Memorandum by the London Tenants Federation
(DEC 52)
The London Tenants Federation brings together
independent borough wide tenant and leaseholder federations and
organisations across London. The LTF welcomes this inquiry and
the opportunity to contribute to it. As a tenant organisation,
part of our remit is to argue for good tenant consultation and
participation on all issues relating to our homes and communities.
Our view is that government is failing tenants on this issue,
in relation to the debate on "decent homes".
1. THE DEFINITION
OF "DECENT"
Tenants have not been properly consulted on
the definition of "decent". Issues that are of high
priority or of higher priority for London tenants, than those
included in the government definition are absent. Estate security,
sound insulation, good community and play spaces are all issues
that are raised frequently at tenant meetings across London and
are generally defined to be of greater importance than "new
kitchens and bathrooms" for the majority of tenants.
2. THE SCALE
OF THE
PROBLEM
The percentage of defined non-decent homes in
London is huge and displays the need for real investment in our
homes. Many council tenants live in substandard housing, suffering
the legacy of decades of under-investment by Governments and of
desperate responses to these policies by councils. We have seen
our homes used as a political football. The majority of housing
investment, itself only half the level spent in other European
countries goes to pay service debt and patch up dilapidated stock.
Under investment in our homes, has frequently been compounded
by closures and sell-offs of the very things that help to sustain
our communities—amenities such as schools, community centres,
play spaces and libraries.
The London Tenants Federation is extremely concerned
about the restricted financial options available for dealing with
the problems—detailed in point 3 and 4.
We also believe that the governments proposed
changes to management and maintenance allowances would work contrary
to the governments stated intentions around decent homes. It will
financially disadvantage inner London boroughs, which are also
for the most part the boroughs with the greatest percentage of
non-decent homes. We believe this will have huge impact on the
ability of London local authorities to maintain homes at a decent
standard.
3. THE VARIOUS
MECHANISMS FOR
FUNDING AND
DELIVERY—STOCK
TRANSFER, PFI, ARMS
LENGTH MANAGEMENT
ORGANISATIONS AND
COUNCIL HOUSING
The London Tenants Federation is concerned that
actual and proposed changes in government housing policy appears
to be about fudging the differences between council and RSL housing—notably
in rent restructuring and the proposed single tenancy agreement.
We suspect that the government agenda here is simply about getting
rid of council housing. The announcement in the Communities Plan
that local authorities will only be able to use the three options
above, to access additional finance, to bring our homes to a decent
standard, has reinforced this suspicion.
The London Tenants Federation (LTF) believes
that to ensure all our homes are at a decent standard by 2010
and also that to achieve sufficient dwellings to accommodate the
needs of affordable housing in London, government must invest
positively in council housing. We believe that this should involve
local authorities being able to build new housing as well as bringing
empty homes in both the public and private sector into use as
council dwellings.
Positive investment in council homes would in
the long-term be beneficial to issues high on the government agenda—social
exclusion, our health and our children's educational achievements—issues
that are exacerbated by existing hidden overcrowding and homelessness.
It would give tenants a genuine choice, as the majority of tenants
want, to have decent homes and to remain as council tenants.
4. THE ROLE
OF TENANT
CHOICE
Far from considering positive investment in
council homes the governments options for extra investment are
reduced to stock transfer, PFI or ALMOs. It seems that its public
position is now of coercion rather than choice. The position has
created divisions amongst tenants. At borough level it appears
that some councils, perhaps fearing the outcome of genuine debate
with tenants, have simply pushed through their choices using undemocratic
methods. In other boroughs, tenants have reached the decision
that ALMOs are the least objectionable of the three options, but
many feel that their decision is far from one of choice.
Following Hammersmith and Fulham Housing Commission's
request that high performing council's should be entitled to receive
the same investment allowance and freedoms as high performing
arms length management organisations, the London Tenants Federation
expressed its opinion on the three options in an open letter to
the Deputy Prime Minister. The letter was supported by 16 borough
wide tenant and leaseholder organisations in London—representing
tenants and leaseholders of more than half of London's boroughs
that still have council stock. We believe that it represent the
views of the majority of London's tenants and leaseholders. The
letter contained the following:
"The London Tenants Federation believes
that housing management structures should be the outcome of decisions
made by tenants and their local authorities about what works best.
For some this may be Arms Length Management. However our view
is that such decisions should be prompted neither by financial
need nor the existence of preferential funding arrangements. Whatever
structures are chosen, tenants must all be treated with equality.
Funding arrangements should therefore be the same for all.
Through the Communities Plan, the government
has made it clear that the only financial options open to local
authorities unable to reach the decent homes target are stock
transfer, PFI or Arms Length Management Organisations. We believe
that tenants right to a decent home should not be bound by financial
constraints that effectively remove their choice to remain under
direct management of their local authorities.
We believe that this crucial element of choice
should be retained and ask that you reconsider this policy. We
ask that councils be allowed the option of borrowing prudentially
against their housing income, whilst their housing remains under
direct management, should this be the clear will of tenants and
their local authorities."
The London Tenants Federation feels that the
government has yet to demonstrate that it is taking the views
of tenants seriously.
5. THE LINK
BETWEEN THE
DECENT HOMES
TARGET AND
THE OTHER
PARTS OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
AGENDA
The London Tenants Federation believes that
tenants must be more involved in the debate about "sustainable
communities". We fear that the new regional structures represent
a centralised government led agenda and that involvement in decision
making by tenants will be even further removed. In relation to
this year's London Housing Strategy LTF representatives have expressed
concern that there has been little opportunity to engage, other
than within a pre set government agenda.
In London, issues high on tenants' agenda are—a
desire for direct investment in council housing, fears that "high
density" simply means smaller homes with little or no outside
space, that the sustainability of our communities is undermined
as we lose vital amenities—community centres, schools, play
spaces and libraries to development and that in London's high
property value areas tenants feel they are being "socially
engineered" out. Many of these concerns are perhaps at odds
with the government's regional agenda.
Tenants have valuable contributions to make
in relation to our existing homes and communities and indeed the
debate about new developments. Listening to tenants is not just
democratic "good practice"; it taps in to a valuable
source of knowledge without which the grandest designs often fail.
Tenant activists are generally committed people with a deeper
understanding of the needs of their communities than professionals
who, however professional, remain outsiders. We certainly have
first hand experience of the mistakes made by politicians and
professionals in the past.
In conclusion, the London Tenants Federation
believes that tenants must be involved in the debate about standards
of "decency" in relation to both existing and new homes.
There must be an extension of proper debate to tenants in relation
to density, security, standards of flat sizes, construction, sound
insulation, play areas, communal and public spaces. Tenants demand
for positive investment in council housing must be included on
the agenda. We fear that if our views are not heard, the mistakes
of the past will undoubtedly be repeated.
| 
