TMO rejected at third time of trying
A Tenant Management Organisation which had hoped to take control of 1,842 homes has had its bid to manage the properties rejected.
Bedminster TMO exercised its right in August 2008 to take control of the homes from Bristol Council.
The TMO failed a stage 3 assessment by Bristol Council in February 2011 and a subsequent re-assessment, again by the council, in July 2011.
An independent assessor was brought in at the request of the TMO, but the bid was turned down this week after the TMO was deemed unfit to take over control.
A spokesperson for Bristol Council said: ‘A group of tenants who have been investigating the possibility of setting up a tenant management organisation covering Bedminster, Redcliffe, Howells and Windmill has been unsuccessful in its bid to gain full TMO status.
‘Bristol Council would like to acknowledge the positive contribution that these tenants have made and has expressed its hope that the skills and expertise gained will be of benefit for any future tenant participation, in cooperation with landlord services, in managing where they live.
‘There are many ways tenants can get involved in making a difference including monitoring performance and scrutinising services and Bristol Council is committed to tenants helping shape services to meet local needs.’
Mike Chappell, Redcliffe tenant and the acting chair of The Redcliffe Community Forum - which opposed the TMO from its inception - said that the right decision had been made.
He said: ‘This is the right result for Redcliffe Tenants and Leaseholders and those of the BTMO area as a whole. The BTMO proposal was flawed from the very beginning.’
There are no other TMOs in Bristol, however three groups are currently in the feasibility and development stage.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (8)
F451 | 27/01/2012 3:55 pm
What a shame for the tenants concerned. Perhaps if there is a local will to try again a future group could consult with the National Organisation of Co-operatives (http://www.cch.coop) and find out how to fill the skills and competences required for self management - or even buying the Council out all together! There is the potential to buy-in expertise where full time employment would not be justified through the scale of the business, as well as the opportunity to learn from others.
Don't give up Bristol.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Colemankim14 | 27/01/2012 4:03 pm
Yes what a shame and they must have a strong group of people. Wish more of you out they
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
philipjohn001 | 27/01/2012 4:10 pm
They'd be better off talking to the Nat Fed of TMOs rather Co-ops surely?
http://www.nftmo.com/
Mind you, I would have thought they'll have had plenty of help and it doesn't seem as though the council were opposed to the concept...
Sometimes these things are just not meant to be
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Smith | 30/01/2012 9:57 am
The TMO was opposed by many tenants who saw it as the start of a process of privatisation. The proposal came not from tenants but from the council.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Matt Murdock | 30/01/2012 10:51 am
It's a shame tenants saw it as the beginning of a process of privatisation paul beacuse the only examples I can think of where TMOs have transferred the stock (to their own RSLs mind you) was when the respective local authorities forced them to (Walsall & Lambeth).
DCH doesn't seem clear on the point either as I've known proposed TMOs where DCH have fought against the proposals and yet there are DCH members working for TMOs and on their boards who fully support the co-operative principal that TMOs have.
My own view is that TMOs are not vehicles for privatisation but do enable residents to provide their own services tailored to their own needs and we need more of them!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Smith | 30/01/2012 10:59 am
Matt I think that's true and I am a great fan of cooperative action however it should be built from the community up, this proposal was seen by some as being imposed from above, based not upon a real community but a council's administrative boundary.
I think TMOs may go ahead in other parts of the council's area.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Matt Murdock | 30/01/2012 12:06 pm
Paul, I agree entirely that if a TMO has to work it has to come from the community and not be imposed from above.
Julian, the stock transfer that's taking place in Lambeth was provoked by the Council arbitrarily deciding to cut the TMO allowances by a very large amount whilst continuing to spend much more on their in-house provision. Despite getting the cuts overturned in the courts the TMOs felt that they had no option other than to look to a transfer in order to preserve the TMOs (which outperformed the council management). As it transpires they've chosen to join the RSL created by the Walsall transfer of TMOs - which only happened because the council decided to transfer all of their stock.
I'm not aware of any other TMO that has transferred and certainly none that have been set up for that express purpose.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sexton | 30/01/2012 1:33 pm
The opposition from other tenants, I understand, is mainly about the potential increase of the council rent
Size of the TMO may be considered as a factor in order to bring in professional skills of housing & asset management.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment