ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

Kensington and Chelsea Council is acting too hastily in abolishing its TMO

Terry Bamford was executive director of housing at Kensington and Chelsea Council when its tenant management organisation was first set up. Here he explains why the council may regret its decision to disband it

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Grenfell Tower after the fire (picture: Getty)
Grenfell Tower after the fire (picture: Getty)
Sharelines

Kensington and Chelsea Council is acting too hastily in abolishing its TMO, says Terry Bamford #ukhousing

Kensington and Chelsea Council has voted unanimously to end its management agreement with its tenant management organisation (TMO) without clear plans for the future.

Facts about Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) have been distorted in discussion following the Grenfell Tower fire.

The TMO took control of the housing stock in 1996 following two ballots of tenants and leaseholders.


READ MORE

Council votes to terminate contract with KCTMOCouncil votes to terminate contract with KCTMO
KCTMO will hold AGM when it can give ‘necessary information’ to tenantsKCTMO will hold AGM when it can give ‘necessary information’ to tenants
Once upon a time in the west: the history of KCTMOOnce upon a time in the west: the history of KCTMO

Repeated surveys have shown levels of tenant satisfaction with the landlord service running at around 70%, but a much larger majority of tenants have voted in favour of continuing with the TMO as manager.

Last October, 1,217 tenants voted for KCTMO to continue managing the stock – 18% of those eligible to vote.

The board comprises eight elected tenants and leaseholders, four councillors and three independent representatives.

“There is an understandable wish to blame somebody or some organisation for the disaster.”

The criticism that the board is a front organisation for the council therefore cannot be sustained. The TMO has rated consistently well when measured against the performance indicators for housing management.

So why has there been a dramatic loss of trust in the TMO? First, there is an understandable wish to blame somebody or some organisation for the disaster, and those responsible for the renovation works are the obvious target.

Second, the media – including newspapers, radio, TV and social media – have presented a single, simple narrative of events: deprived and neglected residents of Grenfell ignored by the TMO and a wealthy council sitting on reserves of £300m.

Third, the TMO has been silent, no doubt conscious of the forthcoming inquiry.

The prescience of Grenfell Action Group in warning of the fire risks demands respect but none of the measures sought by the group would have averted the tragedy.

The cladding which seems to have accelerated the spread of the fire was widely used in local authority blocks throughout the country.

The London Fire Brigade was closely involved with the plans for the refurbishment and the extent to which they ‘signed off’ on fire safety will be for the inquiry to determine.

What they did unquestionably sign off was the ‘stay put’ advice which had such catastrophic consequences for those on the upper floors.

So with the ending of the TMO, what will take its place?

“Will these large organisations be more sensitive to the needs of local tenants than the TMO?”

The most likely contenders are the major housing associations active in the area. Catalyst Housing Group, which has subsumed Kensington Housing Trust and has been leading a major redevelopment of Wornington Green in North Kensington, and Notting Hill Housing Trust, which is now about to merge with Genesis.

Both are much bigger landlords than the TMO, with 22,000 and 33,000 tenants respectively.

Both have grown through merger and acquisition and both are building housing for sale alongside social housing.

In Wornington Green, 43% of the first tranche of properties were for sale at a price beyond the reach of tenants, at around £495,000 for a one-bed flat.

Will these large organisations be more sensitive to the needs of local tenants than the TMO? When less than 10% of their boards are tenants and leaseholders it looks unlikely.

There are examples of community-led organisations including co-operatives and community land trusts. The snag is that they are small scale and locally based.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT OUR FIRE SAFETY CAMPAIGN

Fragmenting the housing stock in this way would give tenants the localism and responsiveness they want but poses real difficulties if routine repairs and maintenance are contracted out to a range of different providers without some centralised quality control.

The council has cut off the TMO without any clear plan for what is to be done.

Its statements talk about a staged transition, resident focus and participation in decision-making. It will be judged by three key tests:

  • Will the new arrangements place tenants in the driving seat?
  • Will repairs and day-to-day maintenance be improved?
  • Will management costs be reduced or maintained at their current level?

The TMO took two years of careful planning to bring to fruition. The transition period to new arrangements for housing may rival Brexit in its duration.

The council seems to have jumped precipitately with no idea of where it will land.

Terry Bamford, former executive director of housing and social services, Kensington and Chelsea Council

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.