COUNCIL NO TO YES-MEN ALLEGATIONS

Riverside`s

`disrespectful

donkeys` fail

to get the nod

Nodding donkeys have been rejected by councillors.

The councillors also say that the nodding donkey description –about yes-men tenant representatives on a Riverside Housing Association  scrutiny panel-  is disrespectful.

And the councillors also reject other allegations made in two oral questions  put by a community group, Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation.

"Panel is satisfied."...Coun. Rob Burns

The rejections came  at a meeting of Carlisle City Council Community  Overview and Scrutiny Panel when the two oral questions were answered by the Chairman, Councillor Rob Burns. The questions and the answers are given below:

Question 1

At the last meeting of the panel (April 9), the Riverside Housing Association representatives were asked about the composition of the Riverside Tenants` Scrutiny Panel. The representatives said that this panel comprised tenants and also representatives of Riverside and was considered independent of Riverside.The view was then expressed by the Council Panel Chairman (Coun Burns) that because of the inclusion of Riverside representatives, the Riverside tenants’ panel could not claim to be independent and by implication have the power to hold Riverside effectively to account.  Does the Panel agree with the view of its Chairman and if so,does the Panel feel that representations should be made to Riverside about this absence of independence?

The answer, given in the minutes of the meeting was:

The Chairman advised that at the time of the discussion with regard to the Tenant’s Scrutiny Panel and how effective the Panel was, he thought it was appropriate to query whether the panel was independent. The Chair of the Tenants Scrutiny Panel provided further explanation on how the group was independent, although serviced by officers of Riverside and the Chairman and the Panel were satisfied with that explanation. The Chair further stated that he felt that there was no apparent evidence that residents were not happy with the work of the Tenants’ Scrutiny Panel. He felt that the Panel believed that the Tenants’ Scrutiny Panel were fulfilling their function and that as they were autonomous, the Council’s Panel would not be making any further representation. Residents who were dissatisfied could make

individual representations to Riverside if they felt they could not use the Tenants Scrutiny Panel to do so.

Question 2

Following serious criticisms of the working practices and of other aspects of Riverside Housing Association`s activities, made at this Panel’s meetings and at other places, there has subsequently recently been a praiseworthy involvement of the Council in attempting to address what apparently are complaints made by Riverside tenants and leaseholders which cannot be resolved.

For at least three years this unsatisfactory situation has been causing real distress and hardship to Riverside tenants and leaseholders, particularly in Longtown.What further steps does the Panel consider necessary to end this unsatisfactory situation?

The answer:

The Chairman advised that the issue was discussed at length at the last meeting and the minutes of that meeting noted that Mr Butterworth had explained how Riverside was dealing with the matter. There had been concern about the working practices of Riverside but the Panel were satisfied that Riverside were moving forward. The Panel had been given assurances, which they accepted, that Riverside were setting up a Leaseholders Board which would provide leaseholders with a greater opportunity to deal with such issues.

The Chairman queried what Mr Barker meant by the phrase “praiseworthy involvement of the Council”.  Mr Barker explained that some of the issues had not been resolved by Riverside.

The Leader of the Council had taken up the matter and was investigating the issues one by one with the relevant Councillors involved. Those investigations were currently ongoing. Mr Barker queried the Council could do more and take issues further.

The Chairman advised that those were issues for Riverside to resolve. He acknowledged that the Panel had raised concerns at a previous meeting in 2014 but the councillor for the local area who had raised the matter, had subsequently been re-assured that things were moving in the right direction and that was also the view of the Panel.

With regard to the independence of the Tenants’ Scrutiny Panel Mr Barker queried whether a panel could be partly independent and whether the Panel were satisfied that the Scrutiny Panel was independent.

The Chairman confirmed that the Panel was satisfied that the scrutiny arrangements for Riverside tenants were sufficiently arms length and that it was not a matter for the Council to seek to interfere with the autonomous arrangements of another organisation.

The Chair stated that he felt it was disrespectful of the organisation which Mr Barker represented to suggest that the individuals who represented the tenants on the Tenants Scrutiny Panel could be influenced to not properly hold the company to account.  He further stated that he felt a recent blog placed by Mr Barker which referred to members of the Riverside Tenants Scrutiny Panel as ‘donkeys’ was also disrespectful.

Mr Barker confirmed that he had no problem with the Council`s Scrutiny Panel or the Council but he had been complaining about the Riverside Panel.



 
Community Voice Carlisle is the blog of Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation. Information  about the Federtion is available on 01228 522277 or 01228 532803.