A disappointed
Raynor
Bloxham
reflects...
Raynor
Bloxham
reflects...
Serious criticism of Riverside Housing Association
is on the up in Carlisle, a city
where that association has had a charmed life up to now.
Among the leading critics is senior councillor Raynor Bloxham (left) the man who 14 years ago made it possible for Riverside
to get underway in the city.
The attacks are surprising- and very significant- because
Riverside, the city`s biggest landlord has been “protected” by the city council from any criticism for 14 years.
Now the shocking Riverside story has started
to unravel. Complaints have mounted increasingly from tenants and leaseholders. And
councillors have no power to put things right. Some say the Riverside dam has
burst.
Added to all of that, Riverside has been forced
further on to the back foot with a series of job cuts. Its recent decision to
abolish its Carlisle governing board has
made things even worse for the Liverpool-based association.
The latest attack comes from Councillor Bloxham a senior councillor, the man who
led the handover operation of the city`s
6,000 council houses to Riverside.
Councillor Bloxham
told this blog that at the time of the handover he had confidence
that the city`s social housing stock -
built up over 100 years- was continuing to be in good hands.
Now Councillor Bloxham appears to be not so sure.
He says he is disappointed with Riverside,
particularly following the recent
announcement of job cuts to make savings. These cuts he says will make life much more difficult for
tenants.
Councillor
Bloxham said he failed to
understand why these job cuts had to be so severe.” I thought thet Riverside
would have had enough fat in the system to
manage much better their need to
make savings.”
About the management of Riverside since the Carlisle handover,
Councillor Bloxham appears to be equally scathing.
He says he was disappointed with the two Riverside regional directors who
had charge of the Carlisle operation.The
first, Mr Patrick Leonard isolated himself too much. “ He never met anyone”
said Mr Bloxham.
Mr Leonard, readers may recall, showed appalling lack of judgement when he stood for election as Cumbria Police
and Crime Commissioner while working as Riverside regional director.
If elected, Mr Leonard - unbelievably - planned to continue his Riverside job, working both jobs
together.
The second Riverside Carlisle director is the
current one, Mr Leonard`s successor Mr Dean Butterworth who is
due soon to leave the job. Councillor Bloxham is critical of Mr Butterworth`s lack of
respect.
He told the blog that when he phones Riverside Mr Butterworth “promises to ring back, but he
doesn`t ring back.”
Mr Butterworth`s lack of respect has also been
experienced by
the Carlisle campaigning group, Carlisle Tenants`
and Residents` Federation which publishes this blog.
Mr Butterworth banned the Federation from any
contact. Shortly afterwards, unbelievably, he was asking the Federation for
help.
The Federation has been critical of Riverside and Mr Leonard and Mr. Butterworth ever since the
takeover in 2002.
But what The Federation can achieve with this
criticism is very limited. When Riverside
banned the Federation from any contact the Federation took its criticisms to the city council in the hope
that the council would help to put things right.
Here again, the Federation was banned for a period.
So it has had little success in the Civic Centre either.
Meanwhile over the years Riverside continued blundering on in its inefficient, bossy,
dictatorial way, unable to decide whether it is a social housing organisation
or, more likely a property development organisation making profits from its tenants and leaseholders.
The Federation has now written to the Leader of the
city council, Councillor Colin Glover about
the Federation`s lack of success with the council.The Federation alleges
that that the reason for this is that the council
has effectively “protected”
Riverside from any criticism.
It is the view of
the Federation that this council “protection” has not served the
city well.
In exactly
the same way that Riverside is not serving the city well.
The Federation letter is reprinted here:
"Dear
Councillor Glover
Riverside
Housing Association`s plan to scrap its divisional boards
I have been asked to write to you following the Federation`s monthly meeting on July 21 when among items
discussed was Riverside Housing Association`s plan to scrap its divisional
boards.
According to the Cumberland News (July 8) this plan has caused an outcry among senior city councillors who claim that scrapping the board will downgrade local scrutiny of the work of Riverside.Councillor Elizabeth Mallinson and yourself were quoted to back up that claim.
The
Federation`s interest
The
Federation has a long-established interest in the work of Riverside in
Carlisle. It has scrutinised that
work since the handover of the council
houses in 2002. During those 14 years
the Federation has built up a large body of evidence which shows that
Riverside is not only a very inefficient organisation but is also bossy and
dictatorial in its attitude to its tenants and leaseholders and to others, and
is not transparent in its operations
.
.
Nor
is Riverside accountable to anyone but itself.
Also
during those 14 years the Federation has made many attempts to get some degree
of transparency and accountability and solve some of the issues caused by
Riverside`s inefficient working.
There
has been some improvement in this situation recently following valuable
approaches to Riverside on various issues by Carlisle Riverside Action Group
(CRAG) which is chaired by Canon Michael Manley, the Carlisle Cathedral
Missioner, and approaches by Mr Michael Gee the former Dalston city councillor and by
yourself. These valuable approaches are greatly appreciated by the Federation.
Factors protecting Riverside
Against
all that valuable work there have been factors that have protected Riverside in
such a way as to have a destructive effect on efforts by the Federation and
others to improve the lot of Riverside tenants and leaseholders.
One of these protective factors is the policy up to fairly recently of the city
council.That policy was rejection of any criticism of Riverside. That resulted
in the Federation`s legitimate questions about Riverside being kept at
arms length which in effect blocked
effective questions which have been made over the years at meetings of the
Overview and Scrutiny Panel. On one
occasion (involving criticism of Riverside and false allegations against the
Federation) the city council outlawed the Federation and refused to accept its emails.
Another
protective factor was the council`s representative membership by four
councillors on the Riverside Carlisle regional
board. Since the handover it has never been clear to taxpayers what the
role was of these four members.Was it to
keep the council in touch with Riverside affairs? Or was to have some sort of
taxpayer imput into the work of Riverside?Or was it both these roles? Or was it
something else?
Enquiries
by the Federation to Riverside about the role of these four board members was
met either with hostility or with some
mumbo jumbo explanation that the work of the board was the private
business of Riverside and as such the city council had no right to know about
it.
This
hostility and the unsatisfactory explanation led the Federation to the
conclusion the four board members,
like the other members of the
board and like Riverside as a whole, were not transparent in their dealings and were
accountable to no one.
The
four board members in fact live double lives: as councillors, they are
transparent and accountable to taxpayers; as board members, accountable to no
one.
This
ineffectiveness of the four board members is serious enough were it not for
other factors
Other factors protecting Riverside
The first of these other factors is the divided loyalty of the four. An example of this came a year or two ago in a development control committee discussion about a Riverside application for Westhill House Brampton. Councillor Stephen Layden chose to stand down from his place on the committee because of his membership of the Riverside board.This, deplorably, debarred him from participating in deciding the issue, which of course involved the electors of his Brampton ward.
The
second of these other factors is a conflict of interest. An example of this
came in the early days of the current
Longtown heating scandal when Longtown Councillor John Mallinson attempted to
mediate between the affected tenants and Riverside. He was challenged by the
tenants about his apparent conflict of
interest caused by the membership of the
Riverside board of his wife, Councillor Elizabeth Mallinson
7
7
Councillor
Mallinson said when challenged that there was no conflict and added that he had
sought legal advice about the matter.
This advice confirmed his view.But the tenants are not convinced that
there was no conflict of interest, particularly
in view of the fact that Councillor Mallinson appeared to take the side
of Riverside rather than that of his ward taxpayers.
The
third of these other factors relates to Riverside`s apparently appalling
relationship to its Carlisle board.An important indication of that relationship
emerged following Riverside`s recent decision to remove key aspects of its Careline service. It emerged
that before taking that decision, Riverside had neither consulted the city
council, nor had it consulted its Carlisle board.
You
will recall that Riverside was roundly condemned at the time for what was
described as “this appalling self-obsession”
by Councillor Rob Burns in a letter to the News and Star on February 11.
The
Federation`s present position
To
sum up the Federation position as outlined in this letter:the Carlisle
Riverside Board is not and never has been a body that exerts any local scrutiny.
Far
from it. The Carlisle Riverside Board was wrongly conceived and as such, and
also because of Riverside`s appalling record over 14 years, the board is of
no benefit to its city tenants and leaseholders and the city as a whole .
Carlisle
City Council should forthwith cancel any arangement with that board or any body
that succeeds it and instead step up the present successful scrutiny arrangements through its
Leader and elected members.
The
Federation is concerned that the council ensure proper accountability and
transparency for tenants, leaseholders and other taxpayers in Riverside`s
planned replacement of the Carlisle
board and other regional boards with one national board
May
the Federation please be assured that this will be achieved."
Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation publishes this blog. Information about the Federation is available on 01228 522277 or 01228 532803.
Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation publishes this blog. Information about the Federation is available on 01228 522277 or 01228 532803.