Haringey Council looking to annex Homes for Haringey

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 5, 2021 at 16:44

No Alan, it’s a response to the repeated mantra that the private sector can always do better than the public sector

Permalink Reply by Leo V on January 31, 2021 at 15:01

Yes this is one of the worst traps you can fall into. It's actually why so few people exercise their right to purchase. 

Imagine the bill for all those poor sods who live in high rises covered in illegal cladding? They had to pay to have it put on... Now they have to pay to have it removed and some new stuff put on.

The works process is the usual inept process from the council. Last year they randomly decided to dig up a perfectly usable and well maintained foot path outside our house. I spoke to the lads working on the job. It turned out their company was the third in a line of sub contractors. So when it all went wrong (as you could imagine it would do with such a chain) 4 sets of people came to have a look! All muttering and moaning and blaming each other. It turned out the main contractor is a shell company that has almost no workers. Their operation is to win the contract and then sub it out.

Of all the visitors to see the disaster this main contractor was the only one who came in what looked like a silk suit driving a maserati. The rest at least had the temerity to come in jeans and boots and high vis. Obviously being connected to the power within council is a profitable line of work. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Classical Contrarian on January 31, 2021 at 15:17

Unfortunately around here a decent sized flat can only be found as a leashold flat - more often than not an ex-local authority.

Luckily leasehold reform is on the way - hopefully before the management goes back into direct council control.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 1, 2021 at 10:19

I'd be very deeply worried.

As a Labour councillor once-upon-a-time, I was a member of the so-called "Shadow Board" while Homes for Haringey (HfH) was being set up. I remained on the Board for several years when it was formerly constituted. As a socialist I was sceptical of ALMOs (Arms length management Organisations) programme. I realised that I had been wrong.

Our HFH as an arms length company had senior staff with expertise; an independent chair and others; plus tenants' and leaseholders' elected representatives. This helped to balance and moderate the power of the councillors and (just as vital) senior council officers.

This included having some open and, I thought, very frank, healthy discussions about what it was and wasn't reasonable and fair to charge to the Housing Revenue Account. My impression was that there was a case for saying that the Housing Account had sometimes been used as a 'cash cow'. The balance of  power was adjusted as was the cash.

The voices of tenants and leaseholders on the Board were valuable and paid attention to. Personally I enjoyed meeting these reps and learned from them. I felt that some of them who were not beholden to the Council were "speaking truth to power". However uncomfortable that might have been to the establishment - including elected councillors!

It appears to me that the current Council ruling regime is in bed with developers and operating HDV version#2. So the potential risks of land grabbing are entirely real. The gross failures to consult properly with residents about the bathroom pods in Noel Park and about renaming of Black Boy Lane should be a warning to anyone who still retains a touching faith in our local rulers' basic understanding of democratic processes.
_________________________

My Political Declaration is on my personal HoL page

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leo V on February 1, 2021 at 12:45

Very inciteful... Many thanks. Good to hear something from the inside. 

So you think the hfh reshuffle is part of something bigger? How does over sight of land sales and development work? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 5, 2021 at 11:21

Just to say that I'm no longer "Inside", Leo V.

From my observations there is little or no proper and effective policy "oversight" over land sales and development. Though there are some councillors who privately think there are some bad smells. (Though I'm sure that the bureaucratic boxes will get ticked.)

By "oversight" I'm assuming you mean people with the expertise to sniff out and track down potentially risky deals. A lack of that has been a problem for several years. From time to time there may be outsiders who expose what's happening.
One example was the proposed deal with Firoka at Alexandra Palace. I can give you a links to Clive Carter's posts on Opinion8 website. Charles Adje is a name you will come across. He is now back in the so-called cabinet with two key portfolios. Please read what the former leader Claire Kober said about him.

Another small example I know about and raised issues was the former Welbourne Centre in Tottenham where a proposed deal was stopped. Posting stuff on my Flickr blog led to an attempt to discipline me by the then Labour Chief Whip. That's what tends to happen in Haringey if elected councillors ask awkward questions and don't keep to the personal and Party loyalty script. If you are interested in this you may also want to ask questions about the current proposal for the development on Clarendon Road.

If you'd like to explore proposed large-scale development then lots of people will tell you about the infamous HDV.  Homes Destruction Viciousness was my description. HDV#2 is underway at Love Lane Estate.

Please keep in mind that this is my own, biased, personal and prejudiced opinion. Though I tend to agree with the views of academic researchers such as Loretta Lees, Anna Minton, and many others. Of course there is no possible reason why any senior staff or "leading" councillors in Haringey would want to pay the slightest attention to their work.
Why spoil the fun? It's surely bad enough that the big cheeses can no longer head off to MIPIM on free flights to free hotels in Cannes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stav Aristides on February 5, 2021 at 12:36

That's pretty bad, Alan. Is this the note you are referring to?

I'm aghast that this man has been allowed to remain a councillor let alone be given any responsibility. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 5, 2021 at 15:13

Stav,  that's one of several online postings. And one of Clive Carter's best summaries.
https://opinion8.ning.com/m/discussion?id=6311863%3ATopic%3A98857

You may have noted that it says Councillor Richard Wilson then LibDem Leader  described Adje's return to the Council as utterly despicable.  Which appears to me an eminently fair comment on a very serious matter of public interest.

I also heard that after Cllr Charles Adje was back in the cabinet a Labour councillor or two had assurances that he would not  be dealing with property or finance.

There's more, But the sun is shining and puffy white clouds chase each other across a blue sky.

+++++++++++++++++++++
Can I add that Clive Carter did a helluva lot of work turning Haringey's graphic format reports into accurate searchable and readable texts. Posting public text reports in graphic formats is absurdly stupid. Whoever was responsible has never apologised.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Classical Contrarian on February 5, 2021 at 14:11

There has been a development in the news - the council has now begun closing down HfH.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/london-council-moves-to-s...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 5, 2021 at 17:18

I hope they haven't jumped the gun. It would be outrageous to do so before properly and fully informing and consulting tenants and leaseholders.
It seems from the pronouncement by Dear Leader Ejiofor reported by Inside Housing that he has made this decision even before any such consultation. Do members of the Homes for Haringey Board have a view? Were they asked?
In my experience, such early "branch shaking" can be irresponsible and reckless. Or in some cases deliberate. It could be viewed by existing staff as an amber warning to look for another job or start negotiating for a "golden goodbye". Also a starting signal for the headhunters to approach staff.

Even more important a clear sign - as with other steps from Ejiofor - that he and his ruling clique are impatient when it comes to genuine consultation. But view residents' and leaseholders' views as a nuisance; an irrelevant add-on after key decisions have already been taken and announced.

An autocratic pattern we now see far too often.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Guy on February 6, 2021 at 21:12

Re: Jumping the gun:

“Any change would require a formal decision by the cabinet as well as thorough consultation with residents and staff. So, nothing will happen immediately.

“We will shortly be writing to tenants, leaseholders and others about the timeline and what will happen next.”

Source: https://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/19050054.council-insource...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Guy on February 6, 2021 at 19:32

Dear Classical Contrarian,

Thank you for your post and more recent update. All Taxpayers, not just leaseholders, should be concerned about exorbitant charges for the maintenance of (their) public housing stock.

Part of the Council’s stated reason (according to Housing Insider) for bringing this function in-house is to “improve accountability”.  The Council must remain accountable for any proven malpractice, whether their own, or their agent's - Homes for Haringey Limited 

As Noel Park exemplifies, recent Leasehold consultations and reforms too narrowly focus on the cladding scandal and hikes in ground rents. Sadly, the plight of leaseholders does not end there: Unreasonable Major Works, flawed consultations, and Service Charges that continue to rise persistently, year on year, without justification, at many times wages and inflation.

In theory, public landlords and the likes of Homes for Haringey are not incentivised to inflate charges - and leaseholders Supposedly have redress within the regulatory system and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

The reality is very different and far from the “perfectly good arrangement” (referred to in this thread by Leo V)

Mr Stanton - evidently, “frank and healthy discussions” with poorly-represented leaseholders have failed to adjust the balance of power, or to stop leaseholders being used as a cash cow. Certain leaseholder voices may have been “valued” or caused momentary discomfort, but none have not led to reversing the systemic malpractice of hiking unreasonable charges. Qui bono is a good question indeed. A forensic, independent, examination or prevailing management practices of public landlords, and their Housing Revenue Accounts is long overdue, within and outside Haringey.

In case it is of interest - Here is a link to a recent, somewhat-related Housing Ombudsman consultation, with comments to their consultation questions below.

https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Business-Plan-2021-22-consultation-document.pdf

 

Question 1: Do you have any comments on our approach to raising resident awareness of the role of our service and redress?

 

Answer 1:

 

Yes. I thank the Ombudsman and Communications Team, for the opportunity to comment on your consultation document.

 

1.1. I write in the context of the RoPA report recommendations, the Ombudsman's MoU with the RSH , Strategic Objective 2: Promoting Positive Change in the Sector, and Paragraph 161 of the Social Housing White Paper (Service Charges). I would be grateful if you take my comments and suggestions into consideration and will send a copy by email. In case my feedback is outside the Ombudsman's remit, I may also contact the Regulator and the Ministry.

 

1.2  The Ombudsman's recent MoU with the regulator is a promising step towards long overdue reforms. The Ombudsman's Role should be enhanced and its Approach refocused, to raise awareness and redress specifically with regards to - Systemic and Thematic Failings - the root causes that have profoundly and detrimentally affected the lives of countless thousands of leaseholders and their families. The type of failings that have allowed service charges to multiply over the years, at many times inflation - despite and in addition to - major charges for improvements that were supposed to bring down the level of day-to-day charges.

 

1.3  The Ombudsman refers to “root causes that give rise to a significant number of individual complaints.” Accordingly, the business plan should emphasise the need to rationalise the cost of maintaining public housing stock - and in turn - the unreasonable contribution charged to social landlord leaseholders. I will include related observations and suggestions elsewhere. The plan should prioritise, in no uncertain terms, the principle of Value for Money (this paramount concept has been neglected and altogether omitted from the vision statements of large social landlords).

 

1.4  Having been a council leaseholder for years, I only recently heard about the Ombudsman and the Regulator. To raise awareness and maximise reach, please consider extensive use of links to the Ombudsman website (in line with “Improve signposting to the Ombudsman service”, Strategic objective 3.2. For example, links in landlords’ response to formal complaints).

 

1.5 The Ombudsman highlights the important role redress performs within housing. Accordingly, the approach to raising awareness should disentangle intersections, and clarify the respective role, jurisdiction and relationship between the parties involved in the redress process (the roles of the Ombudsman, Tribunal, LGO, Regulator, Advisory Service and the Courts, appear to have parallel and overlapping elements; Para 39 & 50 of the Ombudsman scheme touches on this, but the mix of responsibilities and jurisdictions remains confusing from a resident perspective). To this end, please consider publishing a Flowchart, with an “At a Glance” overview of the system, enabling residents to more easily understand and navigate through the complaint and redress process (the flowcharts in your Guide to Jurisdiction, may be a useful starting point, and the online version of the chart should include links to relevant information and resources, within and outside the Ombudsman's website).

 

1.6.With a view to raising awareness and transparency, the Ombudsman’s plan should explain clearly and specifically (even if in aspirational terms) how effective redress will be empowered by strengthening the Ombudsman’s remit, powers and relationship with the Regulator. The plan should clearly define what Accountability in social housing will entail, within and beyond the Complaints Handling Code. Specifically, what sanctions, if any, will be used to refocus executive minds when systematic and sector-wide failure are found to exist.

 

1.7  The consultation refers to the Ombudsman’s framework for systemic investigations, which is yet to be published and cannot be commented upon. It is encouraging to read the Ombudsman may refer failures to the governing body or the Regulator. Ideally, the plan should clarify the stages and parties involved in the investigation and redress process, where systemic and sector-wide deficiencies are concerned.

 

 

 

Question 2: What learning would you like us to share and in what format?

 

2.1 Please publish details of the Access to Information Scheme.

 

2.2  An easy to follow visual overview of the dispute resolution and regulatory framework (comment 1.5).

 

2.3  Revised best practice guides, in whichever format, prioritising value for money. Documentation should include qualitative & quantitative criteria for landlords, in addition to resident satisfaction scores (modules should give consideration to the standardised guidance, codes, and recommendations in paragraph 14 of Annex A of the RoPA report).

 

2.4  Appreciating this is work in progress, I would like to see details under: “Measures of Success”, Strategic Priority 2.4 (this has been left blank, page 15 of the Consultation document). 

 

2.5  To increase awareness and understanding, it would be helpful for online publications to include links, where appropriate (for example, the consultation document refers to the “recent MoU” and other documents, which an interested reader may have to look for elsewhere).

 

2.6 Past enquiries have prioritised reviews of enfranchisement law, the ‘transparency’ and ‘communication’ of charges, but not flaws that allow the systemic application of excessive unreasonable charges to continue. Other  efforts resulted in commendable examples such as Eric Pickle’s mandatory capping, aka Florrie’s law, and most recently, the new Complaints Handling Code and Failure Orders. To help interested parties understand how the regulatory and redress system works, please consider a chronological backgrounder summarising past working groups, findings, conclusions and resulting reforms (with links to related resources).

 

 

 

Question 3: Do you have any comments on our business plan overall?

 

3.1 With reference to the MoU with the RSH and “Stakeholder Engagement”: The business plan should detail steps to positively enhance and accelerate implementation of the aspirational purpose under this heading.

 

3.2 The Ombudsman’s plan (and regulatory regime) is lacking in the critical area of Service Charge Reforms (the root cause for the "most common subject for enquiries to the Leasehold Advisory Service"). Without detracting from related praiseworthy achievements, it is plain wrong that the focus has remained on cure rather than prevention. As it stands, the system is not geared to stem (or reverse) a relentless tide of unreasonable hikes and excessive charges. Critical oversights have allowed the upkeep cost of social housing stock (and corresponding service charges) to unreasonably and continually ratchet upwards, over a significant period. My experience as a leaseholder has led me to identify 3 root causes that allow this fundamental flaw to prevail. These are outside the scope of the current consultation, but the plan should prioritise a clear commitment to explore badly-needed reform of this area, on an ongoing basis. 

 

3.3. The Ombudsman refers to cases of “potential systemic failure in line with our latest MoU”. In this regard, the MoU refers to paragraph 50 (as well as 14 & 60) of the Ombudsman's Scheme. Paragraph 50 mentions referrals “to the appropriate regulatory body.” The business plan should expand on and clarify related particulars, in line with the latest MoU and specifically the objective of improving Stakeholder Engagement. £412k is a drop in an ocean of excessive charges. It immediately pales into insignificance when considering the true scale of this problem. The 2019 “Case for Change”, by the Regulation of Property Agents Working Group, was also lacking in this regard. Understanding root causes can only be achieved if the Ombudsman works effectively and proactively with the Regulator, to remedy critical oversights. In the immediate term, the plan should, at the very least, state that Value for Money must be a priority for social landlords (comment 1.3). This would be a small but important and positive step towards the rationalisation of upkeep costs (and in turn, of leaseholders’ service charges).

 

3.4 It may be useful for the plan to dedicate a section to systemic and thematic investigations. Preferably distinguishing alleged failings relating to: a single registered provider; more than one provider; and/or across the sector. Related content should clearly explain the process for the submission and determination of allegations of Systemic failings.

 

3.5 The business plan should detail definitive steps to fulfil the recommendations in Annex A of the RoPA report, and paragraph 14 in particular.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page