PROBE BECAME A COVER-UP, IT IS CLAIMED

 City council    and an 
alleged
farce of scrutiny
The most sensational stories from Westminster come from the work of select committees it may be said, as small groups of MPs and members of the Lords on these committees probe and scrutinise what the government of the day is up to as it runs the country.

These sensational stories often are a sure sign that a select committee is doing a good job and has unearthed some scandal or abuse.

Actually, a good job is what these select committees do most of the time. So it is no surprise that some years ago the then government decided to extend their work to the town halls of Britain so that local government could form their own “select committees” and also benefit.

Sadly, things did not always turn out like that in one town hall, is now claimed. And instead of exposing wrongdoing, the “select committee” in that town hall, Carlisle, is accused of doing exactly the opposite by helping to cover up the work of an organisation which the committee was meant to scrutinise.

(The organisation is the  Liverpool-based Riverside Housing Association which is the biggest landlord in the city with 6,000 homes.)

This is very serious stuff. And a complaint about the alleged scrutiny that became a cover up has been lodged with Carlisle City Council by a city tenants` group, Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation which publishes this blog and has a long record of campaigning against Riverside dating back to 2002.

The Federation`s letter of complaint is published below.
In the letter, the Federation claims that long before all this alleged cover up is alleged to have taken place the Federation helped the then enthusiastic council to launch its own “select committee”. It was called the Community Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

Sadly, that council enthusiasm started to wane and enthusiasm soon changed to hostility. So much so that the Federation was recently accused by the council of using the Panel as a platform for its own propaganda.

The accusation was outrageous and unworthy of the council.

But ironically, another change was underway after the council started expressing troubling concerns about Riverside.

The latest change is an historic transformation in the situation. The campaign by the Federation against Riverside over the past 15 years is now seen to have been largely justified.

Many of the Federation`s concerns expressed over those years are  now being voiced by individual councillors and are also reflected in a recent council report.

Here is the letter, which is addressed to Mr Jason Gooding, the council`s Chief Executive:

“The Federation at its monthly meeting on September 21 discussed your council`s report to the September 7 meeting of the Economic Growth Scrutiny Panel and I was asked to write to you.

You will be aware that since the housing stock transfer in 2002  the Federation has been very active in attempting to hold Riverside to account and make it more transparent.

To that end, approaches were made some years ago to your council, led by the late Mr  Tom Johnson a former mayor of the city who was then Chairman of the Federation. Talks were held with your then Scrutiny Officer aimed at facilitating Federation oral questions about Riverside at meetings of the Community Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

During those talks, your Scrutiny Officer explained that at the time the Government wanted local authorities to develop scrutiny machinery based on the parliamentary select committee system.

At that time no such scrutiny machinery existed within your council and it was suggested that the planned questioning of Riverside was a start along the path wanted by the Government.

After those talks, the Federation decided to go ahead with questions to the Panel. These questions, limited in number to two or three for each meeting, were duly submitted and answered over several years at panel meetings, then held once or twice a year.

(The Audit Commission on more than one occasion questioned the Federation about details of this involvement with your council and sought the Federation`s views on the matter.)

From the Federation`s viewpoint, the panel questioning was a far from satisfactory exercise for reasons I do not wish to detail at this stage.

But what must be said is that the council` interest in the Federation`s participation has declined from being very enthusiastic at the outset to being openly hostile recently when the Federation was accused by a senior official of using the panel as a platform for propaganda. This accusation was deplorable and unworthy.

And what can also be said at this stage is that any beneficial effect of the questioning to the Federation, and arguably for the taxpayers, was nil. Worse than that, the questioning actually benefitted Riverside because under the cloak of “scrutiny” the answers (invariably slanted in favour of Riverside) became  a  barrier to any exposure of Riverside`s failings.

As such, the questioning, far from being part of a scrutiny system based on the parliamentary system became the exact opposite and was in fact an added layer of protection.

Turning now to recent times and your council`s troubling concerns about Riverside. There has been an historic transformation in the situation and the campaign by the Federation over the past 15 years is now seen to have been largely justified.

Many of the Federation`s concerns expressed over those years are  now being voiced by individual councillors and are also reflected in your council`s report to  the September 7 meeting.

The historic transformation has highlighted other concerns of the Federation in addition to those concerns about the panel`s operations mentioned above.

These other concerns are as follows:

1, The  council`s questioning arrangement  at panel meetings now seems to have come to a halt and the Federation  has no access to the panel and is out on a limb.

2, It appears that all issues raised by the Federation in the longstanding and continuous Federation campaigning against Riverside have not been given deserved inclusion in your council`s “demands” of Riverside.

3, The Federation does not consider that  the“scrutiny” workings of the panel over the years have been in accordance  with the workings of the parliamentary select committees. These workings, as outlined earlier in this letter, have in fact been in direct contradiction.


 Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation publishes this blog. Information about the Federation is available on 01228 522277 or 01228 532803

EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON THE BOSS`S GOODWILL

Sarah Paton and 

the farce

of a

talking shop

Much is expected of housing association boss Sarah Paton as she continues to take over her failed organisation. Can she deliver? is what everyone wants to know, particularly in view of the indifferent record of her two predecessors.

That indifferent record has just been under scrutiny by Carlisle City councillors. Laid bare before them were the failings of Riverside Housing Association under the two Carlisle regional director predecessors, Patrick Leonard and Dean Butterworth.

The two ran the Carlisle section of Liverpool-based Riverside in succession to each other for 14 years. During those years Riverside chalked up an increasingly bad reputation for bossiness, gross inefficiency and arrogance.

Late last year Ms Paton was brought in from outside the Riverside organisation to do some cleaning up, it is believed.

She has made a start by meeting critical Carlisle councillors and facing up to some of their criticisms and also providing some  answers.

One of of those answers caused great worry to the councillors. (The councillors met as the Economic Scrutiny Panel, previously known as the Community Overview and Scrutiny Panel.)

That Riverside worrying answer was a plan to establish a Riverside Liaison Group comprising Ms Paton together with councillors and council officers. The panel would meet regularly and discuss problems and complaints from the 6,000 Carlisle Riverside tenants and leaseholders.

Would such a group work and would it give a voice to the tenants and leaseholders? And how open and transparent would it be?

Councillors quite rightly were worried and not sure on both issues.

The councillors well remember the notorious ineffectiveness of a previous Riverside group, its Carlisle governing board which had four city councillors on the board of a dozen or so.

That board met regularly but apparently did nothing worth recording in the 14 years of its existence. At least no one can recall anything it did.

(The board has now failed to meet for several months and is now apparently dead. So, good riddance!)

What that board did do successfully in those 14 years was talk. There was lots of talking. In fact it was a talking shop!

So it was no surprise that the Economic Scrutiny Panel councillors also talked about talking shops and the farce of having a talking shop! And they appeared to be unanimous that Riverside`s planned Liaison Group must be anything except…a talking shop!

How will that be achieved? No one can be certain. The councillors admitted they has no power to achieve it. Only Ms Paton apparently can achieve it. It all rests on her goodwill towards the council.

So the 6,000 tenants and leaseholders can only wait and see.

The one certainty is this: as far as the future of these  “shops” go - talking or non-talking - much is expected of Sarah Paton.

 Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation publishes this blog. Information about the Federation is available on 01228 522277 or 01228 532803

NOW GRENFELL ECHOES EVERYWHERE

      Sadiq Khan and an arrogant Riverside

The fall-out from the Grenfell tower disaster goes on with the public inquiry and now action by the Mayor of London  aimed to ensure that  everywhere in the country - even here in Carlisle - the voices of social housing tenants are heard.

At Grenfell these tenant voices warned of danger ahead. But they were  were ignored - with the terrible consequences we all now know.

 Today with the action by the Mayor, Sadiq Khan (above) future warnings of danger ahead will do much to prevent further disasters. And equally important, the action by the Mayor will give tenants everywhere a democratic right to be heard.

For too long  social housing tenants have been denied that democratic right. That is particularly  the case in Carlisle where Riverside Housing Association runs a dictatorial regime  to govern its 6,OO0 tenants.

Sadiq now proposes that the Prime Minister appoint a Commissioner for Social Housing Residents which he believes should be independent of Government whose job will be to  act as a watchdog.

Here in Carlisle - 300 miles away - there has also been moves to help tenants. But -very fortunately-  there has been no Grenfell disaster to  give impetus to  efforts to reform. And there is no powerful Mayor with access to Downing Street to ensure that any reforms are underway.

What we have in Carlisle is  long-stamding dissatisfaction with the Riverside regime. The dissatisfaction rumbled on until city councillors became involved.

The councillors took up the challenge but found that Riverside was not only intransigent but also accountable to no one but itself.

However after a struggle, councillors did manage to get dialogue going with Riverside and set up a workshop of councillors to work out a way forward.

This workshop reports its proposals on Thursday at a meeting of the council`s Economic Growth Scrutiny Panel.

The workshop wants the Riverside governing board in Liverpool in future to discuss with the council any major plans for Carlisle before implementing them. They do not expect councillors to read about Riverside plans in the press after  they have been implemented. (This has been the infuriating Riverside practice up to now).

The workshop also wants a  strong relationship  between the council and Riverside with regular joint meetings, a council liaison officer and a special email address for council enquiries. (In the past councillors have been greatly annoyed by the Riverside habit of not responding to phone enquiries.)

The workshop says that local representation is important but makes no mention of reviving  local tenant groups or other democratic bodies- the sort of groups that existed before Riverside took over in Carlisle 15 years ago.(One of the first acts of Riverside in Carlisle was to abolish these groups and any other sort of democratic representation.Under Sadiq`s proposals, these silent voices may now be heard again).

Fifteen years later, Riverside`s attitude to democracy hasn`t changed. This  can be seen in Riverside`s arrogant obfuscation in  its response to the workshop`s assertion that local representation is important.

 Riverside said: ”We will maintain a tenants’ scrutiny panel or other arrangement for the same purpose locally to ensure that Carlisle residents can scrutinise and influence services.

“ Riverside will make reasonable efforts to recruit residents in Carlisle to get involved in customer involvement opportunities – Riverside will engage with involved customers on any changes in services.”

Compare  that Riverside drivel with what Sadic Khan proposes, as reported by the trade newspaper, 24 Housing:

“The proposal for a new Commissioner is one of a package of measures for social housing residents – alongside opening up access for residents to the housing ombudsman and social housing regulator – that Sadiq will begin consultation on when he publishes his draft London Housing Strategy later this month.

As a minimum, the Mayor believes the system for regulating social housing must be genuinely responsive to the concerns of tenants and leaseholders on social housing estates.

Sadiq is concerned the regulator – a statutory body with oversight of standards in social housing – fails to give sufficient attention to issues such as tenant involvement. Of more than a thousand complaints from residents to the regulator in the last two years, just 10 triggered regulatory action.

He is keen that City Hall and Government consult residents and work together to develop key reforms to ensure the voices of social housing residents are heard.”


 Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation publishes this blog. Information about the Federation is available on 01228 522277 or 01228 532803