ONE RIVERSIDE BOSS " ISOLATED HIMSELF...ANOTHER BOSS LACKED RESPECT"

A disappointed
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

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.