Do we want housing run by a municipal dinosaur again?

Published: 22 October, 2010

• THERE is a sudden clamour from politicians from both sides of the council chamber to return control of the housing stock to Islington Council. 

While I make no apologies for the shortcomings of Homes for Islington (HfI), I would urge caution before any major decisions are made. Prior to the formation of HfI, the housing department it replaced was notoriously inefficient and unresponsive to its tenants’ and leaseholders’ needs and aspirations. 

Had it not been replaced, major restructuring and reform would have been necessary throughout every section of what had become a municipal dinosaur. One must also remember that the majority of staff were transferred from the housing department to HfI, and would, under current legislation, simply be transferred back again. 

Therefore, without major reform little or nothing would change. Furthermore, the last government pumped £700million into the Decent Homes programme on the strict condition that the council established an arms’-length management organisation to run its housing services. Hence the creation of HfI. 

How much of this money will have to be repaid if the council breaks or cuts short this agreement, which is effectively a contract?

DAVE BARNES
Islington Taxpayers’ Alliance

• I HAVE lived on an Islington estate for six years as a leaseholder and in that time have had a handful of issues needing attention. These have ranged from problems with a neighbour through overcharging on my service charge to failed refuse collection. Each time, due to sometimes incompetence, sometimes wilful obstruction and sometimes gross deception, HfI has failed to provide the bare semblance of an efficient management service.

What should have been straightforward issues have turned into a nightmare of complaints upon complaints, even reaching local government ombudsman level on two occasions. Every time, my complaints were finally upheld, “lessons learnt” and compensation (more public money, of course) paid out. I have no idea what HfI officials do all day, but it doesn’t seem to involve resolving issues, managing funds carefully or improving quality of service in any way.

It may be that the council will not improve on this record, but cutting an ineffectual and overpaid tier of management will be of some benefit. I don’t believe a worse service would be possible.

RIKKI BLUE
Holly Park estate, N4

• SIMON Kwong is obviously dreaming if he really believes HfI is having any kind of meaningful dialogue with the majority of the residents who live in council-owned properties (Unfair to dismiss tenants’ involvement as ‘unelected focus groups’). 

Tenants voted for the HfI board meetings to be held in the Town Hall to enable more tenants to be involved in the decision-making process. HfI overruled. All HfI resident consultative panels voted to continue funding the Federation of Islington Tenants’ Associations (FITA). HfI overruled. Now there is no central organisation facilitating the concerns and views of tenants’ and residents’ associations or regular collective meetings.

Resident reps attended FITA meetings out of commitment to their communities rather than for shopping vouchers, the reward for HfI focus groups. The consultative panels voted against HfI resident directors paying themselves special responsibility allowances (SRAs) on top of their expenses, amounting last year to £13,938. 

This year, HfI agreed to pay these SRAs without even bothering to consult the panels. The only voice HfI wants to hear is the voice that claims HfI is “fantastic” and “three stars”. All HfI has done in my and the majority of residents’ views is to disempower and show contempt for residents in social housing. 

JUSTINE GORDON-SMITH
Crouch Hill, N4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
• THE meaningful dialogue Simon Kwong says takes place with residents is no more than a public relations exercise, where HfI does the talking and selected residents do the listening. As someone who has been to many consultation meetings with HfI, I have found them a complete waste of time. They allow their representatives’ egos to run wild.

Mr Kwong says that decisions made by the highly-paid board of directors regarding repairs and contractors are discussed with residents. This is a nonsense. 

Every second Wednesday of the month the council chamber is crammed with angry tenants and leaseholders, who discuss dodgy repairs, massive overcharging by HfI and unnecessary work carried out by its contractors.

May I suggest Mr Kwong starts living in the real world. He should give residents the service they deserve. 

P LEAMY
Cowdenbeath Path, N1