Expenses gaps remain

Published: 17 December, 2010

• ONLY some totals of directors’ expenses have been published on Homes for Islington’s website (Expenses go on view, December 10). 

Four months ago I asked for an itemised breakdown of all directors’ expenses between 2004 and the present day. To date, I have been sent partial responses, with at least one whole year missing. For example, I was sent one breakdown for 2008, which seems to be identical to the same spreadsheet itemising 2007, even though in another email sent some days before HfI specified that directors had spent double the amount in 2008. Which total for 2008 is accurate, £7,248 or £13,938?  

This discrepancy would imply that a total of £6,689 is completely unaccounted for. Because the information I’ve been sent is not individually itemised or put into a chronological date format it’s not clear if nearly £7,000 was spent by one director, in 2008, three directors or all of them. It is also intriguing to see that the cost of resident board members has jumped from £2,063 in 2004-05 to £7,248 in 2007, and then suddenly in 2008 it jumps to £13,938.

Not so long ago our MPs’ expenses were laid bare and the public were able to see every duck house, trouser press and pornographic movie. In the light of HfI directors’ recent decision to pay themselves special responsibility allowances (SRAs) of up to £5,000 a year, I believe it is completely reasonable to expect HfI board to be subject to the same detailed level of scrutiny. 

When a body in receipt of public money will not provide clear financial information, it’s only natural to ask why. It also seems entirely sensible to question being asked to vote for HfI resident directors on the understanding that the position was voluntary, only to find out some months later that the HfI board, after election, decided to vote themselves (on top of the £2,000 a year in expenses they can already claim) up to £5,000 in SRA. 

In contrast, we are soon to see lots of paid HfI staff being made redundant. When there is talk of swathes of voluntary organisations in Islington losing core funding in these times of austerity we need to look at what our money is really spent on. 

I also find it extraordinary that Theresa Coyle claims that the responsibilities of HfI resident directors can in any way, shape or form be compared to those of our elected councillors. 

I have written to HfI and Islington Council requesting that I get all the missing information, the itemised lists, and that HfI reviews its process in dealing with Freedom of Information requests. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has agreed to investigate my complaint, given that I have not been sent the full information in the requested format. 

It remains to be seen what the ICO decides is the truth, rather than what HfI prefers to claim is the truth in this newspaper. 

JUSTINE GORDON-SMITH 
Crouch Hill, N4 

• I FIND the response by Theresa Coyle, chairwoman of Homes for Islington, to questions being asked about transparency over the payments they decided to pay themselves quite amazing. 

She says the board of directors has disclosed its expenses online. May I remind her that this was only after a Freedom of Information request, as all other methods of request fell on deaf ears.

She claims special responsibility allowances are paid in line with that of our councillors, with one big difference that they are elected by residents and are judged at the ballot box every four years. Is she elected or selected?

The fact that HfI’s board members pay tax and National Insurance contributions does not guarantee value for money. So it is only right that residents ask questions and receive answers.  

If Ms Coyle and her board members were to attend the monthly meetings of the Federation of Tenants’ Associations and the Leaseholders’ Association, she would hear stories that contradict her view that HfI is transparent.

P LEAMY
Cowdenbeath Path, N1