Camden New Journal - Letters to the Editor: Homes leaflet and questionnaire badly flawed

Publications by New Journal Enterprises

Home

Archive

Competition

Camden New Journal - Letters to the Editor
Published: 8 November 2007

Homes leaflet and questionnaire badly flawed

• THE Investing In Homes leaflet and questionnaire, mentioned in Camden Council’s advertisement (November 1), are badly flawed.
The leaflet is misleading and the questionnaire an utterly inadequate vehicle for tenants and leaseholders to express their wishes.
The council have learned from the arms-length management organisation campaign (77 per cent voted no) that they cannot get away with not putting forward disadvantages as well as advantages involved in PFI, Almos and stock transfer.
However, this change is largely cosmetic, with the council inflating the advantages and minimising the disadvantages.
No mention is made of the fact that PFI contractors can and do frequently present the taxpayer with an ultimatum, increase the terms of the contract to give us more money or we will walk away.
No mention is made of the fact that divided responsibilities arise whereby the PFI contractor has control of, for example, buildings and the council responsibility for the administration on tenancies.
No mention is made of the practical difficulties of returning an Almo to council control, for example staff transfer and the responsibility for any debts incurred.
No mention is made of the fact that Almos are limited companies with boards of directors who are bound by company law. This means that the directors have to put the requirement of company law first before the interest of the tenants and leaseholders.
No mention is made of the fact that political responsibility for council housing will end under an Almo.
No mention is made of the fact that the boards of housing associations have a record of excluding “difficult” tenants elected to them.
No mention is made of the fact that HA tenants frequently complain of poor management and maintenance.
No mention is made of the fact that once out of council control the dangers of being sold to a private contractor are greater.
The questionnaire omits these vital questions:
1. Do you want the council to sell off council houses?
2. Are the prices paid to contractors doing renovation too high?
3. Do you think that the council could do any absolutely necessary work, (work to keep the council homes fit for living in) within the money they already have?
The other objection I have is to the inept nature of the questions. For example: Do you agree that the council should spend more money on repairing your home?
That is a loaded question.
The questionnaire should contain only neutral questions.
The present questionnaire should be scrapped and tenants and leaseholders be sent (1) a new questionnaire containing the omitted questions and (2) fresh written information about the advantages and disadvantages of PFI, Almos and stock transfer.
I advise any tenant or leaseholder with a copy of the questionnaire to return it uncompleted with the words “NO TO COUNCIL SALES” written across it. That will register a protest without giving the council any data to present as “the wishes of the tenants and leaseholders”.
Robert Henderson
Chalton Street, NW1

Send your letters to: The Letters Editor, Camden New Journal, 40 Camden Road, London, NW1 9DR or email to letters@camdennewjournal.co.uk. The deadline for letters is midday Tuesday. The editor regrets that anonymous letters cannot be published, although names and addresses can be withheld. Please include a full name, postal address and telephone number. Letters may be edited for reasons of space.

Comment on this article.
(You must supply your full name and email address for your comment to be published)

Name:

Email:

Comment: