|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
|
. |
|
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 |
|
. |
|
. |
|
. |
|
. |
|
|
|