Reply to comment

Published: 22 April 2011
by ANDREW JOHNSON

THE Town Hall could take back control of the borough’s 35,000 council homes under the most radical shake-up of housing in Islington for a generation.

Just seven years after the Lib Dems farmed out the day-to-day running of council housing to an organisation called Homes for Islington (HfI), the new Labour administration is launching a massive review of the way the homes of tens of thousands of tenants and leaseholders are managed.

The consultation is already proving controversial, however. The Lib Dems argue that any change should only go ahead after a full ballot of tenants and leaseholders – already ruled out by the Labour administration.

And tenants’ leader Brian Potter said he did not trust the Town Hall to run a fair consultation.

“There’ll be a lot of talk and then they’ll do what they want anyway,” he said. “The change to HfI was rigged. I one-hundred per cent don’t trust the council. They want a cushy life and that means leaving the housing with HfI.”

Both Mr Potter and the Lib Dems support the return of housing management to Town Hall control.

The review was launched on Tuesday and is expected to be completed by October. It will culminate in a residents’ convention in September after months of surveys and group meetings.

But housing chiefs were careful on Tuesday not to criticise HfI, which has a contract to run the borough’s housing stock until 2014. 

They said the review would canvass the opinions of every tenant and leaseholder, as well as housing staff, private residents who live near estates and anyone else with a direct interest.

Councillor James Murray, the Labour politician in charge of housing, said that taking over from HfI was just one of many possibilities and that the outcome would depend on the consultation. But he did rule out the sale or transfer of the housing stock to a private manager.

“It’s important to emphasise that the review is going to involve residents right from the beginning,” he said. 

“What is not an option is stock transfer. Everything else is on the table. It could be the status quo, with HfI continuing what they’re doing. If that’s the case, then they will do so with a positive mandate. 

“It could by a hybrid of HfI and Islington or it could be bringing it back in-house. There’s a lot of discussion to be had.”

He added, however, that a ballot would be unnecessary because there was not a clear “either-or” choice.

Patrick Odling-Smee, Islington’s director of housing, added that HfI had improved the speed with which repairs are carried out and that 60 per cent of tenants are now satisfied with the housing service compared to 30 per cent when HfI took over.

“This will set policy for the next ten or 20 years,” he said. “The main reason for setting up the contract with HfI was to get money for the Decent Homes programme. That money is running out. 

“The government is changing the funding rules in 2012 and HfI’s contract runs out in 2014, so now is a good time to have a discussion about the future.”

The review is being driven by the coalition government’s new policy on housing – “the biggest change in council housing since the war”, Mr Odling-Smee said. 

In the past how much local authorities are allowed to spend on housing has been tightly regulated by Whitehall, particularly when it comes to raising money to build new homes.

Now these restrictions – after decades of lobbying – are to be relaxed. This means boroughs such as Islington, which has the second highest housing subsidy in the country, can borrow money to build new homes. The catch is that in future there will be no subsidy from government, meaning that housing will have to be self-sufficient through rents.

This new model means it is more advantageous for the Town Hall to have complete control of its housing stock, rather than employ what is effectively a middle man.

Cllr Murray stressed, however, that the Town Hall has no preferred option

He said: “We’re approaching this with an open mind. People are saying to me that the most important thing for them are quick repairs and homes that aren’t overcrowded – much more than the specific manager. 

“People care about the outcome. Even if people want to keep HfI then it’s a positive reason for doing so.

“There are some things that HfI does well, but there are other things that could be done better. It’s important that residents are involved in decision making.”

Lib Dem group leader Councillor Terry Stacy, who was responsible for bringing in HfI in 2004, said that he did so only to win the £100million of government money that came with it.

“Now that the Liberal and Conservative government has changed the rules on housing revenue, something Labour failed to act on despite years of whingeing, it means it is viable for housing to once again be managed by the local authority,” he said. 

“But HfI was brought in with a ballot and any change should be by ballot. Yet Labour have not committed to a ballot.”

Mr Potter said that as the leader of both tenants and leaseholders in the borough he was the “only voice of opposition” and should therefore be involved in the process from the beginning.

“But I’ve not heard anything from the Town Hall,” he said. “Housing should be under the control of the elected council, so if people have a complaint they can talk to an elected councillor, not a private company.”