Ditch this quango set-up and give us a say, tenants urge council

PRESS STATEMENT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DITCH THIS QUANGO SET-UP  AND GIVE

US A SAY, TENANTS  URGE COUNCIL

 A city council is challenged today to ditch its arrangements with  a quango housing association because taxpayers are not getting a chance to discuss important issues.

Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation complains about the city council`s  “gagging” arrangement with the giant Riverside Housing Association of Liverpool which took over the city`s 7000 former council houses ten years ago.

In a letter to the council, the  Federation  also claims that Riverside has too big a representation on the council.

Twelve per cent of council members- including the council leader- have Riverside connections through work or membership of the Riverside governing board, says the letter.

 Despite this big representation,  city taxpayers are not getting the chance to discuss Riverside`s demolition of sheltered homes in the city and Riverside`s rent hike.  Riverside`s rents have risen twenty per cent more in recent years than rents in a similar town, Barrow in Furness, which  kept its council housing, says the letter.

The letter urges the council to change its working arrangements with Riverside so that tenants and taxpayers  get to know what is going on and get a chance to discuss issues.

Issued by Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation                                May 29  2013

Here is the letter

from the Federation  Secretary

to the city council:

Carlisle Tenants` and Residents`  Federation.

May 28 2013

Mr Jason Gooding

Town Clerk and Chief Executive

Carlisle City Council

Dear Mr Gooding

Nominations for the Riverside Carlisle board- representations and complaints

I understand that the council` nominations for the Riverside Carlisle Board go  before the Executive on May 31. The Federation has asked me to make representations to the council about this matter and the related working arrangements which the council has with Riverside

For the last few years, the Federation has lobbied councillors about several issues concerning Riverside and  parallel representations about these issues have also been made through questions asked at meetings of the council``s  Community Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

Complaints about Riverside have also been addressed to the council through yourself  and your predecessor as Chief Executive. Concerns about these issues have also been made through the local Press. Concerns about these issues have also been made to the  two local M.P.s, Mr Stevenson and Mr. Stewart.

In the view of the Federation,  these concerns are not being adequately addressed  under the present working arrangements between the council and Riverside. Central to these arrangements are the four council nominees.

In the experience of the Federation there is good reason for having  serious doubts about the value of these arrangements as a means of addressing tenants` complaints and other complaints.

There are also concerns about the value of addressing tenants` complaints and other complaints about Riverside through the  council`s Community Overview and Scrutiny Panel. It has been explained to the council in the past that because of almost insuperable difficulties in raising issues with Riverside, this  panel became the only vehicle for this purpose. This panel allows only a maximum of three questions and for that and  for other reasons has  only  very limited value.

An added  problem is the (properly declared) membership of the  Riverside  board by the Panel Chairman. The Federation does not consider that  it is

fair and equitable in the context of scrutiny that  Federation questions about Riverside should be addressed to a member of the Riverside board.Additionally, after the panel meeting, it is not fair and equitable that she can also be lobbied as a councillor - as she has been in the past-  about Riverside issues.

There are also concerns about the Panel chairman`s replies to Federation questions. Many of these replies, in the view of the Federation, are pedestrian, do not  evidence  proper scrutiny and are too accepting of the status quo.

There are also concerns about apparent “gagging” by Riverside of  the council nominees and the priority given by the council`s nominees to Riverside interests over the interests of taxpayers. There is apparently in existence some sort of “gagging” arrangement by Riverside under which Riverside affairs are “secret” and cannot be discussed in the  context of council business.

Additionally, the Federation has criticised one nominee for giving his loyalty to Riverside on one occasion in preference to his loyalty to his ward taxpayers.

Related to the above are concerns about the Riverside board, particularly about the judgement of the regional  director of Riverside who in the view  of the Federation showed absence of proper judgement in becoming a political nominee in the Police and Crime Commissioner election and a further absence of  proper judgement in stating that he  could combine his regional director job with that of Cumbria Police and Crime Commissioner.

Related to the above are concerns about Riverside “operations” such as the demolition of much of the city`s sheltered housing and the recently established comparison of Riverside`s twenty per cent higher rents over those of  similar housing in Barrow which is still council owned. These and other “operations” are neither reported to nor discussed by taxpayers under the present arrangements. In the opinion of the Federation, they should be reported and discussed.

Related to the above are concerns about the present relatively disproportionate dominance of Riverside representation among council members. Riverside now has direct representation, through an employee and through five board members (including the high profile Leader of the Council) of close on 12 per cent of council membership. Riverside, it must be emphasised, is a quango, unelected and apparently accountable to no one but itself. Its present place in the council`s democratic process arguably is questionable.

In the view of all the above, the Federation considers that the present working arrangements between the council and Riverside are not adequate The Federation urges the council to make the necessary changes to these arrangements and chose nominees for the Riverside board  who will support these changes and ensure their implementation.

Copies of this letter are being sent for information  to Mr Mark Lambert, the council`s Head of Governance, to Ms Nicola Edwards, the council`s Overview and Scrutiny Manager, to Councillor Jessica Riddle, the council`s Portfolio Holder for Housing, to Councillor Ray Bloxham the previous portfolio holder, to Councilor Barry Earp , to Councillor Steven Bowditch, to Mr John Stevenson M.P  and Mr Rory Stewart M.P.  and to three of the four council representatives on the governing board of Riverside Carlisle, Councillors Luckley, Bainbridge and Layden. The fourth council  representative, Councillor Hendry, is not included because of his failure to acknowledge or reply to Federation letters.

NOTE: Information about Carlisle Tenants`and Residents` Federation is contained in the first entry of this blog, dated March 25 2013

Twenty per cent rent hike not justified say angry tenants

The twenty per cent more in rent charged to Riverside housing association tenants over those in equivalent council houses has been a big talking point since the Federation highlighted it in this blog last week.

The twenty per cent-  an increase built up in the last few years-was discussed in Carlisle by  both the city `s Carlisle South Community Association and the Federation at their monthly meetings.

And outside Cumbria, it was discussed by the North West Tenants` and Residents` Assembly  committee  at Birkenhead.

At all these meetings,  angry tenants wished to know how Riverside justified this  twenty per cent difference.

One clue emerged at the Federation  meeting where a member reported apparently excessive charges for painting a shared landing in a block of flats.

The member said he was already paying Riverside  more than £60  a year into a sinking fund  for the painting. Now an extra charge of £100 had been imposed.

The Federation will investigate this and other Riverside  charges in the face of blocking efforts by Riverside. Riverside, in the experience of the Federation, blocks any purposeful enquiry.

Federation member Malcolm Craik, who discovered the twenty per cent difference,was congratulated by the Federation on a great deal of hard work that went into what became an excellent piece of investigation. Malcolm compared the rents of several organisations over several years.

Malcolm is a former director of a Riverside organisation, its Carlisle Housing Association.

Information about the Federation and about Carlisle South Community Association is contained in the first entry of this blog, dated March 25.

The cost of Riverside...and the costs! `Carlisle tenants now pay the price`

 * Rents in Carlisle`s former council houses are now twenty per cent higher than similar-sized houses  in Barrow.

* The Carlisle houses are owned by Riverside Housing Association after a stock transfer 10 years ago. The houses in Barrow are still owned by the council.

* At the stock transfer Riverside promised to reduce the cost of the Carlisle`s  housing. After ten years and massive rent rises Riverside has greatly increased the cost. There have been no similar increases in Barrow.

* What is going on? And why can members the public not get to know?

These are some of the points made by Malcolm Craik of Brampton in letters to the Editor of the Cumberland News in Carlisle. The letters have yet to be published.

Malcolm is a member of the Federation. He is also a former member of the governing board of Riverside`s Carlisle Housing Association. Malcolm has also sent the  letters for publication  on this blog.

 Here they are:

To the Editor of the Cumberland News

This is a resubmission of a letter I sent some weeks ago.  I feel it is in the public interest that this issue be given publicity in the light of the massive rent increases that have taken place under Riverside's management of the City's housing stock since 2002.

 Riverside's rents are now some 20% higher than those of similar council house rents in Barrow in Furness and newly created 'service charges' can add a further £6 per week to that figure.

In view of the fact that a considerable proportion of Riverside's rental income comes from housing benefit paid for by City Council charge payers it is only right that councillor Joe Hendry explains how he is dealing with the conflict of interest he has as a direct result of his role on the board of Riverside.

Members of the public have a right to know why they are paying more as a result of the stock transfer when the driving concept of the transfer to Riverside was that it would reduce the cost of social housing to the City.

It has increased costs and reduced housing choice and stock. These should be matters of public interest.

To the  Editor of the Cumberland News

Carlisle`s housing stock mismatch leaves tenants in a quandary

During last August’s News and Star webcast with City Council leader Joe Hendry I asked him if there would be fewer conflicts of interest in his Council duties if he gave up his outside interests in organisations such as Riverside Carlisle Housing Association. 

He replied that if he ever came to that conclusion he would do so, and stated that he believed that he had helped many people in Carlisle with their housing problems because he was a member of the Riverside board. He added that if he was unable in the future to give such help he would leave the board.

Since that webcast Riverside has confirmed plans to remove yet more one bedroomed property from the City’s housing stock. This comes at a time when benefit reforms are forcing many tenants to downsize their accommodation and move to other communities within the district.

Riverside’s Divisional Director Patrick Leonard stated in the News & Star on 26 February 2013 that Riverside’s plans were driven by housing policy, not welfare policy, and that therefore they were no proposals for one bedroomed flats.

 His comments will provide little comfort for those tenants who found themselves in desperate need of smaller affordable accommodation in April.

Does Councillor Hendry believe he can help those tenants caught in the benefit reduction trap as a direct result of Riverside’s failure to match its housing stock with current housing need; and if he cannot help them with their housing problems will he leave the Riverside board as he promised?

Information about the Federation and Carlisle South Community Association is contained in the first entry of this bog, dated March 25.

UKIP SUCCESS MAY SAVE HOUSING ESTATES FROM EUROPE

UKIP`s success at the polls this week should be welcome news for   those of us  who suspect  hidden plans to sell off our  council housing estates to Europe.

The  global buy-out by European companies of our  gas and electricity industries could easily happen to our social housing.

Ten  years ago, ownership of the 7200 Carlisle council houses was moved  100 miles to an organisation in Liverpool, Riverside Housing Association.

In another ten years from now, another global ownership deal  a  few hundred miles  further on from Liverpool could see the Mersey organisation-like the privatised British power companies -  sell our social houses to a company in Berlin or Brussels or Madrid.

Is this a fanciful scenario? No, it is no more fanciful than the continental power companies` present price stranglehold on Britain was when Mrs Thatcher moved into Number Ten thirty years ago

No one 30 years ago expected a Thatcher privatisation to end with a price stranglehold of Britain by Europe a few decades later.

The question now has to be asked: Is there a hidden agenda  for a social housing sell-off to Europe?

Members of the Federation think there is that hidden agenda.They have voiced these fears during the Liverpool-dominated years in Carlisle which have seen Riverside change to becoming   a property company with a privatising agenda and accountable to no-one but itself.

At the same time, Carlisle tenants` rights have disappeared into the Mersey. Carlisle politicians  have looked on, not exactly helpless but not exactly caring either.

In fact some of these politicians are actively helping along  the Riverside privatisation.

Today, according to the political commentators, UKIP`S  successes at the polls will give all those politicians a long-overdue jolt of reality.

And that UKIP jolt might reverse the unpopular global agenda. And control of our social houses might escape Europe and  be returned to the city of Carlisle  and  the tenants.

Information about the Federation and Carlisle South Community Association is contained in the first entry or this blog, dated March 25 2013