Under-attack housing body has reached its sell-by date

Published: 5 November, 2010

• MAY I congratulate Councillor Lucy Rigby for the support she has shown to residents of Lorraine estate, in Holloway, who are being treated with contempt by Homes for Islington (HfI) with reference to shoddy workmanship and payments for work not being carried out.

The fact that there has been only one Labour councillor prepared to criticise HfI suggests there is a policy by the Labour group which controls our Town Hall not to carry out its duty and represent residents on the ever-increasing problems with HfI and its contractors.  

To delay decision making on whether to retain HfI until next year while in the meantime residents’ lives are being turned into a nightmare, Labour cannot say the opposition has not made its position clear as it has made a public statement calling for a tenants’ vote.  

HfI has reached its sell-by date and it is time to bring the work back in-house, where accountability and transparency would be in the hands of our elected representatives. Local businesses would be able to tender for the much-needed repairs to properties and give value for money and not be left at the hands of the out-of-control HfI and its highly-paid management.

PJ LEAMY
Cowdenbeath Path, N1

• CONGRATULATIONS  to the Tribune for its excellent coverage of housing problems (Homes boss is called to crisis talks, October 29). What was particularly amazing were the letters and quotes from Islington councillors in support of issues they have so far completely ignored – tenants’ complaints about HfI. 

However, notably, we have yet to hear any councillors actually call for housing management to be returned to direct council control, apart from the Lib Dems, who insist that it be accompanied by a ballot “to give tenants a choice”. 

Tenants may remember that, since Islington initially rejected any form of stock transfer, the Lib Dem council promised that if we voted for an Almo (arm’s-length management organisation) instead it would only exist for five years to facilitate finance under the Government’s Decent Homes standard. 

So, why did the Lib Dems wholeheartedly support HfI until they lost the election? Why didn’t they offer tenants a “choice” when they were in power and were actually able to do so? 

My main concern has always been that, regardless of its stated intentions, the former Lib Dem council did precisely what it wanted to do, regardless of tenant opinion or demands. 

Therefore, tenants today should be asking why, if during 12 years in office the Lib Dems never listened to us, should they suddenly change their policy?

The answer lies in the legal requirement that any form of stock transfer must be fully supported by those most affected – council tenants. Without a public ballot to exhibit such support, stock transfer, and its associated loss of “security of tenure”, is not possible.

Since Islington Council already owns the Almo, taking  housing management back in-house does not constitute stock transfer, but simply retention of property management. Therefore, we don’t need a very expensive and divisive ballot to return our homes to direct council management.

By rejecting a ballot outright, we prevent any nefarious attempt to remove tenants’ security of tenure in line with the Con-Lib Dem government’s proposals. That’s what I call tenants’ choice. 

Dr BS POTTER
Chairman, Federation of Islington Tenants’ Associations 
Chairman, Islington Leaseholders Association

• BRAVO! to Councillor Martin Klute for supporting residents on the Popham estate and Cluse Court. Cllr Klute said last week: “I’ve had to read the riot act to Eamon [McGoldrick, HfI chief executive]. Every time I write to him with complaints from tenants I get a letter back saying he’s passed my inquiry onto someone else.”

Cllr Klute’s frustration is shared by many residents. On the Highbury estate we’ve had several major battles with HfI over various major works programmes. Each time, HfI has stalled, tried to ignore us but finally, often with help from councillors, it has accepted the validity of our complaints. But why should it take a shouting match to arrive at a common-sense solution?

Following the recent installation of double glazing one of my neighbours has been trying to get HfI to fix a fault; it was only when he threatened legal action that he saw a response. 

The works finished about a year ago and, despite being promised a 10-year guarantee for the windows, we still don’t have written confirmation of the guarantee or guidelines as to who is responsible for fixing any problems. 

I wonder how many residents on other estates are still waiting for their guarantees? Why?

It has to be said over and over again that we pay for this so-called service. We pay with our rent and our service charges. Yet, HfI refuses to listen to us unless we shout. We could work together but HfI’s slogan of “improving housing through partnership” doesn’t apply to a partnership with residents.

RICHARD ROSSER
Highbury New Park, N5