Inside Housing - item on PCHA/Gemesis.

Letters to the Editor.

May 16, 2008.

"Learn from past mistakes or risk repetition".

Dear Editor,

Prime Minister's Questions and Ken Livingstone's mayoral campaign have both featured acidic attacks on questioners when the question asked cannot be satisfactorily answered.

Your correspondent David Levenson, (Letters, Inside Housing, 2 May) does the same. In the letter to which he is replying, I say that if we do not learn from the failures of the past, we are doomed to repeat history.

He does not deal with this.

His monologue is strange, even illogical. It is answered at length on our web site, ifgr.org.uk. He fails to mention that when he left the Genesis Housing Group, he joined Tribal, the inventors of the Arms Length Management Organisation, an idea so rounded and thoroughly rejected by my council area, Camden, as being two stage privatisation.

I have attended several meeetings of Defend Council Housing and have had much work published on this issue, and I most strongly suspect that this is what upsets Mr Levenson.

After all, some cracks are appearing in certain ALMOs. There are reports of some attempting to do deals with registered social landlords. Alan Walter of DCH was right; the first stage is giving way to the second.

Tribal's model had flaws. Had they consulted with tenants at the right time, they would not be facing the possibility of egg on its face. But there again, so often this is the story of social housing.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Rutherford.

Independent Federation of Genesis Residents

Back to the WHHA web-site

Back to the IFGR web site

Here are copies of the previous letters, namely April 25 from IFGR and May 2 from David Levenson:

Letters to the Editor.

April 25, 2008.

"Insolvency not a new situation for the sector".

Dear Editor,

Your front page article, 'Ujima: Police arrest three" (Inside Housing, 11 April) said that Ujima Housing association was the first to become insolvent. This is not true. In the Autumn of the year 2000, West Hamsptead Housing Association went to the wall, and was rescued by £3million and a top flight trouble shooter, Greg Lomax.

The WHHA collapse was preceded by a string of approaches to the Housing Corporation which were systematically ignored. There was the case of a tenant board member thrown off the board for complaining to the corporation that rules were being disobeyed. A request for accountancy training because the accounts made no sense was cause for a indirect explusion from the board.

When the landlord went down the pan, the corporation set up an inquiry which ruled that it was not to blame, despite the fact that, as regulator, it is, by definition, responsible.

Will the new inquiry do the same?

Yours sincerely,

Peter Rutherford.

Independent Federation of Genesis Residents

Back to the WHHA web-site

Back to the IFGR web site

The above letter was published on April 25th. On May 2nd., David Levenson, Genesis Housing Group Chief Accountant until he left around two years ago, wrote this letter which was published in the May 2 issue of Inside Housing. A commentary is provided.

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

.

.

.

.

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; the freezer 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?"

		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
.		.
.		.
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; the freezer 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?"