Johnson's London – a millionaire's playground

Crossfields residents receive constant reminders from the government about how big a discount they can get if they buy their flat. The frequent flyer from the Department of Communities and Local Government comes through the door with regularity, whether you're a tenant or already a leaseholder. Bigger discounts than ever before are now available for Right To Buyers as the Tories push through their evil plan to get rid of 'social housing' altogether. What possible incentive can there be to build more social housing when tenants can buy their properties after only five years?

Meanwhile, the Bedroom Tax is forcing some unemployed social housing tenants into private housing since there are no one-bedroom flats available for those single occupants currently living in two-bedroom homes whose housing benefit has been cut. If they can find a landlord who will take DHS claimants, the private rent is likely to be at least twice as much (£250pw) as their council rent (£110pw), a bill which the council tax-payer and local authority will foot and from which private landlords will profit. Continuing low rates on buy-to-let mortgages has landlords increasing their property portfolios and enjoying record yields on higher rents, and profits from rising house prices.

Add to this the total lack of affordable housing being built, whilst Boris Johnson boasts about meeting housing targets. The Financial Times reports that Bozo promised 55,000 new homes between 2011 and 2015 but only 20,684 are being built. The London Assembly reports that he's recently opted to 'clear London's backlog of housing need' over 20 years – instead of the 10 years he initially proposed.

In the news today, we hear that nine London boroughs have joined forces in a legal challenge against the Mayor's plan to relax 'affordable rents' rules, to be heard in the High Court today and tomorrow. Presently, boroughs have been able to cap social housing rents within new developments (what little there is) to around 40% of 'market rent'. Bozo wants to raise that cap to 80%. That is the percentage that has defined 'affordable housing' for a while now, and for most Londoners, this is still unaffordable. Lewisham set its cap at 50%. Lewisham is not one of the boroughs taking Boris to court. When Lewisham sells off its housing stock next year to a reconfigured Lewisham Homes Housing Association, new tenants may well find themselves paying 80% of market rent.

Speaking from a developer's conference in Cannes yesterday, Bozo announced that he'll be selling up the last couple of development sites owned by City Hall, with only a third available for affordable rented housing. And he wants to launch a 'state-backed housing bank' that would offer cheap loans and guarantees to private developers to get homes built more quickly and reduce the risks for his builder mates.

The news today from the same Cannes property conference is that Bozo's team want to allow house bulding to go ahead without planning permission in certain parts of London. Deputy mayor for housing, Richard Blakeway, said the mayor was "particularly interested" in exploring the potential to "build markets" in certain zones by offering tax incentives to both "investors and consumers". The Mayor could use his compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for private residential use, at the expense of any borough's strategies to achieve a balance of uses (such as employment zones and community uses). These changes to the London Plan are said to be designed "to encourage boroughs to support private rented housing".

The London Assembly has also recently questioned the Mayor about his stripping of London boroughs' right to make planning decisions by using his power to 'call-in' large planning applications. He has already 'called-in' five schemes in the past year. In many cases, Bozo has been 'calling-in' applications before the local authority in question has even had a chance to examine them. (See also the Deptford Dame's latest post).

Darren Johnson, Green Party Assembly member, said, "The recent acceleration in the number and speed with which the Mayor is taking over planning decisions from boroughs...puts developers and investors before local democracy". The Assembly's motion (agreed by 16 votes to 5 against) listed 11 applications – including Convoys Wharf in Deptford – and said that on many decisions, the Mayor has ignored legitimate borough concerns about issues such as inappropriate density and very low targets for affordable housing.

This isn't new. In 2009 in Tower Hamlets, when there were 23,000 people on the housing waiting list, the council refused planning consent for the 74-storey Hertsmere Tower in Canary Wharf because it didn't include enough provision for affordable housing. But a few months later, Boris Johnson overturned the council's decision and Hertsmere is set to accommodate over 700 luxury apartments, some marketed in excess of £10m each.

Here's Boris at the Cannes property conference in 2012, announcing his new 'architecture, design and urbanism' panel for architects, which was to hand out £30m worth of work over the following three years. There's Terry Farrell, second from left, one of those appointed to the panel and the architect employed by Convoys Wharf developer Hutchison Whampoa.

As any fool can see, there has been an enormous amount of new housing being built in London, especially locally. Like many of these new developments, Convoys Wharf has a minimal amount of affordable housing (down from 35% to 14%, and social housing from 4% to zilch). As the Deptford Dame pointed out back in November, another site owned by Hutchison Whampoa – Lots Road in Chelsea – is already being marketed via their Hong Kong estate agency. (See also the BBC film "London's Property Gamble").

Darren Johnson says, "London's property market is only serving the super-rich, leaving crumbs for ordinary Londoners, who have to rent overpriced homes on insecure tenancies or move out of the city altogether". A new industry has even built up around helping developers avoid building affordable housing and paying Section 106 to local authorities (the bribe – or money paid by a developer that is  supposed to benefit the communities in which the development is sited). (Click to enlarge).

The Evening Standard reported yesterday that the number of skyscrapers in the capital is set to double. Meanwhile, Chinese investment in the UK is forecast to triple this year. Boris is busy signing up business deals with Chinese investment consortiums wanting to turn London into a replica of Hong Kong – with a focus on construction projects of all kinds. Meanwhile, Hutchison Whampoa has been busy selling off its luxury properties in Hong Kong since the Chinese state are bringing in 'cooling measures' – described as 'a tough stance on reining in an overheated market' (in other words a 'bubble') – with new rules on the sale of new homes, and stricter rent controls – the opposite of here, in fact. 

Boris Johnson's London is a playground for millionaires. Of course Bozo doesn't want to take over Cameron's job. While Cameron has only a year left to decimate the lives of millions of ordinary people across the country with austerity measures whilst rewarding bankers, Bozo has over two more years to promote and implement their hideous Tory agenda across the capital.

What are the rewards for Resident Involvement?

Not a lot. Why bother to "get involved"? Why spend hours of your time in meetings to help those paid by Lewisham Homes to better understand residents' needs? Why join your TRA committee and work for free to help your fellow residents? It's mostly a thankless task with very few, if any, benefits – and isn't it always the same busy bodies who take on the same roles and responsibilities?

As stated in the previous post, Lewisham Council (and Lewisham Homes for that matter) are keen to change the organisational structure of Lewisham Homes so that it can separate from the Council and become a 'resident-led' housing association able to borrow more money to do more stuff. Lewisham Homes would be different to other housing associations in that residents would have much stronger representation within the management. How this would work is still not entirely clear.

Lewisham Homes already encourages community involvement and resident participation but there is very little take-up – despite training being offered for any Lewisham Homes resident to pick up admin and computer skills, and coaching available for those involved in their TRA committees (eg how to be a treasurer or chair). More incentives are required, instead of relying on residents' voluntary commitment. Even if participants take up the opportunities to increase their skills (and therefore employment opportunities), there's no guarantee they'll want to use those skills to contribute to the management of their homes.

Lewisham Council is now taking part in the Time Credits scheme (see Lewisham Time Credits and also this post by Alternative SE4). This long-overdue scheme recognises the contributions of volunteers in the borough and offers them something in return. Time Credits are a 'community currency' that can be exchanged for free access to leisure services across the borough and beyond (including entry to the Tower of London, Millwall, the Albany etc) and services offered by local businesses. It was launched in February by Mayor Steve.

The scheme is open to anyone taking part in volunteering activities in the borough. It is delivered by Spice Innovations, 'a social enterprise that develops agency timebanking systems for communities and public services that engage and empower the many rather than the few'. Spice says, "One of the challenges facing public and community services is that it is generally 'the usual suspects' that attend meetings, consultations, sit on all the steering groups....Citizen engagement is about moving beyond the 'usual suspects' and enabling a broader range of people to participate...By simply thanking people for their time in a meaningful way, local services will start to engage with many more."

One of the areas Spice work in nationally is housing. The recent Crossfields TRA meeting about Housing Matters (see previous post) was attended by Lewisham Homes' Chief Executive, Head of Leasehold Services, and the person in charge of 'Housing Matters' at Lewisham Council – they had come to spread the word on the idea of a new "resident-led" Lewisham Homes. When a resident at the meeting brought up the idea of Time Credits in the context of incentivising resident involvement and making it worthwhile to get involved, not one of these people had heard of the scheme.

More importantly, they did not know that the scheme is being piloted by Lewisham Homes' own Community Involvement Team in a trial with Honor Oak Tenants & Residents Association. According to Sue Asquith, Community Involvement Manager, it is going well, and the team are hoping to launch the scheme soon, to reward 'involved residents' across the borough.


Watch this video to find out more about Lewisham Time Credits.

Housing Matters update

Housing Matters was the main topic of discussion at the most recent Crossfields Tenants & Residents Association meeting. Clare Ryan (Lewisham Council) was joined by Lewisham Homes' Chief Executive Kevin Jones, and Head of Leasehold Services Sandy Canham, to explain the latest on Housing Matters and to tell the meeting how Lewisham was intending to consult residents over the coming year.

We reported in January that the council has decided to press ahead with further consultation, having already conducted "a conversation about options" with us in the last couple of months of 2012. In that survey, many people were in favour of returning management of our housing to the council (the majority of respondents were elderly) and were not at all keen on being sold off to a housing association. People were also happy to keep everything as it is, which has been read as strong approval for Lewisham Homes. 1600 surveys were returned (around 10% of properties); it was decided that the survey results were not representative, so more consultation is required.

It was also clear that no one really understood the implications of the council's favourite option: to turn Lewisham Homes into a "Resident-led housing association" that would be able to borrow the £85m required to build 250 new homes and invest in more improvements to current stock (and raise the Decent Homes standards above and beyond what they are currently able to do, including much needed external works).

Presently, Lewisham Homes is part of the Council which is unable to borrow more than £44m. If Lewisham Homes became "an independent housing provider registered with the Homes & Communities Agency" it could borrow more money. (See previous posts or Lewisham's Housing Matters website page).

This new round of consultation will consist of a team going out to talk to residents face-to-face (leaving out subletting leaseholders) with the aim of raising awareness and understanding of turning Lewisham Homes into a 'resident-led organisation' and of finding out what priorities residents have (a top priority so far has been pest control).

The team will be door-knocking between 5pm-7pm on weekdays and 9.30am-1pm on Saturdays up until the end of May. If you're not in, they'll leave a card. Some people will be phoned, and different teams will be targeting street properties and sheltered housing.

This time the consultation will be audited by independent tenant & leasehold advisors SOLON (not the housing association). They will be putting out information of their own, apparently.

As a resident pointed out at the TRA meeting, people may get confused by phone calls from the Housing Matters team, when they are already expecting any call from the council to be from a MITIE surveyor ringing to discuss their new kitchen, bathroom and toilet requirements as part of the Decent Homes programme (see previous post).

See also next post on Community Involvement.

Housing Matters update

Taken from the Notice of Decisions Made by Mayor & Cabinet on 16 January 2013 found on the Agenda page of the Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel, Tuesday 29th January 2013.

These decisions will become effective on 30 January 2013 unless they are called in by the Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel on 29 January 2013.

Housing Matters Update
Having considered an officer report, and a presentation by the Cabinet Member for Customer Services, Councillor Susan Wise, and from the Chair of the Housing Select Committee, Councillor Carl Handley, the Mayor agreed that:

(i) the findings of the discussion with residents about the possible options for addressing Lewisham’s housing challenges be noted;

(ii) the potential options for continuing the conversation with residents and the associated strengths and weaknesses of each be noted;

(iii) as there was limited support expressed among residents for the option of transfer to an existing housing association, and because the resident-led option offers greater potential to respond to residents concerns about rents and security of tenure for new as well as existing residents, transfer to an existing housing association be no longer pursued as part of this process;

(iv) as residents prefer retention with the ALMO to retention with a return to Council Management, and because a return to Council management at this stage would put at risk the delivery of the current Decent Homes programme, the option of a return to Council management of the stock be no longer pursued as part of this process;

(v) the two possible options remaining options be noted namely:

1. that the Council ceases all further options appraisal activities, retains the ALMO as is, and works within the budgetary limits the Council faces as a landlord, or

2. that the Council works alongside residents, Lewisham Homes and other bodies to better understand how, by retaining but evolving Lewisham Homes - with a view to a possible transfer of ownership to Lewisham Homes as a resident-led organisation – it might attract further investment, increase resident control, deliver residents’ aspirations and address their concerns; and

(vi) on the basis of the appraisal of the options set out and having considered the further information including the required further financial and technical assessments set out, option 2 should be pursued.

See our previous post.

Housing Matters Update – a foredrawn conclusion?

So what was all that about?

No new information can be found listed in the Housing Matters section of the council's website, nor on the TPAS (Tenants Participation Advisory Service) webpage dedicated to the monitoring work it undertook in the Housing Matters consultation.

But a draft report of TPAS's findings can be found, as an appendix, in the agenda of the Housing Select Committee, 8th Jan 2013. To read TPAS's report in full, click here.

Were we listened to?

TPAS found that residents' preferred options were to either to stay with Lewisham Homes or return to Council management (Options 1 & 2). Mostly the latter.

It might have been that residents were only really comfortable commenting on the things they have experience of. Quite a low satisfaction rate with Lewisham Homes' management could be recorded, in a different questionnaire, ditto the Council, but perhaps it was a case of "better the devil you know" that resulted in the popularity of both Options 1 & 2.

More information was required – than the Council was able to provide – for consideration of Option 3 (stock transfer from the council to Lewisham Homes, which would become a 'Resident-led' / 'Gateway' / 'Mutual' organisation with the ability to borrow more money to build more housing). There was "little or no appetite" for Option 4 (stock transfer to a Housing Association).

Residents' legitimate fear of rises in rent and service charges made Option 4 objectionable, and for many, the 'resident-led' component of Option 3 didn't really alleviate those fears, despite the promises.

Perhaps people were wisely indicating their preference for a more cautious approach in a time of instability, spending cuts, benefit cuts and a triple dip recession.

The RSG (Resident Steering Group), who were the most closely involved in the consultation, ranked 'building new homes' joint seventh with 'maximising tenant control and influence' in order of importance when considering the factors involved. Top of their list was preserving tenants' rights. However, half of them came out in favour of Option 3.

The Key Findings of TPAS's monitoring of the consultation are listed at the bottom of this post. Meanwhile, in their financial analysis of the relative benefits of stock transfer (Option 3) versus retention (Options 1 & 2), TPAS "identified a significant number of issues to be resolved before robust figures on the financial benefits of transfer (or otherwise) can be established". They found "uncertainties" in the transfer business plan projections "that would require external validation and a degree of reworking, before the Council can safely assume that the additional resources projected are indeed available".

TPAS suggests the Council does this work before pursuing the stock transfer option. They also identified alternative and further, possibly better, ways to make the most of the money available should the Council choose to retain its stock.

Decisions, decisions...

On 16th January 2013, Mayor and Cabinet will be deciding what to do next (see the agenda). The Council's own report, Housing Matters Update, which includes specific recommendations, can found here.

In this report, Option 4 has been removed from the list of options (it should never have really been there in the first place and just confused and frightened people). Although the findings of the consultation indicated residents would prefer no change at all or have their homes come back under the care of the Council, this has been interpreted by the Council as overall approval for Lewisham Homes.

The Council now feels it has a mandate to pursue Option 3 – a stock transfer to Lewisham Homes.

6.1. The conversation with residents to date has shown a high level of satisfaction with Lewisham Homes and a preference for Lewisham Homes to continue to manage homes and for the Council to continue as landlord. However, residents do agree with the Council’s priorities and do think that it is right that the Council considers options which attract more investment for their homes and estates.

Discarding completely the idea of the Council taking its housing back in-house, they will now be discussing just two options:

1. Cease all further option appraisal activities, retain the ALMO as is, and work within the budgetary limits the Council faces as a landlord, or

2. Work alongside residents, Lewisham Homes and other bodies to better understand how, by retaining but evolving Lewisham Homes – with a view to a possible transfer of ownership to Lewisham Homes as a resident-led organisation – it might attract further investment, increase resident control, deliver residents’ aspirations and address their concerns.

The report recommends that the latter option (the new 'Option 2') is further pursued. This is also what Lewisham Homes itself wants. 

Get your ducks in a row...

If Mayor and Cabinet follow this recommendation, this will mean yet further consultation with us. According to the report, 1500 forms (out of a potential 17-18,000, about 8%) were returned in this last survey, but were apparently unrepresentative because not enough Black households responded and too many people over 60 did (draw your own conclusions). The Council officer's report advised that the Council would have to develop "a new Consultation Strategy" that ensured "its outcomes are reflective and representative of its community." 

TPAS's report records the vast range of techniques employed to engage people this last time round, most of which were met with disinterest. They are not so disingenous as to describe this as 'apathy', nor political enough to use the word 'disenfranchised' – they don't attempt to explain it at all. But, ironically, one of the main reasons why people do not respond to such consultations is that they think the Council will do what it wants to do, regardless of their opinion. 

The Council called this last consultation 'a conversation', perhaps knowing that it would be ill-prepared and poorly executed, and intending it as a (rather expensive) rehearsal. Consultation with secure tenants is a requirement of Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985, but if the new 'Option 2' is ratified on 16 January, the future 'conversations' may well be more a case of educating us on a foregone conclusion so that it won't be such a shock when it happens, or selling us the idea until we finally buy it.

Buying into the new Option 2

What should be clear from this recent 'conversation' is that unless people like TPAS are around all the time knocking on doors and trying to explain complicated housing matters to people who're busy trying to survive a recession, they can expect considerably less than 8% of 'resident involvement' in any 'resident-led' initiative such as the new Option 2.

Just as happens now, rents and service charges will have to include a fee to pay an army of staff to 'get people involved', to result in a possible 1% of residents involved in the running of the organisation. In many of the recent consultation events, there were more staff than residents.  

Where are the figures on present resident involvement? What are the levels of satisfaction of those taking part? How does the information 'trickle down' to non-participants? Answer: it doesn't. Why does Lewisham Homes think it has a convincing model for successful resident participation? 

According to the report, whilst this new consultation strategy is being designed, the Council and Lewisham Homes would work with various government agencies (and probably overpaid consultants) to determine the benefits and implications of transferring its stock to Lewisham Homes, since "there are presently unquantifiable variables that have the potential to impact on the precise level of funding available to a transfer organisation". (VAT exemption is just one of the many things that hasn't been thought through). TPAS have said they should work all this out before they come back to us with further options.

If the new Option 2 gets the go...

No one can really object to the noble aims of building more affordable housing, and you might want to support the Council's objectives despite the inevitable expenditure occurred in scoping such a huge ambition. But you may still be wondering where, in this already crowded borough (especially in Deptford), they will find the space to build it. The Council's report states that they employed the services of PTEa architects and real estate consultants Drivers Jonas Deloitte* to identify suitable sites "details of which are provided in Part Two of this report". Some of the land options available are said to be time limited and require decisions to be made very soon. However, Part Two of this report does not appear to be publicly available (draw your own conclusions).


TPAS Key Findings

• There are real concerns about security of tenure and maintaining existing tenancy rights.
• The majority of the residents that we spoke to expressed the desire to remain with Lewisham Homes or return to the Council.
• Many of the residents that we spoke to expressed concern about the short time frame of the project.
• Residents that we spoke to often felt that they had insufficient information to give an informed opinion.
• Our financial analysis shows Lewisham to be in a more favourable position than many councils find themselves, and one which enables an “unpressurised” choice between the proposed options.
• Careful consideration needs to be given to ensure appropriate consultation when dealing with residents living in Sheltered Housing Schemes. Any consultation must be well planned and timely due to the vulnerable nature of many of the residents living in these schemes.
• The Resident Steering Group were evenly split in terms of preferred options, between retention (both options 1 & 2) and transfer (Option 3)
• There was little or no appetite from the Resident Steering Group for Option 4
• Lewisham Homes have stated that their preferred option is to become a 'Mutual' Organisation. 

TPAS also noted that a number of tenants had observed during the consultation process that it seemed odd for the council to be considering transfer, when the main shortfall in funding was caused by their desire to build new council homes, which after transfer would no longer be council homes.

*(Drivers Jonas Deloitte are now fully incorporated into Deloitte plc – you know, the guys that charge £500 to open an envelope, the guys who administrate a bankrupt company and take all its remaining assets to pay themselves, leaving workers, creditors and customers with nothing...Comet and Jessops spring to mind...)

----o----

Meanwhile, here's more sobering reading about the Council's spending commitments in other areas: see Alternative SE4's latest post "Lewisham PFI Contract Liabilities of £1.2bn set to blow hole in future budgets".

Housing Matters

The Council's survey on residents' views of Lewisham's housing priorities is now closed. Did you take part? Did you understand the options?

Firstly we were asked to comment on the council's five priorities for improving housing in the borough. What did we think was more important? Improving existing homes? Improving estates? Increasing the supply of affordable housing? Better housing for older people? Or giving residents more control?

The council said they aren't allowed to borrow enough money to do all these things properly. With a lot more money more homes could be built, and provision for older people could be greatly increased. Did we agree they should 'explore options' to do more?

Option One was to continue as is with Lewisham Homes managing our homes.
Option Two would see the Council managing the homes it owns directly.

We were told that with the above options, the Council could borrow enough money to build 250 new homes, continue to bring existing homes up to Decent Homes standard, make limited improvements to security and environments and sheltered housing, and build a flagship extra care unit for older people.

In Option Three the Council sells off its homes ('stock transfer') to a 'resident-led' operation, ie Lewisham Homes becomes a 'Community Gateway' organisation.  
Option Four is to sell off all the property to an existing Housing Association.

With these options, we were told that 600 new homes could be built, existing homes would continue to be brought up to standard, widespread improvements could be made to security and estate environments, all sheltered housing schemes could be made fit-for-purpose and the flagship extra care unit would still be built.

The Housing Matters survey asked us how well we had understood the priorities and options presented. The information was presented in several different ways – as tables, or as tranches of disconnected Q&As – in a series of newsletters. The efforts of the Tenants Participation Advisory Service (TPAS) to explain the options and, in particular, how Housing Finance works, only complicated matters. It's an extremely complex subject, and there was far too much information to digest. Without being housing professionals or accountants, how were we supposed to know what questions to ask?

We don't know, for instance, what other councils are doing. Apparently, some, such as Islington, are taking their housing back in-house, as in Option Two. This might result in a slight decline in services, but may also be around £1.2m cheaper to run. On the other hand, Lewisham Homes might save money by bringing all its services in-house (some are still run by the Council). 

Selling off the stock

The main difference between the first two options and the last two was that more 'affordable homes' could be built and housing for the elderly could be improved more than a little. Obviously we all want this. But it can only happen if the council sells off all its housing.

Options Three & Four represent the end of Council Housing as we know it – in Lewisham at least – although one could say that particular death knell sounded when Thatcher introduced the Right To Buy. (Local authorities had to spend the proceeds of sales to reduce their debt instead of being able to spend it on building new homes, resulting in a massive reduction in council housing stock – over 2m homes in the first two decades of RTB). The Labour government reduced the discount available, but the Tories have just put it back up to 75%. What is the point of building new social housing when tenants still have the Right To Buy? 

Affordable housing has been built as a result of planning agreements between local councils and private developers (Section 106), but these agreements are rarely enforced and delivered, and Boris Johnson ditched Ken Livingstone's 50% affordable target, so that it is now almost 0%. Most new-build properties in London are currently being bought by overseas investors buying-to-let. The government's response to the housing crisis is typically ideological (see Affordable Rents below).

Although Housing Association tenants only have Assured Tenancies, existing Lewisham Homes tenants with Secure Tenancies were told that under Options Three & Four they would not lose their rights in a 'stock transfer' and that rent levels would be protected for five years and then 'stay in accordance with central government's rent formula'. However, a promise by the new landlord not to use certain powers is not the same as the statutory rights ‘secure’ tenants have in law. See this report from a campaign group in Swindon.

Option Four

Option Four may not be the best, despite these promises, and for other reasons too. As it comes nearer to the choice becoming a reality and a bidding war between potential housing associations begins for what will probably be an incredibly cheap sell-off, all sorts of other promises may be made to lure tenants, such as brand new kitchens etc. – which ultimately may not be worth it when you’re faced with eviction. Even if Option Three is preferred, there would need to be the strictest guarantees of tenants rights written into any transfer agreement.

New tenants with housing associations may be subject to the Government’s new 'Affordable Rents' policy, which is part of their “Affordable Homes Programme” (see the Homes & Communities Agency webpage). This allows councils and housing providers "the flexibility to convert a proportion of social rent properties to Affordable Rent at re-let; the additional financial capacity generated must be applied to support delivery of new supply." In other words, they can let out some of their social housing stock at 80% of market value to raise capital to build more housing. Any such social housing provider would also be able to implement a range of 'end of tenancy' options (tenancies could be as little as two years).

Lewisham Council recently voted against the introduction of 'Affordable Rents' and to keep rents at 30-40% of market value. But if our buildings were to be bought by a Housing Association, existing Lewisham Homes tenants with protected rents may find themselves living next door to someone who's paying twice as much rent as themselves.
 
One of the bidders for the Council's housing stock may be L&Q. According to Inside Housing, L&Q have recently reported the largest ever surplus (£95m) generated by a social landlord, and other social landlords such as Affinity Sutton and Orbit Group are also likely to achieve sharp increases in surplus. It has been suggested that service standards might be lower – and rents higher – than they need to be to generate these 'profits', and staff cuts may be on the cards to increase profits still more. The Chief Executive at L&Q earns £218,000. Inside Housing also asked why these organisations are 'stockpiling their cash' – one suggestion is they need a fat surplus to ride out the storm of benefit changes in April 2013 when rents will no longer be paid directly to the landlord.

Option Three
 
If Lewisham Homes residents choose Option Three, they would be able to have more of a say in how their homes were managed. But the current level of "involvement" from residents is around 1%. Most people just want to pay their rent and have their homes suitably maintained in return. Why give up time to get involved on a voluntary basis to work alongside professionals who are being paid?

The example given of a 'resident-led' housing organisation was Phoenix Community Housing, which owns and runs homes in Downham, Whitefoot and Bellingham. When Crossfields TRA met their CEO, Jim Ripley, he pointed out that his organisation works well with around 6,000 properties. At that size it is still possible for him to be familiar with all of the stock and many of the tenants. They operate like a Mutual (like the Co-op) – led by tenants with the interests of the tenants at heart. They currently have a 96% satisfaction rate, apparently.

However, the Housing Matters team has said that any stock transfer would be wholesale and not in parts – over 16,000 council properties in all. Jim suggested a stock transfer of this size may create too big an organisation to function properly as 'resident-led', and it might be better to split into two different organisations. Why not three?

The large number of homes Lewisham Homes is responsible for (along with Regenter B3) might explain why, despite the efforts of the 'Get Involved' team, it has failed to engage its residents more successfully. By contrast, L&Q has 68,000 properties – far too many to manage effectively with a 'tenants first' ethos, but then L&Q isn't 'resident-led'. With Lewisham Council's remit for up to 600 new homes to be built by a new landlord, Option Three needs considerably more thought.

Of course, the same is true of Option Two, with the Council managing in-house. They admit that Customer Services might be the first thing to suffer.

Leaseholders may also wish to know that housing associations charge VAT on their management fee. Just as there needs to be thorough examination of 'assured' tenancy agreements made in any stock transfer, there is an equal need for leaseholders to be protected. Brockley Leaseholders are currently in battle with Lewisham Council over the botched PFI contract that Lewisham negotiated with Regenter B3 to manage their homes, in which they were made liable to pay up to £10K every five years for unnecessary major works, in addition to annual service charges.


Meanwhile, TPAS has published the minutes of the Housing Matters Resident Steering Group (a group of 12 residents from various TRAs) on their dedicated webpage – although November 28th's minutes are not yet available at this time. The minutes of 14th November reflect the difficulty TPAS have had in getting anyone interested in 'Housing Matters' whatsoever, although it also shows that the steering group have learned all the jargon and given a great deal of time and thought to the issues. There is also supposed to be a third newsletter from TPAS to conclude the process. Then there will be TPAS's report which must go before Mayor and Cabinet.

Perhaps the most that might be gleaned from the survey is the answer respondents may have given to the question How satisfied are you with the services you receive from Lewisham Homes? That is the only thing we can truly say we have knowledge and experience of...except of course, how even more awful it could be before they took over in 2007. But maybe it's a case, yet again, of better the devil you know...

Housing Matters update

For those wishing to understand a bit more about the Housing Matters consultation, there are a couple of opportunities on Wednesday this week.

Crossfields TRA have invited the Chief Executive of Phoenix Community Housing, Jim Ripley, to come and speak to us in the evening.

Wednesday 7th November, 7.30pm at the Pink Palace
(Apologies for the short notice).

Phoenix Community Housing is an example of how a "Resident-led" Housing Association (Option 3 in the list of Housing Matters Options) could work. It's a not-for-profit resident-led housing association situated in the Bellingham, Whitefoot and Downham area of Lewisham, made up of properties transferred from the Council in 2007. Read more at their website. Crossfields TRA is not advocating Option 3 as the only future for social housing in Lewisham, this is simply an opportunity for everyone to find out more about Option 3.

Meanwhile, in the morning, the Tenants Participation Advisory Service (TPAS) (who are monitoring the Housing Matters consultation) Council and Lewisham Homes will be holding a drop-in session
Wednesday 7th November, 9.30am-12noon, at The Albany

------------------------------

TPAS will also be knocking on doors in November to explain "the options" and get feedback  – though they've admitted they're not confident about this method since catching people in is difficult. Indeed, due to the increase in bogus callers, many elderly people have been strongly advised not to open their doors to strangers.

If you've got questions about this Housing Matters malarky, you can also call TPAS on Freefone: 0800 731 1619.

TPAS have produced a “Factsheet” of Frequently Asked Questions which you can download at their website. Since it's a bit hard to find on their dedicated page for this consultation we have also made it available to download here.

------------------------------

Representatives from Lewisham Council and TPAS attended the Crossfields TRA meeting on Thursday 25th October.

They apologised for the recent mismanagement of the mail-out to residents in which envelopes had been incorrectly addressed (see our previous post). This had resulted in many residents not opening the envelopes and reading the contents – which was a newsletter produced by TPAS that was intended as a follow-up to the recent newsletter sent out by the council. Apparently this cock-up was not TPAS' fault, but the episode had some people wondering if sabotage was afoot, and others unsurprised by the embarrassing bungle.

Many may still not know about the consultation or understand it. Some mistake it for something to do with the new changes in housing benefit. Some may not be interested because they perceive the invitation to "Have Your Say" as inconsequential since they suspect the Council (or Lewisham Homes for that matter) may have already decided what they will do, regardless of opinion.

Even after going to three poorly attended public meetings and spending many hours reading the literature, this writer is not sure what to think. A 'Finance Session' held by TPAS at the Albany last week (attended by only two people who thought it was a drop-in session when in fact it was a two hour presentation on the intricacies of social housing finance) only served to increase the confusion. TPAS themselves are still examining the financial information the Council has provided them.

Lewisham Council insists that at this time we are not being asked to vote on anything, we are just "having a conversation", suggesting it is not necessary, at this stage, to fully grasp the implications of the potential radical changes proposed in the ‘options’ presented to us. The rather complicated and politically charged issues at the heart of these options have been simplified for our (?) benefit, and even TPAS appear to be glossing over the controversial aspects.

However, if changes are to proceed in a democratic and transparent manner, it should be necessary for residents to be properly balloted (possibly sometime in 2014), so that the Mayor of Lewisham does not make the important decision (to sell off the Council's housing and land, or not) by himself. Nevertheless, we are told the Mayor will be 'drawing conclusions' from the feedback received when this consultation ends on 23rd November.

We will be writing a bit more about it shortly.

Housing Matters - People Don't.

Or at least that is the strong impression given by the latest Lewishambles mailout.  Residents will by now have received a letter from Lewisham Homes with the wrong name on it.  As my address has been used by persons unknown for mail order scams in the past, I simply wrote NOT KNOWN AT THIS ADDRESS - RETURN TO SENDER on the unopened envelope that arrived yesterday and put in straight in the post box.

Some time later this email arrived in my inbox.

Dear Resident,

You may have received the attached newsletter in an incorrectly addressed envelope. 


Please read this newsletter as it contains important information about the future of your home.  We apologise for this clerical error and want to reassure you that your details are held correctly in our systems.

If you would like to discuss this further please contact the Communications team on 0800 028 2 028 or communications@lewishamhomes.org.uk

If you would like to speak to TPAS regarding the Housing Matters consultation process please call 0800 731 1619.

Lewisham Homes
Holbeach Housing Office, 9 Holbeach Road, Catford, London, SE6 4TW T: 0800 028 2 028  F: 020 8613 7659
E: christina.evwierhoma@lewishamhomes.org.uk
www.lewishamhomes.org.uk 

I know other people did not get this email - to be on the email list I think you would have had to have signed up to a ''getting involved'' programme some time ago.  But the advice given is to ignore the name and read the post anyway.  Because, Dear Resident, you or the name on the envelope don't matter, it's the address itself that counts.

Personally, I'm not going to open mail that's not addressed to me and I don't think that it's up to someone I don't know at Lewisham Homes to tell me to either, just to get them off the hook for their organisation's incompetence.  Houses and flats only matter because people live in them. 

As a version of the newsletter was attached to the email in PDF format, which can't be uploaded to the blog (or if it can, I've no idea how to), I wrote to the communications@lewishamhomes.org.uk address and asked them for an address where the newsletter could be found online.  24 hours later I'm thinking I should have addressed my email to incommunicado@lewishamhomes.org.uk for all the good writing did me - still no reply.  Communications? 

Thanks to the blog editor, this newsletter can now be seen HERE

A couple of notes of warning.  It's not in the same format as the mailed version.  Apparently, to read it in order, you have mentally fold it up, starting on the right-hand side of page one and then presumably you descend to the right-hand side of page 2 before returning to where you naively expected to be able to start reading it.

And don't take any notice of the orange box which says

Also call this number for other formats, including Braille,
large print, audio tape, BSL or computer disc.
Email: lewisham@pearllinguistics.com
Typetalk: 18001 020 7253 7700
020 7253 7700

I've spoken to Pearl Linguistics, who it seems were surprised to be getting strange requests from Lewisham residents.  Pearl do the translations, not the Braille, large print, audio tape, BSL or computer disk versions.  For these versions you'll need this number:

Freephone: 0800 731 1619

So, wrongly addressed letters, incorrect information, instructions to read other people's mail, a non-communicating communications department.  Not a bad day's work, eh?

UPDATE 24 Oct 2012:
1) The communications addressees still haven't deigned to communicate.
2) Someone at Lewisham has obviously seen this post because the blog received this message (I've left the name of the sender out to spare embarrassment):

Hi Crosswhatfields!

I know you’ve posted some items about the Housing Matters consultation. Do you want to post this? I’ve added a direct link to the consultation portal on our website in case you want to use it…

http://lblweb-staging.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/influence/Pages/Consultations.aspx

However, don't try to use this link, which doesn't work.  It was recalled shortly afterwards and replaced with this:

Your views matter. To access the Housing Matters consultation go to www.lewisham.gov.uk/consulations and click on ‘see all Council consultations’. The survey is open until 5pm on 30 November. While anyone can fill in the survey we are particularly keen to get the views of Lewisham Council/Lewisham Homes tenants and leaseholders and those who would like to be social tenants.

Not that the link will get you anywhere.  The spelling of consultation should give you a clue as to why not.

So, after misaddressing the newsletter to who knows how many Lewisham tenants, they've now given us not one but two incorrect links.

I think it's time to consider whether there is active sabotage going on here.

'Housing Matters' at TRA meeting: Thursday 25 October 7.30pm

TRA Chair Tim Wilson writes:

The next Crossfields Tenants and Resident Association's meeting will be at 7.30pm this coming Thursday 25th October in the Pink Palace.

You will recently have received 'Housing Matters', a newsletter from Lewisham council. Within this newsletter are different options for how council housing will be managed in the future. At the meeting on Thursday, someone from Lewisham Homes will be there to explain these different options and answer any questions, so come along if you are interested in finding out more.

And let me know if there is anything else you would like discussed at the meeting, and I will add to the agenda. (Email the TRA here)

Also, this is advance notice that the TRA meeting the month after on Thursday 22nd November will be the Annual General Meeting, where we will elect people for the following year. Let me know if you would be interested in standing for a position (chair, treasurer, secretary, etc) and I will give you the full list of positions and more details of what's involved. There is free training available through Lewisham Homes, for example book-keeping if you're interested in being the Treasurer.