This report is prepared by three members of the LBC/WHHA Short Life Property Tenants Group.
Our contribution to this enquiry concerns WHHA. The material we present relates primarily to the period December 1998 to the present time.
We have been asked to address the Scrutiny Panel's terms of reference which are as follows:
1. The clarify and assess the respective roles of Camden Council and the Housing Corporation with regard to the monitoring and regulation of RSLs working with Camden, particularly WHHA.
2. To examine the information available to Camden Council regarding WHHA and to consider whether the Council could reasonably have been expected to know the extent of the problems facing WHHA earlier and what lessons can be learnt.
3. To consider how, in future, Camden Council could ensure that any RSL that it supports or is proposing to support (through discounted disposal of property or through local authority social housing grant) is financially robust and how the Council can protect its interests following such support.
4. To make recommendations for improvements in policies and procedures regarding regulation and monitoring, and to consider if there are ways in which the Council can work more effectively in future with its partners in these areas.
Introduction
This crisis has come as a shock to many people but not to tenants as can be noted from tenants correspondence files held in Camden. The combination of poor management, untruthfulness and secrecy will always lead to some sort of meltdown.
1. The clarify and assess the respective roles of Camden Council and the Housing Corporation with regard to the monitoring and regulation of RSLs working with Camden, particularly WHHA.
There have been a large number of indicators just a few of which we list below.
- WHHA's failure to consult with tenants. Consulting with tenants is not merely good practice but it is a directive from the Housing Corporation, Section D8 (2nd Edition) of Performance Standards for RSLs. This was violated. This violation was drawn to the attention of the Council at our deputation in March 1998.
- Camden's Property and Services Sub-committee were not told by WHHA that the Messina 7 properties were occupied when they applied for and were given permission to buy them. Autumn 1998.
- WHHA signed applications for planning permission as owners when they had not yet become owners.
- Camden has always had a Councillor on the Management Board who should have noticed a major decline in surplus as a percentage of turnover. This trend should have been flagged and submitted to a Borough Accountant for comment.
- Whilst Peter Rutherford was on the Finance Committee of WHHA he does not recall Camden's representative ever asking a question.
- In 1997 Peter Rutherford requested external accountancy help whilst serving on this committee. This request was repeatedly turned down. Camden's representative should have wondered why this was so and reported back.
- Wastage of money: Simultaneously and in the same area two family homes had been converted into one bed flats whilst 2 houses containing one bed flats were being converted into family homes. This was highlighted in a letter to the editor of the Local Government Chronicle in December 1999. This letter was severely critical of Camden's Chief Executive and it is surprising that he appears to have taken no action.
- There is large amount of correspondence from WHHA tenants to Councillors and Officers the bulk of which were referred back to WHHA who took no action.
Lessons to be learned:
The Council should value all feedback from wherever it may come regardless of whether it is critical of a party they are working with. (See Section 3 below).
3. To consider how, in future, Camden Council could ensure that any RSL that it supports or is proposing to support (through discounted disposal of property or through local authority social housing grant) is financially robust and how the Council can protect its interests following such support.
and
4. To make recommendations for improvements in policies and procedures regarding regulation and monitoring, and to consider if there are ways in which the Council can work more effectively in future with its partners in these areas.
- It is generally assumed that Councillors are comfortable with management accounts and this may not be the case. We suggest the designing of a special spread sheet constructed in the easiest possible terms which will draw data down from an RSL's Annual Accounts and also monthly accounts.
This will transform dozens of pages of hard-to-understand financial data into a simple and concise presentation which will give just the essential nitty-gritty which is so vital. This exercise will succeed if the document can be understood by any Councillor who has no accountancy knowledge whatever. If an RSL regards does not wish to disclose these figures then the Council must wonder why.
- A system to monitor Tenants participatory groups and feedback from tenants.
- Monitor key performance indicators relating to maintenance efficiency, types of maintenance work done etc.
- Any performance indicator imposed on LBC should, where useful, be applied to RSLs.
- Monitor Tenant Satisfaction Surveys.
Dianne Lewis
Brian Patterson
Peter Rutherford
Jane Stockwell
Diana Hardy Wilson
16th January 2002
Back to the Web site