Kingsholm Tenants Consultative Committee, Gloucester

REPORT AS REQUESTED BY THE SOUTH WEST OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS ON THE VIEW OF KINGSHOLM TCC ON THE TMO DEVELOPMENT AND THE ATTITUDE OF GLOUCESTER CITY COUNCIL.

- September 1997

April 1994

Following the estate vote to go into development (arranged prior to the new regulations that came into effect on April 1 1994, but conducted after April 1), City Housing Officer, Paul J. Smith, told us that he was concerned at the phrasing of the questions on the ballot paper. However, at a meeting earlier in the year with him, the phrasing was agreed.

The ballot, which was run by English Churches Housing Group and the City Council’s solicitor’s department, was conducted on the then rules that "abstentions" were to be counted as "no" votes. In other words, to proceed into development more than 50 per cent of those eligible to vote would have to vote in favour of proceeding into development.

There were two questions, giving tenants and leasehold tenants effectively an either/or choice. The first question was to "Develop The Tenants Consultative Committee" which received 72 votes. The other question was to "Develop an Estate Management Board" and this received 181 votes. There were 293 possible votes, needing 147 votes in favour of the EMB to proceed into development. The ballot was undertaken with the delivery of ballot papers and an envelope, with collection a few days later and the option of residents placing their ballot papers in a proper ballot box (the same as used at elections) lent by the city Solicitor. It was a secret ballot in line with the Council’s wishes.

The Tenants Consultative Committee campaigned in favour of EMB development and there was evidence of the Housing Department campaigning against EMB development.

Following the vote, a decision was made to start development in September, giving TCC members a few months "off" before the concentrated development process started.

May 1994

It came to the attention of the Tenants committee that a caretaker was making derogatory remarks to residents about the way that the vote was conducted. This prompted a letter to the city housing Officer as follows:

26 May 1994

I have been asked by members of the committee to bring to your attention the fact the I was approached by a caretaker on the Kingsholm estate who, I believe, is the Unison shop steward for caretakers.

His remarks to me were to the effect that "my members are not happy with the vote...some of the ballot papers were not in envelopes...and the ballot box was not locked, only sealed".

I did suggest that:

1. The City Secretary and Solicitor was in charge of the count;

2. There was no complaint regarding the few ballot papers not in envelopes from the two officials Mr. Cook delegated to supervise the count;

3. The ballot boxes were those used in elections and were in fact secured by a seal so the officer in charge of the count could tell if the boxes had been tampered with - which he did not;

4. Councillor Mrs. Mary Gould was present at the count and she accepted the vote;

5. While he was, as a resident of the estate, entitled to query the ballot, it was nothing to do with his union or its members;

6. If the union had any complaints, they should address them to their employer and not the TCC.

Members of the committee feel very strongly that there should be such insinuations well after the count which could been seen to reflect on the integrity not only of Kingsholm TCC but also of the City Secretary and Solicitor's department.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Harley

Chairman

January 1995

Tony Lowry and Norman Thomas attending a "development" meeting. It was at this meeting that we realised that the Housing Department wanted us to "give up" development. There were a lot of obstacles put in our way. There was a look of disbelief on the face of Tony McBarron, our advice agency worker from English Churches Housing Group for most of the meeting when Mr. Thomas was putting the points of the City Council.

The following is the text of a letter written on January 30, 1995 to Norman Thomas in the wake of remarks made by him at the meeting (note, the text has been italicised but the bold emphasis is from the original):

Dear Norman

I am writing to confirm what I said at our TMO Development Group meeting on Thursday afternoon (January 26). We are in no position to let you know how our Tenant Management Organisation will be managed, if the vote of the residents is in the affirmative when this takes place a year or more into the future.

Additionally, we have no idea at this stage which aspects of estate management we will be seeking to undertake.

As you know, the TMO Development Group has not even started the negotiation stage with the Gloucester City Council on the Modular Management Agreement, let alone gone into talks on the allowances. Therefore it is absolutely impossible to let you have at this stage the details that you asked for at the meeting.

I would, again, like to correct a piece of TMO mythology that is all too prevalent these days. We have no intention of undertaking the management ourselves, and therefore do not need to have Institute of Housing "letters" after our names. We realised in the early stages considering a TMO (even before going into feasibility stage) that we would be employing a housing professional or professionals to do the actual work. You have heard me say on a number of occasions that the "committee" of a TMO is very much like Councillors serving on the old Housing Management Sub-Committee. The only difference is that members of the TMO are required to undergo training to reach a certain level of "competence", whereas there is no such scheme (or requirement) for elected Councillors.

The question of staffing of our TMO cannot be decided until the negotiations of the Management Agreement have been completed - and the calculation of the allowances have been made and agreed. Therefore it is totally impossible to give you any indication of whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply. This is a matter for negotiation in the future, as I indicated at the meeting. However, I do refer you to our considered opinion of last September and I quote from a letter to the Housing Department of October 28 which followed your "CCT Explained" talk on October 12.

"While we are unable to commit ourselves at this stage to anything, it is the unanimously agreed policy of Kingsholm TCC that if the TMO does come to fruition, then any staff that the TMO requires will be recruited from existing staff of ALL grades who work at the Fountain Square office. In addition, it is our intention that pay, pensions and conditions etc. will NOT be diminished in any way."

The spirit of this decision does, of course, mean that Kingsholm caretakers are included. However, I do underline the word "existing" - and I repeat that this means staff working at Fountain Square office at the end of September 1994, when we made this commitment. It does not mean any staff working for the Housing Department as we feel that staff working for the TMO have to be staff that the TMO wants and not staff that might be imposed on us.

We fully appreciate that you are writing the contract specification for Housing Management Compulsory Competitive Tendering. If you do not know what to include in the "break clauses" that have to be included to take into account the "Right To Manage" legislation, as you stated at the meeting, then I repeat my suggestion that you contact other local authorities and ask them how they are doing it, or take advice from the Association of District Councils.

Frankly, we do not think that because Kingsholm might (or might not) become a TMO, the contract specification will open up a potentially expensive contract modification process. The Kingsholm estate is some five per cent of the total housing stock. To suggest that Kingsholm going down the TMO road could be the cause of possible financial sanctions imposed by the contractor on the Housing Department and its tenants was completely out of order and, we suggest, designed to put tenant against tenant.

Frankly, we are very disturbed that you are putting us under pressure in this way, especially as you prefaced your remarks with words to the effect that: a) The City Council supports developing Tenant Management Organisations; and b) The City Council respects that tenants must move at their own pace. The approach that you took at the meeting could easily have meant that some members might have lost some confidence.

After last Thursday afternoon, we seriously question both statements that you made.

The questions that you raised of "conflicts of interests" between four Kingsholm residents present at the meeting and their work on either the TCC/Development Group or the Housing Management Compulsory Competitive Tendering Contract Working Party were simply uncalled for. The two sheltered housing wardens who serve on the TCC are a valuable asset. They are the first to recognise that there could be times when a conflict of interest does arise. I feel that they would themselves recognise when it arose. Additionally, we, as a committee, would not want to see these two valuable members compromised by any potential conflict where they were asked to possibly compromise any loyalties.

Your question as to the conflict of interests of Phil Mayo and myself as being members of the HMCCT Contract Working Party is very curious. Phil Mayo attends as the leaseholder representative and I attend as a tenant representative. Because we are developing a Tenant Management Organisation does not preclude us from taking a full part in tenant participation. If the vote of Kingsholm residents at the end of the TMO development stage is to go ahead and manage our estate - and again I emphasise that we are currently a long way from the vote, then the position might change, depending on the level of management "duties" the TMO takes on.

If representatives from Kingsholm are to be precluded from the tenant participation process of HMCCT and our TMO vote is to stay with the management of our estate in the hands of the contractor, then the 300-plus homes on the estate would have been completely left out of the process.

The Kingsholm estate has been one of the most consistent of all estates in Gloucester in playing its role in tenant participation over the years. It would be hard to find an occasion when, for instance, Kingsholm has not been represented at a Tenants Forum - or even a Tenants Federation meeting, which is more than can be said for most other estates and "tenant groups".

If our developing Tenant Management Organisation was going to be one of the possible bidders for the City’s housing management contract, we could fully understand you concerns. But we are not.

Your concerns on our training, our training requirements and whether or not we fully realise what is in store could be better addressed by asking some "independent" person who has attended most of our training meetings - Councillor Mrs. Mary Gould. Had you informed us prior to the meeting as to the questions that you raised, then we could have prepared our answers. For your information, in the DoE book "Learning To Manage" there is at Appendix 2 (page 53) lists of skills and knowledge requirements for those who serve on a TMO. In our group, we are all aware of these aspects. I am sure that you will agree that this answers your question raised by reading a paragraph from the more basic "Preparing To Manage".

To come to OUR meeting with YOUR agenda (and arguments worked out with a colleague) with what we perceive to be an intention of putting us on the spot is, frankly, not in the spirit of true tenant participation and casts some very serious doubt on the true commitment of the Gloucester City Council towards its policy on not only tenant involvement generally, but also more specifically to Tenant Management Organisations.

Perhaps, in future, if you wish to raise matters when attending one of our meetings, you can let me know in writing beforehand. If there is time, then we can discuss it. These meetings are OURS and are for training purposes. The meeting on Thursday was to plan our training for the next three or more months.

Had we known about your worries, then we could have got some facts together and discussed them rationally. But you chose to wave the book "Preparing To Manage" quoting from it and not even mentioning the page/paragraph number so that I could look up full context of your "sound bite" from the copy that I have.

I cannot begin to tell you of the feelings of all those who attending the meeting on Thursday towards the way that the Housing Department conducted itself.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Harley

Chairman

In addition, the following letter was sent to the City Housing Officer, also on January 31:

Dear Paul,

Rent Levels - Kingsholm

Tony Lowry said at a meeting last week that he and Norman Thomas attended with the TCC/TMO Development Group that as we were not able to let him know at this stage which aspects of management we would be taking over he would have difficulty in producing the HMCCT contract specification.

He further insinuated that because of this, if the estate voted "no" to a TMO, then this might mean a local rent increase as the contractor would want financial recompense for a contract variation.

We would like written assurance from you that neither the Kingsholm Tenants Consultative Committee nor the Kingsholm Tenants Management Organisation Development Group will be held responsible for any local rent increase brought about by the failure of the "client" side and their legal advisors to fully address the question of tenants’ "Right To Manage" (whether developing TMOs or future TMOs that are not yet in an embryonic stage) within the contract specification.

We were both distressed and angry at the way that your two senior officers conducted themselves at this meeting. Because of this, we seriously question the spirit of the City Council’s policy towards Tenant Participation, let alone the letter of the policy.

Therefore we would be grateful if you could let us know exactly what is the policy of the Gloucester City Council towards both Tenant Participation and towards tenant groups who exercise their Right To Manage.

I have written a long letter to Norman Thomas on our views of the meeting, a copy of which is attached. We find it most unreasonable that we should be asked, without prior notice, for information on matters that have not yet been addressed by the Group and pressure being put on us to make hasty - and improper - decisions. And for your officers to hint that because we are seriously exploring something that is our legal right then our rents might be increased is scurrilous, to say the least.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Harley

Chairman

Copies: Cllrs. Jon Holmes, Mary Gould, Elizabeth Orr.

January 1995

First draft of proposed Industrial and Provident Society rules were approved by development group. Copy was sent to Norman Thomas for information. The draft rules were based on those accepted by the Registrar for the St. Paul’s EMB in Cheltenham, the only changes being to allow leasehold tenants to be shareholders of "Kingsholm Estate Management Limited", geographical changes and composition of Board, especially involvement of Councillors.

The request for a copy of the proposed rules was made by telephone by Norman Thomas on January 12, 1995. The copy was sent the following day together with a covering letter (reference: ....housing\thomas\1995\95-01.

It should be noted that formal application to the Registrar of Friendly Societies was subsequently made in November 1995 and after a considerable delay we were formally registered in October 1996.

In September 1996, Norman Thomas suddenly raised questions about the wording of the Rules, especially in the composition of the Board and that there was provision for the TMO to invite two city councillors to come serve on the Board with full voting rights. However, the choice remained with the TMO as to which city councillors to invite, as distinct from the Housing Committee sending two nominees.

Norman Thomas also suggested that elections to the Board be done over a three year cycle, with a third of the board members stepping down each year. We saw the obvious good sense in this.

February 1995

Meeting was arranged with the Chairman/Vice Chairman and Spokespersons of Housing Committee, City Housing Officer and TMO Development Group. In his letter of February 3, 1995, suggesting the meeting, the City Housing Officer wrote that he was sorry that you perceive the action of my officers to be negative towards the development of a T.M.O. I can assure you that this is not the case. The City Housing Officer then went on to that the following issues be included in the agenda:

Position statement of Kingsholm TMO Development

The rôle of the Council in TMO development

Potential conflicts between TMO developments and CCT

Guidelines for the future

The meeting went ahead on February 27, 1995. Our group realised that the answers to most of the items requested were contained in the "Right to Manage" legislation/guidelines. This was the meeting where it was stated that tenants of the estate could not participate in the Housing Management Compulsory Competitive Tendering process as we were seen as a potential bidder for the city-wide contract against Gloucester Housing Services (the DSO).

The meeting, at which the housing officers did most of the talking from the Council’s side, did not really solve anything. The City Housing Officer stated that he would feel a lot more comfortable with a "Service Level Agreement", but the TMO Development indicated that it was seeking something more of the lines of what the TMO Modular Management Agreement offered. We even said that we would seriously consider a legal "Estate Agreement", using the Priority Estates Project (PEP) model.

The Council were told that aspects of housing management that the proposed TMO were not seeking to undertake was rent and rent arrears collection, lettings and other aspects of a more "sensitive" nature. We indicated that we definitely were looking to take over the caretaking service, ground maintenance, car park management and the management of the roof of Clapham Court tower block. We also said that no decision had been reached on repairs (day to day or capital), though it was doubtful if the TMO would want to take over this aspect.

We also emphasised that there was considerable revenue to be made in the management of the estate car parks as there were some 50 or more spaces that were surplus to requirements by residents. People from out of town were using these spaces to park all day while working in the City centre and no charge was being made. We felt that there was considerable revenue to be raised by the Housing Revenue Account though proper car park management and letting the telecommunications industry use the roof of the tower block. These suggestions were not new – they had been put to the City Housing Officer two years earlier but the Housing Department appeared to be reluctant to do anything about it.

We also raised the question of the council providing us with an office base, which had been requested in writing nine months previously and which had received no action.

The group felt very let down after this meeting, and there was some talk of "throwing in the towel". However, it was agreed to continue.

March 1996

The Council finally completes the refurbishment of an unused workshop on the ground floor of the Clapham Court tower block and the TCC has an office that it can work from as development of the TMO continues. The office had been formally requested during the summer of 1994 – the group even identified the unused workshop and informed the Council in writing that it was uneasy with the usual practice of converting a dwelling into an office. The group had repeatedly requested the office provision, reminding the council of its obligations of the Right To Manage regulations. Prior to taking over the office, the TCC was using a second floor unused laundry room on the top deck of a low rise block. This room was allocated 10 years previously to the Residents Association as a meeting room and was not considered adequate as the majority of estate residents are of State pension age, with many totally unable to climb stairs.

Dec 1996 Two members of the TCC resigned under what is believed to be threat of some sort of disciplinary action from their employer, the Gloucester City Council. The two concerned were both tenants and both wardens of separate "sheltered housing" schemes on the estate. For a number of years, Council officers had raised the question of these two people being on the committee – they were elected in a proper way, the election being organised by the City Council. The main objection from the Council was because of a possible conflict of interest when it came to "TUPE" and staffing arrangements of the TMO. The Council claimed that the two would not be able to form a decision when it came to deciding on the jobs of "their colleagues". This argument was dismissed by the TCC, after consulting with the Department of the Environment, as:

• the two members concerned were tenants and had rights as such;

  housing management had gone out to competitive tendering and the staff of the contractor were not "colleagues";

  the TCC had agreed that the TMO would not be employing anyone, the three main functions that the TMO would be undertaking (car park management, caretaking services and grounds maintenance) would be contracted out and the only member of the housing management contractor’s staff that would be affected would be the estate caretaker who was due to retire in August 1997..

In the very early stages of the TMO development, when it had not been decided which housing management functions the TMO would undertake, an assurance had been made to all staff who worked in the local housing office that they would have "first refusal" on any jobs that the TMO had available.

Subsequent to the departure of the two employees of the City Council from the TCC, the Principal Housing Officer deducted their names from the minuted attendance list for the previous three years and drew-up a bar chart of attendance levels that formed an appendix to a report to Housing Committee on March 11. To the TCC, this was "gerrymandering".

Mar 1997

TCC members were requested to attend a meeting with the chairman and vice chairman of Housing Committee, together with the City Housing & Regeneration Officer and Norman Thomas. Tony McBarron attended this meeting with us.

It was plain to us that the TMO was still not wanted by both the officers and the councillors. We felt that we were treated in a very patronising fashion. Officers kept raising the question of "sustainability" (we have been going as a tenant group for 31 consecutive years and their a few tenants groups in the country that can say the same). They expressed a fear of the TMO suddenly collapsing – and what would happen (councillors could be excused for not knowing the details of the modular management agreement, but there can be no excuse for officers not knowing the provisions that are made. In fact English Churches Housing Group spent considerable time in explaining to Norman Thomas what would happen if a TMO failed for either not performing or by virtue of lack of interest by tenants. We feel it is inconceivable that a person on such a senior grade could fail to understand the provisions made).

Tenants Forum of Monday March 10 discussed the report by Norman Thomas on the Kingsholm TMO. All Housing Committee papers are allowed to be discussed at Tenants Forum, a meeting organised by the city council and open to the Press and public.

The Gloucester Tenants Federation will normally hold a "pre-Forum" meeting during the week prior to Tenants Forum to discuss the housing Committee Papers. This was held on March 6 and notes of that meeting were distributed at the Tenants forum meeting.

The notes relating to Housing Committee agenda item number 8 (Kingsholm Tenant Management Organisation) appeared as follows:

Item 8 Kingsholm TMO

Penny Agree b & d only under recommendations.

Free for all as too many comments to put down!

It should be noted that "Penny" is Penny Seaward, an employee of the Gloucester Tenants Federation. Under the Forum constitution, Federation staff may attend meeting in an advisory capacity.

Recommendations contained in the Housing Committee report are a follows:

While we had some reservations about the report, we could have accepted the matter had Tenants forum and Housing Committee approved the recommendations as they stood.

However, the Gloucester Tenants Federation showed their "true colours" when they resolved, as the Minutes state: "....that the Housing Committee be advised that this Forum supports recommendations (b) and (d) only of the City Housing and Regeneration Officer’s report."

It should be noted that there has been a serious rift between Kingsholm TCC and the Gloucester Tenants Federation since September 1996. It should also be noted that Housing Committee has only once not accepted a resolution from Tenants Forum.

Housing Committee met on March 11. The report by Norman Thomas was discussed, but Mr. Thomas was not in attendance as he was on leave. The following is the minute of the discussion:

85 KINGSHOLM TENANT MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION

Resolved:

We take the view that the Kingsholm Tenant Management Organisation Working Party, set up by Housing Committee in September 1996, had never formally agreed to some aspects of the report. This view is supported by the two ward councillors (Cllrs. Paul James and Mrs. Janet Parry) who are on the Working Party and are the two Councillors invited onto the interim board of Kingsholm Estate Management Ltd..

The assumption is therefore made by us that the aspects that were not agreed by the working Party were the views of Mr. Thomas and/or Councillor David Hitchings who represents the political party controlling the City Council.

Subsequent to this meeting and as a direct result of the decision reached, a member of the TCC who had undergone considerable training, both formal (attending weekend seminars) and informal ("in house" with other members of the TCC and Tony McBarron), resigned out of total disillusionment, as he felt continuing was a total waste of time.

July 1997

Housing Department requested (in mid June) and held a meeting (July 8) regarding a Service Level Agreement that was agreed by Housing Committee on March 11. We were informed that we would have to abide by City Council Standing Orders. We mentioned that this would be unacceptable as one of the reasons from TMOs were to cut out local authority "red tape" and to get value for rent payments.

A number of members of the TCC were quite shocked that a three-page outline was prepared by Mr. Thomas and presented at this meeting. One member of the TCC said that she thought we would be starting with a blank piece of paper. Another area of concern was that a "service level agreement" is not a contract. Could the break clause for Tenant Management Organisations contained in existing "contracts" that the City Council has signed with service providers be invoked for a "service level agreement"?

The TCC felt that the "service level agreement" could well end up as a "monitoring" operation rather than the taking over of functions to provide better value for money for the tenants and leasehold tenants of the estate.

More than five years ago, the then Tenants Association (now TCC) identified the more than 50 surplus car parking spaces and the roof of the tower block as potential sources of considerable income to the Housing Revenue Account. Currently more that 60 people park in surplus spaces on the estate car parks (owned by the HRA) while they go to work – the estate is virtually in the centre of the city. If there was a charge made for this parking and if the Housing Department had looked at leasing the roof of the tower block to the telecommunications industry, then over the five years there would have been enough money collected, we estimate, to have undertaken a complete window replacement programme for the "low rise" flats.

Our calculations on income from these two fields of activities were around, at a minimum, £30,000 a year. One consultant has even suggested that the value of the roof of the high rise could be as much as £50,000 pa.

The TCC is keen to "tap into" these potential sources of additional income to the HRA and we are very concerned that the Council is totally ignoring these potentials while putting up rents above the "guideline increase" and telling us that they are unable to have a window replacement programme on the estate because of a lack of cash.

During negotiations of the Modular Management Agreement, it was agreed in principle by Norman Thomas that money raised from activities such as car parking management could be used by the TMO on improvements to the fabric of the buildings on the estate, such as window replacement programme.

August 1997

Informed Norman Thomas of the TCC decision regarding TMO Development/SLA and sent him the following letter:

August 7, 1997

Dear Norman

Service Level Agreement

I hope that you got my letter of August 5 which was written quickly, immediately following our meeting so as to let you know of our decision as soon as possible, as you requested.

There was considerable discussion on the subject and the consensus of opinion was that the structure of a SLA that you were offering us was unacceptable.

If the basis of the Service Level Agreement had been on the lines of the Priority Estates Project (PEP) "Estate Agreement" model, then there could have been, we feel, some fruitful conclusion. Indeed, if the basis of the Service Level Agreement was based on the new "Resident Services Organisation" model (itself based on the successful French "Regies de Quartier" scheme) as outlined, again by PEP, in a book on the subject ("Resident Services Organisations", ISBN 1 872358 50 0, PEP, 1997) then the reaction from members would have been far more positive.

Several of our members voiced the opinion that they were expecting that the meeting you organised last month would start with a blank piece of paper, allowing us to fully participate in the formation of the development of the Service Level Agreement.

In addition, members felt that a Service Level Agreement could well be somewhat "stifled" if it had to conform to the City Council's Standing Orders. In addition, there was the question of the break clauses in various contracts to allow for a Tenant Management Organisation and whether or not a Tenant Management Organisation would be deemed to include a Service Level Agreement.

It was unanimously agreed to turn down the offer of your proposed Service Level Agreement and revert to the Tenant Management Organisation development. I should point out that the one City Councillor board member present took neither an active part in the discussion or the decision. The same went for the City Councillor present as an observer.

With this in mind, we would request an early meeting so that we can discuss with you the information that you were going to provide to complete the annexes of the Modular Management Agreement and when this information is likely to be forthcoming. You will recall that you agreed to provide this information during our meetings about 12 months or more ago.

As you will appreciate, this information is vital to the completion of the Management Agreement that has to be submitted to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and to the residents of the estate.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Harley,

Chairman

Copies: Cllrs Evans, James and Mrs. Parry (Kingsholm Ward) and Hitchings

Tenant Participation Branch, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

A reply to the above letter was received on August 20 and is as follows:

18th August 1997

Dear Andrew,

SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT.

Thank you for your letter dated 7th August, the contents of which are noted.

I have to say I am somewhat surprised and disappointed with the TCC response to the first Working Group meeting of the 8th July. At the meeting I was endeavouring to explain the ingredients of an SLA, as well as the wide scope for involvement of the TCC in the three key areas the TCC had expressed a desire in managing. In fact the TCC is being offered the full management of grounds maintenance, contract cleaning and car parking for a initial period of twelve months, as well as greater involvement with the staff providing the caretaking service.

To say the structure of the SLA I was offering was unacceptable is incomprehensible as we've yet to have our first meeting to discuss the structure. In fact at our proposed SLA development meetings the views and ideas of the TCC would be, and still are most welcome, as we should be moving forward in partnership Although I have not seen the Priority Estates Project "Estate Agreement" model to which you refer, I am more than happy to use this document as a basis for the SLA to reach a fruitful conclusion with the TCC or any other document that may be appropriate.

I have noted the TCC's comments regarding the Councils Standing Orders and it would be appreciated if the TCC could clarify which elements of the City Councils Standing Orders the TCC feel uncomfortable with. I can then refer such issues to the elected members for consideration, together with your alternative proposals.

I can assure you that break clauses are now standard in contracts which relate to housing management functions. In fact this is evidenced by the willingness of Continental Landscapes to release the grounds maintenance work to the TCC through the SLA agreement.

Whilst it is the choice of the TCC whether or not it wishes to develop an SLA , I regret the option to move to a TMO at the present time is not available. The TCC is well aware of the views of Housing Committee and its minutes of March 1997 and in light of these views it would be premature to complete the annexes of the Modular Management Agreement at the present time. Our attention should be focused to developing the SLA.

The City Council would like to move forward in partnership with the TCC along the lines detailed in the minutes of the March Housing Committee meeting, and we'd be more than willing to use any documentation that may be suitable as a basis for the development of the SLA, such as the PEP "Estate Agreement" if that is your wish.

I look forward to hearing from the TCC in due course and to working with you in developing an SLA that meets the needs of all parties.

Yours sincerely,

Norman Thomas.

Principal Housing Management Officer.

cc. Chair and Vice Housing Committee, Cllrs Evans, James and Mrs Parry (Kingsholm Ward) and Hitchings.

We did in fact instruct English Churches Housing Group to submit their final development report to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

They are unable to do this as a copy of the negotiated Modular Management Agreement has to be attached, and this is impossible as the City Council is unwilling to complete the annexes, as is stated in the letter to us of August 18 (The TCC is well aware of the views of Housing Committee and its minutes of March 1997 and in light of these views it would be premature to complete the annexes of the Modular Management Agreement at the present time. Our attention should be focused to developing the SLA.).

September 1997

Two further members have resigned from the TCC, both saying that what we are attempting is a total waste of time. The Council appears to us to be totally obstructive as regards Tenant Management Organisations and one seriously queries its commitment to the general aspect of "tenant participation", despite the Council winning the Tenant Participation Advisory Service "Participation into Practice" award in 1997.

As a result of the two resignations, the Council is now probably correct to say at this moment in time that we do not have enough tenants serving on the TMO development group. As of the beginning of September 1997, the group consists of four tenants and two leasehold tenants. Since the group went into development, two tenant members have died in office, five tenants have resigned primarily because they felt that the Council was subtly obstructing progress, and two tenants who were also council employees resigned as described earlier. Of the original group, one tenant and the two leasehold tenants remain.

Prior to the letter from Norman Thomas of August 18, 1997, in which he stated that: I regret the option to move to a TMO at the present time is not available, we had a total of six tenants (of which two were newcomers) and two leasehold tenants. Last autumn, the Council suggested that they would be happy with a group of seven members (five tenants and two leasehold tenants).

For this reason, members of the group – including the two ward councillors – feel that nothing will satisfy the Council and that they are behaving in an obstructive manner. We have, over the years of development, had little or no real encouragement, although the Council says in its policy on TMOs that it supports the principles. This has been stated clearly in a number of Housing Strategy/Housing Investment Programme Reports. The citations below are from the Strategy documents.

Both Westgate and Kingsholm Residents Associations formed Tenants Consultative Committees. These will allow greater involvement in the management of (estates), possible leading to the development of Tenant Management Organisations (in both estates residents subsequently voted to go into the development phase for TMO's). – Part D, Section 2, Paragraph 2.6. Gloucester City Council Housing Strategy 1995/98 (page 38). No ISBN. Published July 1994, Gloucester City Council.

Gloucester City Council continues to support those tenants groups who wish to pursue the Right to Manage. Of the groups that have completed (an) initial analysis of the option, one (Kingsholm Tenants Consultative Committee) is now deciding upon the best option for the group. It continues to receive the full support and help of the City Council in achieving its objectives. – Chapter 4, Section 2, Paragraph 2.2. Gloucester City Council Housing Strategy 1996/99 (page 84). No ISBN, Published. July 1995, Gloucester City Council.

The Kingsholm (Tenants) Consultative Committee is now in year two of the right to manage process and receiving our full support. We have provided the TCC with a new refurbished office. – Chapter 4, Section 2, Paragraph 2.12. Gloucester City Council Our Strategy For Housing 1997/2000 (page 102). No ISBN. Published July 1996, Gloucester City Council.

Continue to work with Kingsholm Tenants Consultative Committee to help them secure the appropriate skills and representation to develop a tenant management organisation. – Draft copy approved by Housing Committee July 15, 1997 (final copy has yet to be received from Council) Chapter 4, Section 3, Paragraph 3.4.1. Gloucester City Council Our Strategy For Housing 1998-2001 (no page number in draft copy). No ISBN. Published ? Gloucester City Council.

We believe that the above statements regarding TMOs is effectively paying lip service as the Council has proved to us beyond any doubt that is actually discourages TMO development. We cannot come to any conclusion as to why this stance is taken by the Council

The TCC is very reluctant to call "time" on TMO development, but remaining members, who are all mindful of the public money that has been spent, are fast approaching the stage where we all say "enough is enough". We have made every effort to be successful and form a TMO. We have even taken a "from little acorns grow …." approach, planning a modest TMO to start with and, if the residents of the estate so desire, adding to the management functions at a future date.

Time and time again, various "obstacles" have been put in our way. For instance, both officers (and later Councillors in Housing Committee) expressed fears that the TMO might fail and what would happen to the Management Agreement. Nothing seems to convince them that a clause in the Modular Management Agreement actually covers this. Housing Officers are highly paid and we find it hard to understand that we, as "amateurs", manage to understand this while they have a problem.

It is our considered opinion that the offer of a Service Level Agreement will probably end up in the same way as the TMO development. After a considerable time in developing a Service Level Agreement, we will find that the goal posts have been moved.

We would only agree to go forward with developing the Service Level Agreement if we knew that the goal posts were cemented firmly in the ground like they are in another, and better known, area of Kingsholm! Currently we do not have any confidence in any assurance that might be made by the Housing Department, or even the Housing Committee. We believe that, putting party politics totally aside, our two ward councillor share our misgivings.

English Churches Housing have finished working with us – they also see further development work as a waste of time for everyone, given the current attitude of the Council. However, for the past nine months they have employed an "associate" (Tony McBarron, who had left ECHG) to work with us on their behalf. Mr. McBarron has kindly agreed to "see anything through" for us on a more informal basis, subject to his work commitments.

As he originally worked as our ECHG advice worker, his personal views would probably confirm most of what has been mentioned here. While he knows this report has been written, he has not seen it.

The "saga" continues!

As of April 1999, the Gloucester City Council Housing Department has not addressed the question of "lost income" which the proposed TMO had identified.

There are some 50 car par spaces not in use by residents. However these spaces, on housing land, are used daily by people working in the city centre who are getting free car parking. We estimate that since we first suggested that Housing Department looked on the car parking spaces as a source of revenue for the Housing Revenue Account, some seven years ago, around £200,000 could have been raised.

The other source of untapped income is the rook of Gloucester's only residential tower block - Clapham Court, which forms part of the Kingsholm estate. Estimates by a consultant employed by the TMO Development Group suggested that the value of the roof to the telecommunications industry could be as much as £85,000 a year, but that £50,000 minimum could be expected. Based on the lower figure, this totals £350,000 a year of potential revenue not collected!

This figures have been pointed out to the chair and vice chair of Housing & Regeneration Committee on many occasions, but the two councillors dismiss any suggestion that this income would help to ease the problem of there being not enough money to undertake the urgent improvements needed for Gloucester's 5,900 units of council housing.

Gloucester City Council won the Tenant Participation
Advisory Service (TPAS) "Participation Into Prictice"
award in the same year that it turned down the Right
To Manage by the residents of the Kingsholm Estate!

The TSS has been offered a "Service Level Agreement" (SLA) by the Council. But the TCC does not trust the Council! The advice given to the TCC was that a "SLA" was an agreement unenforcable in law, unlike the TMO agreement.

Back to home page

Last updated April 1999