07/04/2011 11:30 am
Typical Shapps slight of hand.
No doubt to be presented as empowering tenants, expanding choice, ensuring local employment, meeting localism objectives the early reaction from Labour has been close to 'we don't really know - we feel we should be against it but don't want to commit in case it might be popular'. Yes we now have the bloody Mavis Riley Party as the official opposition.
Any of the presented arguments of empowerment etc are good, unfortunatley, in the real society, there is a huge problem. Bulk contracts deliver value for money that individual purchasing can not. therefore encouraging the inclusion of local tradespeople in large contracting is the better way to achieve the local employment objective, whilst at the same time delivering the sort of value for money Pickles would be proud to have thought of. involving tenants in the drawing up of the sepcification of the contract effectively empowers them in a way that has meaning in a modern maintenance business.
There are further concerns of hidden agenda. With tenants made responsible for repairs then the fund for those repairs can be trimmed successively in the same way as the support to the HRA has been. tenants will then find that increasingly they will be funding more and more of the service that the rent used to cover. This is already the case with the repair types removed from the landlord responsibilties over the years.
The eventual movement of additional financial burdon, added to the tenant tax to fund development, added to the tenant tax to fund benefit costs, will mean that a social tenant will not be financially viable.
Finally - if this is such a good idea, why is it not seen in the private sector where tenants are chasing landlords to use the money paid in rent to perform overdue repairs.