wage legislation? Our lease covenants the landlord to provide 'a warden service' not a 'resident' warden. No rent is mentioned and none has been charged since the date of the lease 19 years ago. So I do not see how residents can be made to pay for housing a manager.

Geoff

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Jack Davies

Jack Davies

Posts: 40

12/09/2010 2:58 pm

The working time directive (WTD) as I understand it is the end of the agreed UK opt-out.  In simple terms wardens were previously seen to be passively on duty if on call and not actively on duty.  This of course has always been a nonsense. 

Imagine if you were on call over xmas or new year and so couldnt have a drink as you could be called out at any time.  You are actively on duty and this has always been the case.  Hence also the minumum wage needs to apply so if you are "on call" from 5pm to 9am next morning then you must receive 16 hours at minimum wage or £90 or so for this.  It also affects the 48 hour maxium working week and the 11 hour break between shifts that are also part of WTD.

It also has to be paid for.

What that means is that tenants have benefited from paying far less and receiving more of a service than they have paid for for many years.

To accommodate these changes is not a simple matter.  There are contratcs of employment issues with staff.  There may be tenants who need and have become used to having such a higher level of service.  And, it is also the case that if tenants dont need such a higher level of service, why they agreed and contracted to it when they were admitted to such schemes.

In practical terms there may be just as many tenants that need this service as those that dont (currently) but may need such a service in the future.

The entire service has been costed by the landlord on the old basis and now needs to be fully and transaprently re-costed bsaed on the new legal changes.  This may involve increases in cost to tenants as well.

Surely the landlord should cost all the options and discuss this with all tenants on a formal basis and allow the majority view to hold sway. 

Simple this isnt as if the majority decide to keep resident service then those that dont want or need would have the choice of accepting this or moving. If the new costs are HB eligible ones such as safety and security and the majority of existing tenants are HB claimants then they are likely to vote for retention, thus leaving the self-payers having to pay more.

Such democracy in action may not be liked

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Geoff Pearse

Geoff Pearse

Posts: 8

12/09/2010 5:32 pm

Jack - your illustration of why it is no longer feasible to have resident managers on call should have scotched any counter argument to the contrary.  Again, I have to say I have no knowledge about how this affects tenants, but leaseholders can look to their lease and see if the changes that have to be made, because of the post legislation now in place,need lease variation. If not, then ARHM members should be and should have been applying Sec 6 of their Code of Conduct to the changes in their scheme manager services. This would entail a meeting of all leaseholders and a ballot. It is irresponsible and negligent management if they do not do so.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Lydia Stockdale

Lydia Stockdale

Posts: 21

14/09/2010 11:33 am

Hi Geoff, would you be able to call me on 0207 772 8428. I'd like to include your question in the magazine, but I need to clarify some points.

Lydia

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Rate this topic

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

You must be signed in to rate.

Post a Reply

You must sign in to rate this topic or make a post

sign in register

Why not register?

Registration allows you to sign up for newsletters, comment on articles, add posts in the forums, quiz our panel of experts, and save articles and jobs in the My IH section.

Register now

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters

Most active members

People are discussing

tags Accountability, advice, affordable housing, Allocations, antisocial tenant, arrears, Best Practice, care and support, careers, comment, complaint, council, councils, discrimination, discussion, eviction, HA renting, help, homelessness prevention, Housing, housing association, housing associations, housing policy, rent, urgent

Most discussed

Most recent posts

  • From Nic Bliss, 22/05/2012 9:28 am in Resident-led Scrutiny Reports

    There is not a right or wrong way to do Resident Scrutiny Reports.  The key issue is what will best lead to outcomes that bring improvements for tenants and prospective tenants.  If a key reason to involve tenants in involvement activities, including scrutiny exercises, is so that they can constructively challenge how the landlord operates so that services, value for money or other aspects of the business can be improved, then not allowing tenants to raise the points they wish to raise would seem to be counter productive and not using the potential business advantages that tenant involvement can ...

  • posted Anonymously, 21/05/2012 4:44 pm in What is Social Housing there for...

    Oh well, that's a surprise! I had a theoretical stab at this topic (anonymous 14/5) and it turns out that I pretty much anticipated Government policy

  • posted Anonymously, 21/05/2012 11:56 am in My Housing Officer is very unhelpful

    I had a problem with a tree... I complained for more than 12 years  to the housing officers, many of them, their managers, their directors, their complaint department of the housing trust... It was so blatant how many problems this tree created, like covering up completely a neigbours window, entirely covered my small garden, you could not stand under it because of continued pollination, it's roots making the garden uncultivable, its shoots everywhere, crows and other big birds all over it fighting and cawing... you will not believe how many times i had to write, how many experts the ...

  • From Sparkle47, 18/05/2012 10:12 pm in Rules on assignment

    Thank you both for your responce. I'm a bit worried about under occupancy, as it's a 2 bed flat, but at lest we know its all overbroad. :)

  • From Will Nixon, 17/05/2012 6:17 pm in What defines a 'living' room

    The crux of the issue is whether the property is deemed to be "more extensive" than required and the criteria will be contained in the Landlord's own policies and procedures.

  • From Shaun Aldis, 17/05/2012 11:13 am in Repairs ban

    There are a few factors to consider, which are dependent upon what is in the tenancy agreement by type of tenancy i.e. social landlord or private lease. Normally the landlord is responsible for repairs unless stated otherwise and they should be carried out within a reasonable period of time, however again unless stated there are no fixed time limits, and the length of time considered to be reasonable would depend on the type and severity of the repair.  Most landlords will normally undertake repairs once they have been notified about them, however if they refuse or fail to do ...

  • From Paul Jones, 16/05/2012 11:04 pm in Tenancy status and mutual exchanges.

    Those with lifetime (periodic) tenacies swapping with another person with the same will still swap using a "Deed of Assignment" and take over eachother's tenancies, not begin new tenancies.  BUT, if fixed-term or "affordable rent" is involved on either side, new tenancies are started. I have studied the Localism Bill and this is what it says.

  • From Blair Mcpherson, 16/05/2012 1:01 pm in Why be a tweet

    I have recently joined twitter. I was initially reluctant but my son was very enthusiastic saying it was better than Facebook because it was easier to use, wasn't restricted to your " friends" and the limit on characters keeps comments short and to the point. For me twitting is a way to promote my articles and books to let others who share my interests know what is influencing me and to pick up on what others in my areas of interest are talking about. Of course I am not immune to the temptation to follow the trend.

  • From Shaun Aldis, 16/05/2012 12:54 pm in Fire risk or not?

    Where there's any question about the performance of a product, I would suggest that it's important to get the products in question back to the manufacturer or importer, for them to inspect them and advise you as to the cause of the damage. This response can then guide and feed into your risk analysis. This should be channeled through your product supplier, be that a wholesaler, distributor, or trade supplier. My experience of this is that the quality of manufacturers responses will be improved if details about the installed conditions, fault levels, cable run distance, Amperage/kW loading, and nature ...

  • From Matt Murdock, 16/05/2012 9:42 am in London Housing Assocition not building Social Housing -WHY??

    In short the powers are devolved by government to the Mayor and, in London, the GLA will take on the role previously undertaken by the Homes and Communities Agency.