Memorandum from the London Borough of
Camden (DEC 65)
SUMMARY
This memorandum is submitted following the ballot
on Camden's proposed ALMO where tenants and leaseholders voted
decisively against the formation of an ALMO. It includes details
of why Camden selected an ALMO as its preferred option, the consultation
process and the implications for Camden's tenants of the decent
homes funding not being now available.
Camden Council urges the Select Committee to
consider how the decent homes standard can be met for those Authorities
where tenants clearly choose to retain direct services from the
Council.
TENANTS CHOICE
1. The terms of reference for this Select
Committee's enquiry state clearly that the ODPM has a Public Service
Agreement to:
"By 2010, bring all social housing into
decent condition with most of this improvement taking place in
deprived areas, and increase the proportion of private housing
in decent condition occupied by vulnerable groups."
2. By presenting those Authorities who can
not meet the standard through existing resources with three options
(Stock transfer, PFI and ALMOs), and by quite rightly retaining
a requirement to consult and seek tenant approval for the preferred
option, there has always been a risk that the above target could
be jeopardised if tenants were to reject all or any of the three
options—either by delaying the commencement of investment
programmes or rendering them unfundable.
3. The Select Committee will be aware of
the result of Camden's ballot on the ALMO proposal where our tenants
and leaseholders have voted decisively against it—77% against
compared with 23% in favour.
4. This result was delayed because the Council's
consultation and ballot was subject to a Judicial Review in which
the central challenge to the Council was that its consultation
process was so well resourced and persuasive that it was both
unfair and unlawful. Justice Munby's judgement unequivocally concludes
that Camden's consultation and ballot was lawful, balanced and
thorough.
5. A further issue raised during
the litigation was whether Camden had complied with ODPM guidelines—again
Judge Munby ruled clearly that it did. Overall the judgement shows
Camden's consultation, in Justice Munby's words to be "more
than adequate".
6. The position this leaves Camden and its
tenants and leaseholders in is this:
We have consistently and successfully responded to
the Government's overall approach to raising standards of housing
services, the quality of our accommodation and the wider issues
on our estates such as dealing with anti-social behaviour. We
have done this through various strategies and programmes: as a
Best Value pilot we overhauled our housing services and achieved
three star ratings from the independent Audit Commission for both
our housing management services and the delivery of our capital
programme; we participated as a pilot authority on the PSA of
which the decent homes target formed a part; as a strategic housing
authority we meet the ODPM's requirements of a Council that is
"fit for purpose" and enjoy Beacon status for several
services. As an excellent Council overall Camden is also eligible
for freedoms and flexibilities.
Our rating as a three star Authority for the
delivery of our capital programme is of particular significance.
We have an annual spending programme of around £65 million
which is on target and as part of our development for the ALMO
had built up considerable momentum in preparing to spend the additional
ALMO funding, had our tenants approved that route. We were well
advanced in our preparation for setting up partnering contracts
and the rejection of the ALMO leaves us no less prepared to spend
the money and enable us to meeting the decent homes standard.
7. We followed ODPM guidance on the option
appraisal for the Decent Homes target. A combination of experience
(we completed one small stock transfer and piloted PFI on two
pathfinder projects), financial and technical assessment and thorough
consultation the Council concluded that of the options available
to it the ALMO was the most appropriate
8. Before preparing a round three ALMO bid,
we asked the then Housing Minister, Lord Rooker and more recently
his successor, Keith Hill to consider a more direct option through
which Camden could secure the same resources without having to
go through the whole ALMO process. This was not made available.
9. On learning that our bid for £283
million had been successful last summer we stepped up our consultation
and set a timetable for a ballot. The overall consensus was that
a full ballot was the only way we could properly establish the
ODPM requirement of "the support of a majority of tenants".
Following the result of the ballot and the Council's decision
to withdraw from the ALMO programme, the Council is now £283
million short of what it needs to achieve the target.
10. Most importantly none of this in depth
and costly process has shown Camden's tenants to be any less needy
of improvements to their homes, a better environment and improved
community safety. Neither does it show that Camden is anything
less than well-equipped to deliver these improvements if it had
the funds to do so. Indeed the ballot result reflects a high level
of confidence in the quality of the Council as a landlord and
service provider.
11. Other recent changes that the ODPM has
made to the housing subsidy regime and capital allocations will
compound the shortfall.
12. In short we feel it is important that
the Select Committee is aware that Camden has followed the rules
and policies laid down by ministers, we have put a positive ALMO
proposal to tenants and it has been clearly rejected in a robust
and democratic process. None of the other options are viable for
Camden and as things stand resources will not only fall way short
of decent homes they will result in a declining investment programme.
13. Camden's experience demonstrates that
we believe we still share the same overall objectives as the Government
as set out in the ODPM's PSA but clearly we have a problem to
resolve on the means to achieve them.
14. We note from both the oral and written
submissions already placed before the Select Committee that we
are not alone in encouraging the Committee to consider whether
the current options are too restrictive.
15. Ultimately this issue is about bringing
tenants' homes up to the decent standard whilst giving tenants
choice over how and who manages their homes. This investment is
also part of wider strategies to tackle crime, anti-social behaviour,
poor health, social exclusion and so communities are likely to
suffer in addition to individual tenants. Camden Tenants have
demonstrated unequivocally that they wish to continue having their
homes managed directly by the Council. To deny them the right
to have their homes brought up to a decent standard because they
have exercised their choice and rejected the ALMO option would
be deeply unfair.
16. Yvette Cooper, an ODPM minister, recently
in the House stated, with regard to stock transfer, that "the
matter is up to a vote of local tenants, and that is as it should
be. Local tenants should have the vote. Local tenants should have
the say in what they think should happen to their local social
housing because we must ensure that social housing is provided
in the best interests of those tenants". Why should this
possibly be any different with regard to an ALMO? Especially when
Camden's housing department has been shown to deliver high quality
services?
17. Camden Council therefore urges the Select
Committee to consider how the decent homes standard can be met
for those Authorities where tenants clearly choose to retain direct
services from the Council and where that Council has demonstrated
it ability to deliver responsive, good value services as is the
case with Camden.
| 
