You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
From the archive – ALMO’s future at risk after Camden ‘no’ vote
Inside Housing looks back at what was happening in the sector this week five, 10 and 15 years ago
25 years ago
The Department of Social Security was mulling plans to exclude a number of groups from claiming housing benefit, according to Inside Housing sources.
The government was undertaking a wide-ranging review of housing benefit and had already revealed plans to exclude asylum seekers, so-called ‘benefit tourists’, and 16 and 17-year-olds. But other ideas were thought to be under consideration, including to withhold benefit from anyone applying as homeless.
Increasing the number of exclusions was seen as a way to reduce huge recent rises in the housing benefit bill. Inside Housing said that the plan also dovetailed with government proposals to deny council housing to single parents.
The plan would apply only to new claimants, so as to avoid chaos for landlords.
15 years ago
The future of ALMOs was under threat from tenant campaigners, the National Federation of ALMOs (NFA) warned.
Gordon Perry, chair of the NFA, said he feared that more tenant votes against transfers to ALMOs would take place unless something was done to make the option more attractive to them.
The warning came in the wake of Camden tenants’ overwhelming rejection of the transfer of management to an ALMO, where ‘no’ won with 77% of the vote.
Mr Perry alleged that a campaign against transfer, led by Defend Council Housing, was “based on fear and misinformation”.
He added: “It’s less likely to happen outside London but I’m not saying it won’t happen. Councils have to take that risk seriously. It’s difficult for councils such as Camden who did play a straight bat to deal with those kinds of dirty tricks.”
Mr Perry said that, in some cases, councils should avoid balloting tenants because “it can send out a wrong message”.
Meanwhile, Defend Council Housing produced guidance on how to defeat plans to introduce ALMOs.
Five years ago
Landlords slammed plans to introduce regulatory fees for English housing associations after it emerged that the regulator would not be better resourced as a consequence.
The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) had published a discussion paper which suggested that associations could pay fees based on the number of homes they owned.
At the time, the £12.5m annual cost was paid by the Communities and Local Government Department.
It had been hoped that the prospective fees would boost resources rather than replace government funding.
However, the discussion paper did not mention an increase in resources for the HCA’s regulatory arm, prompting angst from housing associations.
