|
|
 |
| |
Inspectors ask how £100,000 grant is spent
GOVERNMENT inspectors have criticised a tenants’ body for failing to account for how it spends its money.
The Audit Commission, the watchdog which ensures value for money in local government, says the Federation of Islington Tenants Associations (FITA) is “not clear” about the service it provides.
The row centres on a £100,000 annual grant to FITA from Homes for Islington (HfI), the company which controls the borough’s housing stock.
A draft report by the Audit Commission, published in January and which was commissioned by HfI, states: “HfI gives FITA a grant of £100,000 each year but does not know what FITA spends its money on.”
The inspectors criticise FITA,which represents about 100 tenants’ and residents’ associations (TRAs), for failing to liaise properly with HfI.
The report adds: “The role of administration of TRAs and development of new TRAs is blurred between FITA and HfI staff.
“Senior managers feel it ‘remains to be seen’ if FITA provides value for money.”
FITA chairman Brian Potter said: “It’s absolute rubbish. Everything we do is open and we are constantly out on the estates all the time gauging opinion.”
The inspectors criticised HfI for failing to ensure enough black and ethnic minority people are represented on its management boards.
The report states: “HfI is not monitoring and promoting diversity adequately in resident involvement structures. HfI does not know if area panels, forums and TRAs are representative of the residents they represent. HfI cannot take appropriate action as it does not know the scale of the problem if there is one.”
A HfI spokesman said: “HfI invited the Audit Commission in to give us an independent assessment of our services. They met staff, management, partner organisations and residents and carried out a full inspection.
“This has been a productive experience for us and HfI has accepted the report, its conclusions and recommendations.
“We are negotiating a new agreement with FITA and we will take the assessment and conclusions of the Audit Commission on board.” |
 |
| |
|
|
|
