
|
|
Comment
|
David Levenson's "Letter to the Editor".
|
|
.
|
|
Ordinarily, Peter Rutherford's private fantasy world of
social housing would not be worthy of comment
(Inside
Housing, 25 April).
|
|
Some editors would disagree, those of the Guardian, the
Independent, Time Out, Evening Standard, Inside Housing,
Housing Today, Property People, ITV and the BBC and half a
dozen local newspapers.
|
|
His gloating about housing associations going to the wall
or down the pan cannot, however, go unremarked as they are
gratuitously offensive towards the 1,900 competently managed
social landlords in England that serve some 2 million
tenants.
|
|
I have always tried to make clear which HAs are being
referred to by me. In London, most RSLs are to be
criticised; elsewhere there are many good local social
landlords.
|
|
During the more than 30 years of the present regulatory
system, it is remarkable that only two housing associations
have come close to being put into administration.
|
|
If this is true, then it is a disgrace. Running housing
is not rocket science. It is collecting rent (and good
record keeping which was probably WHHA's downfall) along
with fixing heating and leaking roofs. No RSLs should fail.
None.
|
|
That this step was avoided in both cases (which Mr
Rutherford does not acknowledge) is a testament to the
security that the sector is able to provide for its tenants.
|
|
If the "security that the sector is able to provide" was
sufficient, then there would not have been a crash in the
first place.
|
|
The £3 million loaned to West Hampstead Housing
Association to which he refers was in fact government
support in the form of a guarantee for an emergency bank
overdraft.
|
|
.
|
|
The money would have propped up what had become a failing
association for about three months,
|
|
"...would have..." ??? It did. It had to. They were
bouncing cheques.
|
|
at the end of which some 3,000 tenants and their families
would have been in jeopardy of losing their homes.
|
|
Wrong. The failure was so serious that if this had
happened, the chief Executive of the Housing Corporation
might very well have lost his job and his career.
Politically, they had to bail out WHHA.
|
|
Neither Greg Lomax nor any other white knight in Mr
Rutherford's fertile imagination could have done anything
about it.
|
|
Did you actually ask Mr Lomax? Why were tenants not
consulted in accordance with the Corporation's own rules?
[Housing Corporation booklet, "Performance Standards for
RSLs", Section D8]
|
|
That these homes were saved was due to a rescue
undertaken by Genesis in 2001 with support from the Housing
Corporation,
|
|
Wrong. In 2001, Genesis did not exist. The rescue was
done by Paddington Churches Housing Association.
|
|
as a result of which not a single tenant lost their home
and none of the banks lost any money.
|
|
.
|
|
The scenario was in many respects paralleled by the
recent rescue of Ujima by London & Quadrant.
|
|
Wrong. L&Q simply absorbed Ujima.
|
|
That West Hampstead had to lose its independence is a
reality which Peter Rutherford alone remains unwilling to
face up to, even today.
|
|
Wrong. Anyway, who cares? WHHA hasn't lost its
independence. It got a weird name change to Pathmeads, and
is run by a new managing director who enjoys the benefit of
an IT system that actually works.
|
|
.
|
|
.
|
|
David Levenson, finance director, Genesis Housing Group,
2002/06.
|
|
Peter Rutherford, Press & Publicity,
IFGR
|
|
.
|
|
.
|
|
.
|
|
.
|
Space Station
Did you know that the International Space Station will be
visible over London this Thursday late in the evening, (if
there are no clouds) at 11.33 pm? It will arrive from the
West, (WSW actually) rise high in the sky, and sink into the
East at11.39pm.
More visits later on in the month. The shuttle goes up on
the 31st. This will be worth a glance.
|
|
Joke of the week
A cocky and badly behaved parrot was taught a lesson by
its owner by being put in the deep freeze for a just a
couple of minutes. There was room; it only contained a
turkey.
It worked. When the parrot was let out, it was very
contrite and apologetic. The owner was a bit puzzled by the
extent of the success until the parrot said: "Please sir,
what was it that the other guy did that was so wrong?"
|