RIVERSIDE BLACKLISTS OUTSPOKEN FEDERATION

`Nodding

donkeys`

critics get

thrown off

This awful summer weather...good for ducks, bad for holidays and bad  for  donkeys at the seaside.  What  about donkeys at the riverside? Or to be more precise, donkeys at Riverside?

To be even more precise ...what about donkeys at Riverside Housing Association, the giant Liverpool  property development organisation, owner of 50,000 homes, many of them in the Carlisle area? What has the awful summer weather been like for Riverside donkeys?

The awful summer  weather has not been good for Riverside donkeys,  a bit stormy, in fact. The storms have blown in from the many critical people who say that  these donkeys are too quiet and docile...spend  too much time nodding.

Naturally , Riverside defends its  donkeys and says  such talk  of nodding is insulting. 

More than that, says Riverside,  talk of nodding donkeys might  make Riverside react and do some talking too...to its solicitor!

That is precisely what seem to be happening, with hints  of Riverside legal action against some of the outspoken critics of the nodding donkeys. These outspoken critics have now been blacklisted by Riverside. Yes, blacklisted!.

Blame this blog for the blacklisting. The otspoken critics  used the blog to  make the critical nodding-donkey comments. Readers of the blog may  remember  the comments, a week or two ago. They were made by Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation, which incidentally owns the blog.

Today, the Federation, now  newly-blacklisted, publishes  in full Riverside`s answer to its nodding donkey criticism.

The answer is an email from Mr Dean Butterworth, Riverside`s Carlisle Regional Director, which was sent to the Federation on July 9.

The email is printed  below.

The Federation considered  Mr Butterworth`s  email deserves an answer.

That answer- a letter to Mr Butterworth sent on July 27- is printed in full below  the email.

Email dated July 9 from  Mr. Dean Butterworth to the Secretary of Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation

“I formally acknowledge receipt of your email of the 24^th June, however Riverside will not be formally responding to your request. ( For the starting dates of two promised Riverside forums, for tenants and for leaseholders).

“While I accept that your organisation will target me via Community Voice Carlisle, which reports the views of your Carlisle Tenants and Residents Federation, I draw the line at the unacceptable and disrespectful language used to describe members of the Riverside Cumbria Scrutiny Panel, and I quote from the blog article of the 28^th June 2015 ‘Riverside Disrespectful Donkeys Fail To Get The Nod’.

”This incorrect and disrespectful rhetoric is unacceptable for a group of tenants who work tirelessly to try to improve the services that Riverside provides to all its customers. I will also support the Scrutiny Panel should they chose to seek legal advice to get redress for these comments

“Therefore, Riverside will now not recognise the Carlisle Tenants and Residents Federation, with immediate effect. Regards, Dean Butterworth”

Letter dated July 27 to Mr Dean Butterworth from the  Secretary of Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation

Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation at its meeting on July 16 discussed your email of July 9 in which you stated that Riverside, with immediate effect, will not recognise the Federation. I was asked to reply.

The email was in response to a letter from the Federation asking for the starting date of two new Riverside forums which had been promised i.e. for tenants, and for leaseholders.

You will be aware that a Riverside non-recognition decision is nothing new to the Federation. The Federation was the subject of previous almost identical Riverside decisions, together with other similar arbitrary and authoritarian decisions during the time of your predecessor, Mr Patrick Leonard. Some of these arbitrary and authoritarian decisions are listed below.

Mr Leonard, you will recall  stood as a party political candidate in the Cumbria Police and Crime Commissioner election, then stated that if elected he was prepared to do the two jobs together continuously  i.e. that of commissioner and that of his then current job of regional director of Riverside. Most people considered this proposition to be ridiculous.

You will also be aware that the Federation was also the subject of false allegations, instigated by Riverside, which resulted in the city council arbitrarily cutting off email correspondence with the Federation. This decision by the city council was deplorable.

You will also be aware that the Federation has also been the subject of a Riverside decision that the Federation will “cease to exist.” (This decision is recorded in the minutes of the city council Community Overview and Scrutiny Panel). Riverside had neither the power nor the authority to make such an outrageous claim. Riverside`s action in this case, again was deplorable.

You will also be aware that the Federation was  more than once the subject of an obnoxious Riverside procedure, namely the Persistent Complaints Procedure while it was engaged in the democratic process of a  taxpayer`s right to participate in  the proceedings of the city council`s Community and Overview and Scrutiny Panel. Riverside`s action in this case, in addition to being ultra vires, was also an  outrageous gross interference in the democratic process and again, was deplorable.

You will also be aware of what the Federation considered to be a Riverside campaign of hostility to the Federation  which lasted for several years. Riverside`s actions in this instance were, once again, deplorable.

All of the above deplorable decisions and actions have been the subject of written protests by the Federation but none has been explained by Riverside. Nor have they been the subject of an apology. As far as the Federation is concerned they are still extant.

 It is therefore difficult to understand your non-recognition decision in the context of Riverside`s still outstanding decision to make the Federation cease to exist; or to understand your non-recognition decision in the context of the decisions of the still  outstanding Riverside`s Persistent Complaints Procedure; or to understand your non-recognition decision in the context of  the still outstanding Riverside`s campaign of hostility to the Federation.

Perhaps you will therefore please further explain these conundrums to help the understanding of the Federation.

CONTENTS OF YOUR EMAIL

Turning now to the contents of your email.

I refer to your comment that the rhetoric used in the Federation blog is incorrect, disrespectful and unacceptable to describe your Scrutiny Panel,  which you describe as “a group of Riverside tenants who work tirelessly to try to improve the service that Riverside provides for all its customers.”

The Federation comment on this is that these tenants, I feel certain, work no harder than members of the Federation. But your tenants are fortunate in having the protection of a massive organisation which allows them to escape such outrageous arbitrary and authoritarian treatment as that listed above. This treatment can only be described as Riverside bullying of  the comparatively tiny Federation which has no such protection.

The Federation makes this further comment: in the light of the comments of the chairman of the city Overview and Scrutiny Panel on April 9 about the absence of independence of the Riverside Scrutiny Panel, and in the light of the Federation`s experience of six years of working with Riverside at meetings up to four times month, the Federation blog was correct in that it was fair comment on a matter of public interest.

(The six years of meetings referred to in the previous paragraph – the meetings were badly organised and badly run - ended when the Federation was dumped by Riverside. Throughout the six years, Riverside was only  interested in the views of  its nominees, what the Federation would describe as its nodding donkeys. Riverside consistently rejected any views of an independent nature.)

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Federation regrets that Riverside continues to reject views of an independent nature and continues to make  arbitrary and authoritarian decisions, such as the non-recognition decision contained in your email.

The Federation hoped that with your arrival in Carlisle about a year ago, and  with your  stated  aim then to  make changes and improvements in relations  with other organisations there would have been a new beginning for Riverside.

Your two meetings with myself as representative of the Federation were constructive and helpful, particularly when you stated that the Federation would be invited to

become a member of the Riverside Carlisle tenants` forum which was planned.

The Federation urges you to revert back to your initial policy of a year ago.  This initial policy would be to the  benefit of your tenants and leaseholders  and to all other Carlisle and district 
taxpayers.

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

THIS GIANT MAY BE BROUGHT DOWN TO SIZE

If Riverside

had no place

to  hide - 

what then?

The Act is resented....Dounlas Carswell MP

Can  you imagine if  there was no Freedom of Information law? asks Douglas Carswell MP in yesterday`s Mail on Sunday.

Our answer is this: Yes, we in the Carlisle area can imagine that situation because  there has never been  such a law  as far as Riverside Housing Association  is concerned.

The badly flawed Riverside  is in fact  seriously   needing all the scrutiny Freedom of Information would allow.

Riverside, after all. is a giant organisation  owning 50,000 homes and  by far the biggest landlord in the Carlisle area with 6,000 homes.For years, proper scrutiny has never been applied.

Douglas Carswell answers  his question  by saying that  if  the Freedom of Information law did not exist MPs would still be abusing their expenses, billing the taxpayer to buy second homes.

“Information of legitimate  interest to the public would have been kept from the public”.

 Riverside  free of having to comply with Freedom of Information law  has been guilty of similar abuses and failures.  Many homes in Longtown  have had to put up with dodgy boilers too expensive to run for more than three years .And there is  still no sign of any  scrutiny that might put an an end to the impossible situation.

Many other Riverside tenants and leaseholders  have for years been charged excessively, and the Riverside administration is so bady run many tenants and leaseholders have given up on it. All these failures need proper scrutiny.

Why then  is there no Freedom of Information law for Riverside and, as it happens, for other housing associations?

These  organisations are classified as private bodies, unlike government and local authority organisations which are classified as part of the public sector. The Freedom of Information Act applies only to the public sector.

Douglas Carswell was prompted into writing his article because  the government has just announced that it wants a review of the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr Carswell says that planned review  has come about because ministers of all  political parties have come to resent the Act because it makes them constantly account for their actions.They want to water  the Act  down.

Riverside and the other associaitions are no different. Up to now they have been able  to get away with the dodgy boilers , the dodgy charges, and the dodgy fat cat salaries for top officials.

Just how much longer will they be allowed to maintain this position and hide behind their  exemption from  Freedom of Information scrutiny?  Not much longer, many people hope and believe. 

An end to that exemption is likely to follow other recent government announcements. These announcements gave housing association tenants the right to buy  and also ordered housing associations to reduce rents by one per cent.

These changes , plus the  long-established  state  subsidies for housing associations -
an estimated £60 billion of public debt - have tipped the balance  and may result in associations being transferred from the private sector into the public sector.

The Times newspaper explained at the weekend: “The Office of Budget Responsibility now says that the changes  may persuade the Office for National Statistics to deem housing associations as public institutions to reflect their apparent lack of independence.”

And if they  do become part of the public sector, Freedom of Information requirements it is expected will then apply.

That Freedom of Information exposure  might bring new hope to the suffering tenants of  Longtown. And it might  also expose to the public gaze Riverside`s dodgy administration, dodgy charges and dodgy fat cat salaries.

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

AN END TO THE RIVERSIDE RENT HIKE

CHANCELLOR

GEORGE LETS RIP

AND TENANT
JIMMY

DOES TOO!

George Osborne..."going to end this racket."

George and Jimmy  have a joint hit list. Both men have the same  target... housing associations and how they abuse their power.George Osborne  has targeted all the associations. Jimmy Robb has only one association in his sights.

Chancellor George  used his  Budget to rip up a long-standing government  settlement  with  the housing associations. Then he imposed cuts in rents. Jimmy  used his right  to quit and  ripped up a long-standing tenancy agreement with the Liverpool based Riverside Housing Association.

Chancellor George`s surprise change in the settlement kills off the present permission for the  associations to increase rents by the rate of inflation plus one per cent until the year 2026. Instead, rents will  fall by one per cent for the next four years. Yes, rents will fall.

Tenant Jimmy`s change was no surprise. For three years he has suffered from Riverside neglect causing freezing conditions and other difficulties in his home,  a flat  in Moor Road, Longtown(Cumbria) . Now Jimmy has had enough of Riverside and its uncaring ways

Chancellor George also has had enough, he told the House of Commons in his Budget  statement.

‘We are going to end the racket  of ever-higher housing benefit chasing up ever higher rents in the social housing sector. These rents have increased by a staggering 20% since 2010. This will be a welcome cut in rents for those tenants who pay it`,he said.

Jimmy Robb.."I have had enough."

Tenant Jimmy will not be there to enjoy the rent cut. As Chancellor George was delivering his rent cut news to M.P.s. Jimmy was moving out of his Riverside flat into a new flat  which has  a landlord who cares.

Jimmy said: “Like the sixty or so other Riverside tenants in Longtown, I have had to put up with dodgy boilers which are so expensive to run no tenant can afford to heat their home properly.

“That is bad enough but what is worse, Riverside will do nothing about it.”

Jimmy himself has  tried to do something about it. He protested, then led the  tenants` fight back  and became chairman of  an action group, Longtown Action for Heat which for more than a year has been campaigning against Riverside neglect and failure in its duty of care.

 Jimmy says Riverside have responded with a smear campaign against him and  others in the action group. “We have actually got the sympathy of many of the Riverside staff  but they dare not speak out because they would lose their jobs”.

Longtown Action for Heat meets this week and though Jimmy will no longer be a Riverside tenant, he intends to be there to continue to lead the fight   for the freezing tenants.

Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation which is supporting  the Longtown tenants also meets this week.The Federation  has campaigned  for years against the rocketing housing association charges, now  so  dramatically attacked and halted by Chancellor George.

Hopefully, it will not be too long before there is a successful end to another Federation campaign.. to end the rocketing housing association surpluses(profits) and the fat cat salaries these excessive charges have produced.

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

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.