residents' questions to the board

We encourage questions to our Board members. If you have a general question for the Board or a Committee, you should send this to us at least two working days before the meeting as verbal questions are not allowed in the meeting.

Questions should be submitted in writing to:

Board Questions
6th Floor
225 High Road
River Park House
Wood Green
N22 8HQ

Tel: 020 8489 1737

E-mail:governance.team@homesforharingey.org

We have had some interesting questions so far. Below are the queries that have been raised in the past and their responses:

Board Meeting on the 24th May 2006

Questions were presented from Mr Paul Burnham:-

1. Homes for Haringey have joined the National Federation of ALMOs.
2. The National Federation of ALMOs is calling for Options for the future to include ALMOs:
3. Taking control of our rent and service charge accounts
4. Withdrawing from the national Council Housing subsidy system
5. Being opened up exclusively to private finance
6. Moving to majority private-sector ownership;

Will the Board, in line with the Resolution passed by the Residents Consultative Forum on 1st February 2006:

1. Publicly oppose these proposals within the National Federation of ALMOs?
2. Communicate its opposition to these proposals, in writing, to all tenants and leaseholders in the borough?”

The Chairs Reply:

The Homes for Haringey Board has noted the contents and conclusions of the National Federation of ALMOs report “ALMOs - a new Future for Council Housing”.

The report focuses on national policy and changes being considered by the Government to give ALMOs wider power to borrow money and extend their services.  

The Board has further noted that all of the options keep council tenants as secure tenants of the council and the council will continue to own the housing stock.  

None of the options have been considered by Haringey Council, which has set up Homes for Haringey on a five year initial contract in accordance with the proposal approved by tenants.

After five years Haringey Council is committed to conducting a review, in consultation with tenants, which will also include the options of keeping the existing arrangement (which is viable in the long term) or returning the management function to the Council.  

The Board noted that the future of the ALMO was a question to be decided by the Council.

Back to top

---

Board meeting on the 13th June 2006

Question 1. What are the consequences for Homes for Haringey if it does not receive 2 stars in the full ALMO inspection due in April 2007?

Answer: If Homes for Haringey fails to improve its standards of service to tenants and leaseholders to at least the ‘2 star’ standard by the inspection in April 2007, then it will not be able to access the money required to bring homes up to the ‘Decent Homes’ standard. Homes for Haringey would then have to improve its quality of service until the Housing Inspectorate are satisfied that it meets the ‘2 star’ standard, before it can access the money needed.

Question 2. Will increased borrowing raise rents?

Answer: No. The government’s housing subsidy system sets rents (by a formula) to balance rent income against government approved costs. If approved costs rise, such as borrowing more money for Decent Homes, then government subsidy will rise, not rents.

Question 3. Will the Board only borrow as much money as they need to bring homes up to a decent standard, or will they borrow as much as they can?

Answer: Technically, the Council will borrow the money: Homes for Haringey is only the Council’s managing agent. The Council has set a desired standard for tenants’ homes (the Haringey Standard) which is slightly higher than the government’s Decent Homes standard. The Council would need to borrow enough money to meet the additional standard, if it could afford to do so. Any such additional borrowing would not increase rents, because rents are set by government formula.

The government’s Decent Homes standard does not cover improvements to the common parts of estates – often the parts that need the most improvement. The Council, together with Homes for Haringey, will have to find ways of funding these improvements.

Question 4. Why is there a target of 97.8% for rents to be collected, when most companies operate on a much larger loss margin?

Answer: It is true that commercial companies accept a much higher level of bad debts than public sector bodies such as Councils.

In the public sector, everyone, from the government to the Audit Commission (which includes the Housing Inspectorate), assumes that 100% of debt owing to the public sector is collectable, except for very limited exceptions.

The Council, and Homes for Haringey, must demonstrate that it is doing everything possible to minimise failure to pay rent, if it is to achieve the ‘2 star’ standard.

Homes for Haringey will seek to collect all debt owing to it, whether from tenants, leaseholders, or commercial firms. However, it will collect debt on a ‘firm but fair’ basis, ensuring that debtors get decent advice on their problems, and only evicting non-payers who refuse to accept advice.

Question 5. Are Board members and the companies they work for permanently excluded from tendering for Homes for Haringey contracts? If not, why not?

Answer: The constitution of Homes for Haringey states that a Board Member may not have any financial interest personally, as a member of a firm, in any contract or other transaction of the Organisation.

Members of the Board are required to declare any interests that they might have.  

Back to top

---

Board Meeting on the 11th July 2006

Q1: According to the Audit Commission value for money will be achieved by economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Where within this framework will the social cost be determined and quantified?

Social cost would include things such as the caretaker who does that little bit extra for a pensioner living alone or a disabled person. The concierge who spends time with possible unruly youths in an attempt to give them some positive guidance.  A housing manager that cares about an estate and what happens to it.

Answer: The Audit Commission itself recognises that value for money is more than just obtaining services for the cheapest price.  

The Audit Commission’s own guidance states that “We will judge value for money primarily from the perspective of service users”, and that “Costs alone do not reflect value. Local context and quality of service are important and need to be taken into account in arriving at value for money judgements.”

The examples given in the question are more about the social value of our services, rather than their cost. They are good examples of staff ‘going the extra mile’, and doing much more than just the bare minimum.

Question 2: Since the inception of the ALMOs, how many have succeeded? How many have failed? If they have failed, what has happened to the housing stock?

Answer: It is important to remember that ALMOs do not own tenants’ homes. Tenants’ homes remain owned by the Council. If an ALMO were to fail, tenants’ homes would be safe, and would continue to be owned by the Council.

No ALMO has ‘failed’ in the sense implied by the question.

The ALMO programme has so far been successful in improving services to tenants and leaseholders. In the first 3 rounds of ALMOs  34 out of 36 achieved 2 stars or above, in round 4, 9 out of 12 have achieved 2 stars or above, and the only ALMO inspected so far in round 5 achieved 3 stars.

ALMOs in rounds 1 and 2 are now completing their Decent Homes programmes.

However, there is the possibility of an ALMO failing in some way. The main risks are:

1. An ALMO could fail to get the required 2 stars, and would not be allocated the money for the ‘Decent Homes’ programme. The ALMO would then have to improve the quality of its services, and reapply. In the first 3 rounds, 4 ALMOs only achieved 2 stars at their second attempt. In round 4, one ALMO received zero stars, and 2 others only achieved 1 star.
2. An ALMO could under estimate the amount of money required to achieve the ‘Decent Homes’ standard, and bid too low. This appears to have happened in one case.
3. An ALMO could overspend on the building contracts for ‘Decent Homes’. Because the allocation of money is fixed, the ALMO would have to cut back, and would not be able to bring all homes up to the standard.
4. An ALMO could spend more than its income. If it carried on doing this, and took no action to make savings, it would go into liquidation. The Council would then own a bankrupt company, but tenants’ homes would be safe, because they are owned directly by the Council, and not by the ALMO.

Back to top

---