Cut out the middle man

Published: 12 March 2010

• I AM one of many residents sick of hearing excuse after excuse about exorbitant costs, poor quality work and lack of services (Under-attack homes chief tells critics: We give value for money, March 5). According to Eamon McGoldrick, of Homes for Islington (HfI), things will remain the same until 2014.
We need Islington Council to take action, as Ealing and Hillingdon have done, and Slough is in the process of doing, by getting rid of the arms’-length management organisations (Almos) that waste our money.
There is an increasing number of angry, frustrated, dissatisfied leaseholders and tenants in Islington. Why not use our power and demand a resignation from Mr McGoldrick and let council leader Terry Stacy know our votes will be going to independent candidates? 
By getting rid of the Almo, we then cut out the middle man and hold the council accountable for providing more affordable work and better-quality services and repairs.
We are the ones who pay for the costly major work, the poor repairs and lack of services. Dissatisfied leaseholders and tenants need to file formal complaints, contact the Ombudsman and voice our displeasure to the council.
HAI HOANG
EC1

• WHY does Mr McGoldrick think 180 leaseholders bothered to attend the meeting on a cold evening in January other than to complain that they feel they are being ripped off.
Does he really believe leaseholders are simple enough to think they can get any form of redress from the very department that issues the bills they object to, and supposedly, monitors the quality of work they receive?
He states that HfI can recall and/or penalise contractors for failing to comply with the terms of their contract. So, where are the clerks of works who are supposed to make sure all works are up to standard? And just what is the point of penalising a contractor if the penalty percentage is probably already built into the contractual price?
Three stars? I beg to disagree, Mr McGoldrick. HfI was originally assessed as providing a mere two-star service, and was finally, after a year of appealing the decision, uprated (quite wrongly, in my opinion) on a paper re-assessment to its present elevated status (at an undisclosed cost to residents).

Regarding the average billing of £5,000, perhaps HfI or the council would like to disclose just exactly how many individual bills exceeded this amount over the last four years – including the PFI leaseholders’ bills – before  you cap them.
 Regarding EU procurement rules, out of the whole of the EU it appears that HfI has, or is about to engage, the same group of contractors that has been employed in Islington since its inception as a managing agent for the council. So, please identify the competitive element of billing here.
The Federation of Islington Tenants’ Associations’ de-funding by HfI was absolutely disgraceful, since it effectively removed the solitary independent voice of residents, which it appears was the sole purpose of this action.
HfI was engaged simply as a managing agent. Its remit does not include building new properties – that is the prerogative of our elected council not its managing agent.
If you require praise, first prove you can manage effectively and reduce, not increase, costs to tenants.
Dr BS POTTER
Chairman, Federation of Islington Tenants’ Associations, Islington Leaseholders Association