Axe poised to fall on housing agency
Bid to take 40,000 homes back under direct Town Hall control as repair bill protests mount
Published: 24 September, 2010
by PETER GRUNER
SPECULATION mounted this week over the future of the borough’s housing agency, Homes for Islington (HfI) which has been criticised for massive refurbishment bills and poor quality of work.
The Labour-controlled council has been quietly considering closing the agency and returning housing to direct local authority control.
This comes amid claims that the agency is overcharging leaseholders – owners of former council homes – and has become “too secretive” and “undemocratic”.
At Thursday’s full council meeting, Lib Dem group leader Councillor Terry Stacy will raise the issue of HfI and possible ways to save £1million.
Cllr Stacy, who wants housing to be run directly by the council, is calling for tenants and leaseholders to be given a vote on the issue in a referendum.
Before the council elections in May Labour’s Paul Convery – now the Town Hall’s regeneration chief – revealed that should his party win it would consider closing HfI due to its “lack of accountability”. In the Tribune Cllr Convery described HfI as an “ambiguous” organisation. He said that arguing with it was a “bit like fighting blancmange”.
Dr Brian Potter, chairman of the borough’s tenants’ and leaseholders’ groups, said this week it would make sense to scrap HfI now that Islington Council is considering sharing a chief executive with neighbouring Camden.
Dr Potter said: “Islington could save money by scrapping the agency. Besides, Camden doesn’t have a similar organisation. Its housing is all done in-house.”
HfI is an arms’-length management organisation (Almo), set up in 2002 with 1,000 staff to carry out much-needed refurbishment on estates and look after up to 40,000 council properties.
The £700million for repairs was provided under the previous government’s Decent Homes programme. Although HfI is not due to be dissolved until at least 2014, the council could close it earlier.
Dr Potter believes that its original purpose has now been fulfilled.
“It’s very expensive to run and it doesn’t allow for consultation with councillors,” he added. “Tenants complain about the quality of work and repairs and the services on estates.
“Leaseholders get massive repair bills, including charges of up to £50,000. If they can’t pay, the money is passed on to the council when they sell the property.”
He added that not only was there a poor complaints procedure at HfI “but half the time councillors don’t even know about complaints”.
In neighbouring Camden, tenants and leaseholders were balloted about an Almo eight years ago but rejected the idea. “I’m not saying that Camden don’t have problems,” said Dr Potter. “But at least complaints go directly to your councillors. In Camden, you can warn your councillors that if they don’t do something about the problem they’ll be voted out.”
Labour housing chief Councillor James Murray said that the council would be studying the Almo early next year.
“We will be looking at all options, including one to dissolve HfI and bring housing in-house,” he added. “Our main concerns are that our tenants and leaseholders have a good service and a big say in decisions. Any organisation must be accountable to councillors.”