Resident Scrutiny Panel

09/05/2011 9:07 pm

Are you on the scrutiny panel Eva?

10/05/2011 8:56 am

Anonymous's 

1. Yes I have been chosen and made my objection's at the meeting.  Due to the TPAS findings and other TRA and the NTA

2. Whom is Eva nothing on the thread with a name of Eva sorry do not understand

10/05/2011 10:17 am

If we forget the abuse , this thread  does  raise a question though in terms of what has been acheived by the TSA and their hamfisted approach to "co regulation " and naivety about risk based regulation.  How will this "selected" scrutiny panel add to the process and if it doesent is it  VFM. 

10/05/2011 10:47 am

In theory quite right Bill, but totally dependent on the quality of the involved whether they be tenant panels or board members. and lets not forget  the business has needs as well as the tenant.

Regulate and or control the quality of the individuals and you get some quality in the outputs.

This is something has been missed by the powers that be i feel.

10/05/2011 1:55 pm

I think tenant scrutiny is an area where a bit more direction would be helpful from the TSA. There is too much 'wriggle room' for organisations. 

If scrutiny is the cornerstone of co-regulation than maybe the TSA should be more prescriptive on this particular issue.

I don't mean the TSA should tell residents what they should scutinise. But maybe if all organisations were told to set up their panels in the same way, with the same process, then it would be a lot less confusing and there would be a bit of consistancy.

Obviously we want as much choice as possible for residents, but maybe everyone would benefit from a few things being standardised.

10/05/2011 3:59 pm

Bill my name is not Eva and I am a man and my name is Michael and I'm talking about the TPAS, TRA'S and NTV and not the TSA.

10/05/2011 4:29 pm

Bill, yes I've heard of KLOEs, and they wouldn't put me off having some degree of consistancy between organisations.

The problem with KLOEs was there were so many of them, and they were so detailed and restrictive that they led to the box-ticking you mention.

What we have now with the TSA and their vision of so-called 'co-regulation' is the opposite end of the scale; the other extreme. Adn while the TSA is almost "toast" their framework is going to be in place for some time.

Looking outside of this thread, there seems to me to be frustration amongst some tenants at the lack of accountability with regards to how scrutiny panels are being set up. There seems to be a desire for things to be done in a similar way across organisations - not to tick boxes, but so that residents of all social landlords can be sure they are getting a fair and consitant approach to scrutiny.

All I'm saying is that a bit of direction from the TSA might help everyone out here. The TSA standards are so ambiguous, and I don't think many organisations (both tenants or staff) can cope with what is essentially a blank sheet of paper.

11/05/2011 11:44 am

The (Social housing ) sector is being de-regulated , along with the almost complete lack of accountability from PRS landlords (outside category 1 HHSRS issues and Selective licensing of HMOs) .

Tenants living in all tenures have become almost  totally disempowered.

Tenant "Participation" has been developed to allow the retention of  total control in the hands of the landlords .  That's why Tenant Panels must be managed by (only) tenants themselves, retain full independence and be democratically accountable to the wider community as well as social tenants.

It's proposed in the Localism Bill  that a new, closer relationship between Tenant Panels and the Housing Ombudsman be developed (once merged with the LG Ombudsman ), particularly with regard to handling complaints from tenants against the landlord/s is necessary.

Landlords can have no part in selecting /appointing ( compliant )tenants to organise and manage the Panels.

Tenants must control and operate Panels themselves, independently of any vested or outside interest/s.

I am aware that the so called 4 NTOs (I can't understand why TPAS is still referred to as a national tenants representative organisation when it has more than 300 Registered housing providers in its membership), are currently working together along with CIH and the NHF to develop a framework model for Tenant Panels .

Since every neighbourhood is demographically unique , and each Provider is a private company , every Tenant Panel will need to operate slightly differently to others, due to local issues and demographics etc.

Where TRAs exist , they are usually well capable of developing independent scrutiny panels, without the  need for any expensive "Consultants " to design a panel for them.

Experienced tenant activists are often not only excellent expert Community Leaders , but also have untapped skills and expertise which should be used to drive this change to wider independent tenant scrutiny .

Having taken part in a wide range of discussions and policy debates RE:  Localism and Social Housing Reform , since the Bill was published, I've been struck by the amount of tangible fear in the Housing  Sector that Providers may be unable to control Tenants Panels and deflect criticism and complaints etc.

Large numbers of  HAs are desperately attempting to perpetuate control  as they have previously , by marginalising effective tenants and TRAs which are considered "too challenging ". Setting up "Compliant" Panels similar to that described by the poster.

Indeed in the recently published CIH  Regional Members policy brief on the probable impact of Localism on the sector and housing professionals " Thematic discussion for CIH English Regions April2011- Practical Implications of Localism  " , it states that : "The bill is proposing to change the way social tenants can complain to the Housing Ombudsman about their social landlords"

No reference whatever to "Tenants Panels", and certainly no recognition of the absolute requirment for independence  and autonomy.

The original poster has touched on what appears to be a very raw nerve for Social Landlords.

Social tenants don't need patronising , we require nothing more than the opportunity to design and manage Tenants Panels ourselves .

Most experienced tenants represntatives are more than capable of succeeding.

Unless tenants fully support local Panels , they will be unacceptable to the majority of honest diligent tenants who work tirelessly (unpaid ) on behalf of their neighbourhoods to improve quality of life and services for everybody (including PRS tenants , leaseholders and home owners), and if Panels  quickly become meaningless where will victimised  tenants take their serious complaints once the TSA disappears?

Tenants should by now be clamouring (locally)to determine how Tenants Panels are to be designed and established, and more importanntly demanding complete indepedence from all outside interference, and /or vested interests.

This is the apparent intent of those proposals included in the De-centralisation & Localism Bill.(Social Housing Reforms)

Jimmy Devlin

Chair

North West Tenants & Residents Assembly

11/05/2011 12:26 pm

Bill, it's great that you have been able to take a positive from the standards being ambiguous.

But what happens if your landlord isn't working within the spirit of the standards?

There is too much wriggle room for organisations. This is reflected in the frustration of the orignal poster on this thread, and in what people are saying on other threads and elsewhere.

I'm not saying all the standards have to be prescriptive. But some clearer direction on setting up scrutiny panels would be helpful for all.

11/05/2011 3:45 pm

Jim Well said and believe a very good insight