When is a Housing Association not a HA?
11/02/2010 2:12 pm
In today's Guardian the acting chief executive of Anchor Trust is described as heading up a "social charity". I know they do more than provide social housing but housing and support is their business and I thought their status was Not for Profit. Did the Guardian get it wrong or is there a move for housing organisations to call themselves social charities? Are others confused or just me?
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
11/02/2010 2:41 pm
in an article on here from April 2009 Anchor announced they are withdrawing from the National HOUSING Federation
"Anchor Trust and Housing 21 argue that the NHF’s remit is too narrow to accommodate their expanding work in social care. They now plan to work in coalition with organisations which they describe as more closely allied to their aims than the NHF, such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, which merged this week."
Hence this is probably a subtle repositioning of Anchor within its new intended markets, that may become the 'socail charity' sector?
06/10/2010 10:41 am
This sounds like the problems we are having. Our TMO is an Industrial & Provident Society registered organisation as is our HA Green Vale Homes.
The difference is we are a democratic membership based organisation while Green Vale is being run as private company under NHF rules to avoid VAT with no constitution or proper elections.
06/10/2010 1:35 pm
Our is the same and when we ask about Chartiable purposes we cannot get a answer out of them.
recently suggested the provision of their general housing service was the charitable purposes and yet documents they produce claim they are a Housing Association ‘with’ “Charitable purposes
We send out enquire to the TSA
06/10/2010 2:27 pm
Does this mean all that money got from tax payers all the property's build return and only one's which had original can keep.
07/10/2010 3:09 pm
Bill, you need to be very careful in accusing Green Vale Homes of having no constitution or proper elections.
The organisation is an Industrial and Provident Society, which by definition has rules, and they are unable to operate without having elections.
08/10/2010 4:43 pm
TL It is a strange set up. The tenant board members of which there are 6
are elected by the tenants in their area but, and it's big but they do not represent the tenants who elected them under company rules (NHF) their loyalty is to the company and they cannot be called to book by the people who elected them. It's like electing a councilor for your ward and him or her saying "sorry I can't do anything for you, I only answer to the group leader" Is this undemocratic or what. The company has members but the only have two functions to vote at the AGM and elect Independents at the same, so they are neither fish nor fowl, not shareholders or members who can elect a committee as we do in the TMO There is no constitution just company rules (NHF) so how can it be an IPS.
09/10/2010 3:25 pm
Bill, the Company Rules are the Constitution.
It seems to me that your problem is with what you term "Loyalty".
Actually, what most constitutions refer to is that decisions must be "in the best interests of the company/trust/association". This is not "loyalty" in the sense that you mean it. Why would any organisation invite people to be members and/or Board Directors who were intent on making decisions which were not in the best interest of the organisation ?
Please do not confuse this with an organisation which is unwilling to accept criticism. Most organisations are willing to accept criticism (even from some of their own Board), but at the end of such debates, the decision must be "in the best interests of the Company/Trust"
I do recognise that on (some very rare) occasions, what is in the best interests of the tenants, will not be in the best interests of the company. The (Board of the) company must take decisions which guarantee the survival of the company. How could it be any other way ?
09/10/2010 8:48 pm
TL the problem is that there is nothing in the company rules or the intergroup agreement to protect the tenants from what has happened. The umbrella organisation which accorde=ing to what we were told prior to transfer is there to provide linkes with our partner, IT HR and oher things has taken over our HA replacing staff and calling the shots.
We have seen the destruction of real tenant involvement replaced by tame tenats who haven't a clue what's going on and do what they are told. There is no protection for the tenants of the future, they will become drones, serfs almost slaves. I am 70 years old and dread the future with the people we now have in charge of our company, they will do anything to stay in control and we have plenty of evidence to show the direction we are heading if you read between the lines.
10/10/2010 10:38 am
Bill - I agreed with you we have are nodding horse's and snoozing dog's and someone like me whom sent's in view, ideas, and suggestions that trying to stop me by treating action against me.
I see a strong case under the Complaint system whereby Management is only see one side of the case i.e. the management/staff side of the case. Nine of of Ten Case's no evidence on file from the Resident's and the Resident's witness/witness's nothing on the file.
Are you sir in Sheltering Homes if so go and speak to Vernon of the The Sheltering Homes UK a excellent man