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. 

THESE DONKEYS SHOULD NOD OFF

   

MP`s may

question

Riverside`s

rocketing 

`profits`

Things are looking stormy for Riverside`s nodding donkeys with a weather warning from Westminster.

The weather warning comes from Clive Betts MP (right) the chairman of an influential group of MPs who wants  to  to know more about the profits made by housing associations, including Riverside Housing Association.

Riverside and the other associations call these profits surpluses. 

These surpluses have started to rocket, just like the fat cat salaries paid to housing association bosses. And just like the rocketing charges that Riverside  imposes on its 6,000 Carlisle tenants and 240 leaseholders.

 Rocketing profits, rocketing salaries and rocketing charges  go on and on. No one calls a halt because no one has the power to call a halt, particularly when Riverside  and similar housing associations have their own built-in  protection from  difficult questions.This protection is  provided by their own tenants and officials.

These tenants and officials serve on so-called  tenant scrutiny panels which scrutinise nothing, but give the nod to everything, These nodding yes-men are  Riverside`s nodding donkeys.

Clive Betts who was  last week re-appointed as chairman of the Commons Communities and Local Government (CLG) committee, told the influential social housing publication, Inside Housing he would like his committee to explore why surpluses are not ‘being used as much as some people might like to see’

The CLG committee, which has not yet been appointed, would need to approve Mr Betts’ plans. But if Mr Betts gets his way, housing association chief executives would be invited before parliament to answer questions about surpluses.

Questions about  these surpluses are nothing new.  Community groups have been asking them for years just as they have been asking about rocketing profits,  rocketing salaries and rocketing charges. Not to mention, questions about the nodding donkeys.

Mr Dean Butterworth,  Riverside`s Carlisle regional director was asked by Carlisle councillors about his nodding donkeys ( the members of Riverside`s Tenant Scrutiny Panel.)

Mr Butterworth insisted that his donkeys are not nodding. Members of the panel are independent, he declared.

Mr Butterworth was also asked by the councillors about  an organisation he commissioned to  help solve the crisis at Longtown where his tenants cannot afford to heat their homes because of Riverside`s grossly expensive dodgy boilers.

Mr Butterworth to everyone`s surprise failed to recall the name of the organisation. And the Longtown report of the organisation - the old-established Building Research Group - to no one`s surprise failed to help the freezing tenants.

But the questions persist... hopefully, soon from Mr Betts in the House of Commons and from the freezing tenants of Longtown through their community group, Longtown Action for Heat and the associated group, Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation.

Questions at this month`s meeting of the Federation covered a wide range. Here are four  of them:

What has happened to the promises of  free electricity for Longtown tenants after solar  panels were installed?

 Why are  so many criminal types from ouside the area  now being given tenancies in Longtown?

Why  does Riverside`s executive staff change so frequently that it is impossible to  have proper continuity  of relations with tenants? 

And why has much of Riverside`s  much - criticised Carlisle administration been  made much more remote through its transfer  to Riverside`s head office at Liverpool 100 miles away?

Riverside`s  nodding donkeys will not be allowed to block questions in parliament from  Mr Betts. 

But  the nodding donkeys will  be  able to  block these questions from Riverside tenants.

Why should that be? 


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

TAINTED QUANGOS STILL IN CONTROL

If the law is an ass,

where does

that leave 

Riverside`s

nodding donkeys?

Somebody once said that the law is an ass. Where does that leave Riverside`s nodding donkeys?And  where does it leave the “law”?

The “donkeys” are  from the Riverside Housing Association stable. 

They are on parade this week as Carlisle councillors get to grips with questions about them and just how  much nodding they do. (The questions are printed on  the previous post of this blog).

The  “donkeys”  get their name as members of Riverside Tenant Scrutiny Panel which was set up to give tenants a chance to get their complaints sorted out  in an independent way, free from Riverside`s bossy dictatorship.

But there is no independent way. The panel has donkeys on board, panel members who say yes to Riverside all the time. And that means that Riverside wins  all the time.

And about the law that is an ass?

Jimmy Devlin knows more than  a thing or two about this “law” and about housing association donkeys, whichever housing association stable the donkeys come from.

And Jimmy knows more than a thing or two about why these donkeys arrived on the scene  in the first place and  why  they nod so obediently.

Jimmy  is the veteran  chairman of  North West Tenants and Residents Assembly (NWTRA)  and recalls the consultations a few years ago that resulted in so-called co-regulation between tenants and housing associations that set up scrutiny panels.

In a message to Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation  Jimmy explains:

“ NWTRA  predicted  during the "co-regulation"  consultations that these tenants` scrutiny panels  would never be acceptable to the majority of tenants  because they were designed to be controlled by the landlords` organisations.

“I made this point repeatedly to everyone from government down to individual tenants and residents at all types of events for nearly  six  months following  the production of the idea which was then being implemented by the government .

“They failed to persuade us at NWTRA  at the time, and these questions from  your federation highlights again just how scrutiny is non- existent  because the panels are manipulated by landlords to avoid any proper scrutiny.

“Until Freedom of Information is applied to housing organisations , as Eric Pickles MP  the then communities secretary wanted, tenants, tenant  groups and even councillors will struggle to uncover the real situations inside the housing companies .

“(In April,  Mr Pickles said that housing associations needed to accept more transparency voluntarily, or else face this transparency at a future regulatory or legislative level.)”.

Jimmy goes on:

“We need real scrutiny and if councillors no longer feel sufficiently empowered to achieve this, tenants groups MUST take control and demand answers from housing organisations ....then demand answers from central government ministers until we receive accountability .

“Tainted  quangos  are still in control of tenants` involvement. Why ?

“Why aren't fully independent , democratic tenants' organisations properly funded to carry out these roles? Tenants should accept nothing less than full accountability.
“Co-regulation benefits nobody apart from the incompetent and/or corrupt.”

Freedom of Information may be on its way in Scotland.

This week it was reported that Scottish social landlords will be asked to give evidence to a committee of MSPs on the extension of Freedom of Information  laws to Scottish housing associations. I

That extension would be great news for Scottish tenants, particularly if some of them are suffering like some in Longtown(Cumbria) who cannot afford to heat their homes.

But spare a thought for the Scottish  landlords and the nodding donkeys.

The landlords`spokesman, David Bookbinder, director of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations  said  the Freedom of Information extension could mean a ‘disproportionate’ increase in bureaucracy for landlords.

Too much bureaucracy, Mr Bookbinder? At this news, tenants` hearts must surely bleed greatly in sympathy!

And the nodding donkeys, Mr Bookbinder? What about them?

Good riddance to them.

They will nod no more.

SEPP BLATTER GETS THE NOD

Riverside

`donkeys 

get

nodding`

Sepp Blatter cannot be moved  despite the world-wide  outcry against Fifa say his supporters after his successful re-election as president of soccer`s governing body.

Nearer home here in Carlisle can the same be said about  some similar  people under attack?. 
Are these people also so secure that they cannot be moved?

These people are nominated or elected to do a job. And, like Sepp Blatter they cannot be moved.

These people are Riverside Housing Association`s nodding donkeys. More of these donkeys are coming to light following   revelations about them in the  previous post on this blog.

Sepp Blatter got the nod and kept his job. Riverside`s nodding donkeys are still nodding away.

The previous post on this blog   criticised the  four Carlisle City Council representatives on the  Riverside governing board  and called them Riverside`s nodding donkeys.

The four were criticised for consistently remaining silent  in the face of an unprecedented  number of complaints about Riverside by city taxpayers which are now piling up. And unprecedented distress at Longtown where Riverside tenants cannot afford to heat their homes.

The emergence of more nodding donkeys came  when Mr Jim Heywood, Chairman of Riverside`s Tenant Scrutiny Panel was questioned about the panel when he appeared before a committee of Carlisle councillors.

 Mr Heywood was challenged  about  his panel`s independence after he revealed that the panel also contained Riverside representatives. With these representatives on board, how can the panel be independent and hold Riverside to account?he was asked.

Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation   was also present at that city council  committee meeting. The Federation representative also wondered about this so-called independence.

He wondered if the tenants said exactly what they think of their landlord as they sit side by side with their landlord`s representatives?

Or are these  scrutiny panel tenants, just like the four silent Carlisle councillors, no more than nodding donkeys agreeing with everything and saying precisely nothing.

The Federation representative is now  attempting to find  out more and has a chance next week 
 (June 11) to put  oral questions to  another meeting of the council committee.

Two questions are allowed. The first question deals with the issue of independence. The second question deals with  complaints by tenants and leaseholders.

The questions ( the committee is the Community Overview and Scrutiny Panel) are:

QUESTION ONE

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 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?

QUESTION TWO

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.?



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