|
|
 |
| |
When lights go out on 3-star housing service
• ALTHOUGH not entirely surprised, I was disappointed to see that Homes for Islington (HfI) had been awarded a three-star rating (with excellent prospects) by the Audit Commission (Homes body wins three stars – and takes flak, September 19). This was at a cost to the borough of more than £100,000.
I have been an Islington Council tenant in the same property for 18 years. The statement in the report that “the service has improved year on year” is not consistent with my experience. I acknowledge that the bulk refuse service on estates has improved but struggle to find much else to praise.
Since autumn 2007 a significant number of lights in our block have not worked at night. This has been reported several times and the need to check their functionality on a regular basis impressed on HfI staff.
A strongly worded and widely distributed email in December 2007 finally elicited a response. The Audit Commission was included among the recipients. The lights worked until mid-January and have not worked since.
Last Tuesday, eight out of 22 light fittings on the top two floors were non-functional. In the only lift in our block (Coombe House) there is crystalised urine. Our communal areas have significant build-up of cobwebs. I have also taken photographs of hazardous disrepair over months and years which remain unresolved despite the procedures supposedly in place to address this type of issue.
In 2005, we spent £68,000 on improving our greenspace and re-laying pathways. We have had to campaign just to get the grass cut and the newly laid paths are gradually disappearing for the want of basic grounds maintenance and spraying with weedkiller.
It looked great when it was first done, but it’s sustaining good standards which seems to be a real problem for HfI. The general standards here would not be acceptable to residents in the private sector, so does the Audit Commission’s describing these standards as excellent not brand council tenants as second-class citizens?
And if this is a genuine three-star rating, how many stars do we need to achieve decent homes? Last week’s Tribune even reported how Islington’s finance chief acknowledged a sharp increase in complaints about HfI’s services.
An unnamed press officer accused me of criticising HfI through the press as opposed to constructive dialogue.
I cannot ever think of an issue raised in the press where there was not a long trail of correspondence attempting positive engagement.
I have been corresponding and attending meetings with HfI for more than four years now. The press is resorted to only when positive attempts to reason with HfI fail.
The so-called resident representatives on the board seem even less inclined to listen to the residents (especially tenants) they purport to represent.
I do hope the three-star rating is of some benefit to the borough. However, based on my experience, this rating is not so much an affirmation of HfI’s services, but an indictment of the Audit Commission and its credibility as an assessor – yet another waste of public money.
THOMAS COOPER
Area housing representative, Lower Hilldrop Community Residents’ Association
• PRIOR to being officially inspected for its star rating in November last year, Homes for Islington (HfI) commissioned a voluntary mock inspection. This was carried out by the Audit Commission, at a cost to the borough of more than £70,000. Shortly afterwards, HfI was officially audited by the Audit Commission, for which the borough was charged another £40,000.
Allegedly, all of HfI’s staff – more than 1,000 – were not only rewarded for their part in the inspection with an extra day’s leave, but were also paid a bonus of approximately £140 each for their assistance in this process.
Readers will be able to calculate the cost to the borough of this outrageous fiasco, into which unfortunately the residents have had very little official input other than being represented by a set of very dubious statistics which purport to indicate a phenomenal rise in the rates of “customer” satisfaction.
Embarrassingly, all the time, energy, and costs expended on this box-ticking exercise ultimately resulted in a distinctly “negative” conclusion since the Audit Commission quite correctly refused to upgrade HfI from a two to three-star status. This surely suggests that HfI, after two years of spending and cost-cutting, was officially adjudged to have shown no appreciable improvement.
After nearly a year appealing the commission’s initial decision, HfI has finally been upgraded to three stars, by default, not merit.
Since the original rating of two stars was awarded by an official inspectorate that spent two weeks in the borough, its assessment of HfI was far more valid and acceptable then that of an appeal board working simply from a set of secondhand data and erroneous assumptions, while under pressure to provide the largest arm’s length management organisation (Almo) in the country with the required result.
Dr BRIAN POTTER
Chairman, Federation of Islington Tenants’ Associations
• I AM seeing stars over the Audit Commission’s claim that Homes for Islington (HfI) is “keeping leaseholders’ charges low”. Before reading this year’s report, I checked some of the things the commission said in its 2005-06 report. Then it said HfI was increasing charges above the level of inflation, with average annual service charges rising by 27 per cent, or 9 per cent a year, between 2002-03 and 2005-06.
It also said HfI was unable to demonstrate that major repairs were value for money, that its costs were high compared with nine other London Almos and that HfI was in the most expensive 25 per cent in three out of five cost categories and above average in another two.
These observations were not revisited in the new report and leaseholders must be scratching their heads to work out how higher bills equate to keeping charges low.
It was emblematic of HfI’s habit of only seeing what it wants that its “spokesman” laid into Thomas Cooper and Brian Potter for taking a “negative stance”, implying a refusal to join in a consultative dialogue.
He implied they were leaseholders’ representatives. In fact, Thomas is a tenant and Brian was talking on behalf of tenants as chairman of the Federation of Islington Tenants’ Associations.
The tenants’ association on my estate has just sent HfI a long and detailed complaint, signed by all committee members, about its lack of responsiveness and failure to consult.
We have declared a moratorium on meetings with HfI.
Why? Because there’s little point in holding empty meetings if HfI only responds when we shout.
Far from drawing any comfort from this long-delayed report, leaseholders and tenants can rest assured that, as far as HfI is concerned, it will be business usual.
RICHARD ROSSER
N5
|
 |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
