Latest re Tenants Consultation

TMO Forthcoming Consultation

I have lawyered up again re the forthcoming consultation on the future of the management of our Tmo homes, most especially with respect to the choice of consultant(s) and structure of the consultation, and then the implementation of the results. I am particularly mindful of tenants in a similar situation to mine who, living in single blocks, not estates, do not have any group representation. I will publish the received advice on this blog.

Tenants Consultative Committee

This well attended event took place on 11 December 2017 at the Town Hall. Initially, it was for resident associations, but having heard about it on the grapevine, I requested an invite, as a TMO tenant living in a small block, with no representation. It was chaired by Cllr Mackover,  Cllr Nichols, Cclr Taylor-Smith, & Doug Goldring.

Purpose of meeting: find a way forward for the TMO, AS PER TENANTS & LEASEHOLDERS WISHES, with practical assistance from the council, fr a borough wide consultation.

Terms of consultation, duration, etc... to be decided by US. What form this US will take (elected or appointed or a mix of both) is also to be decided by us. The idea of a main panel with sub-panels was floated about. Training for those on the panel will be available. Since monies from our rents will be use to fund the consultation, the consultants will be answerable to US.

It was recognised that small blocks needed a different process.

The consultation may take 6 months to a full year, during which the TMO would continue to take care of repairs in a timely fashion.

Suggestion that future meeting should be broadcast online (like council meetings) was accepted.

The expression SELF-DETERMINATION was used. I objected to the expression consultative, as consulting is not binding, so a new word will have to be formulated.

There was a wide consensus for the management of RBKC council housing  to go back IN HOUSE, with a preference for small localised repair offices.

In the future, ALL TMO members should be notified. Much work remains to be done, in particular making sure that ALL TMO tenants have representation, and can participate to ALL the decisions concerning how, in the future, we want our homes managed.

If I have forgotten anything and you were present at this meeting, please do add it in the Comments section.

Below are pictures of the 2 pages invitation letter, they can be downloaded.

A potential road map for the Future?

Following talks between some residents association & K. Taylor-Smith on 27 October 2017, the following road map was formulated. It is only a draft, and is therefore open for discussion. You gotta start from somewhere!!!

Resolution 1: Agree to form the Kensington and Chelsea Residents Forum (KCRF):

Resolution 2: Agree to establish a steering committee to act on behalf of the KCRF

1.      The steering group of 8 people to be composed of six Council Tenant TMO Members, and two leaseholders; or five Council Tenant TMO Members, and three leaseholders nominated by the forum.

Objects of Forum

2.      The steering committee will represent the aims of the Forum, will negotiate with RBKC and KCTMO and other bodies as necessary to effect the aims of the KCRF

3.      To ensure the voting rights of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) members are maintained throughout the transition from the KCTMO to the new management models of council housing are in place and there after.

4.      To ensure all residents are fully consulted during the transitional arrangements of the management of the council housing stock.

5.      To negotiate the pathways for co-designing the new management models for council housing in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea RBKC.

6.      To ensure that all those people who’s past actions and where employed by the KCTMO that led to the Grenfell Tower fire are fully held to account to the enquiry and either civil or criminal action.

7.      To seek legal advice where necessary.

8.      To seek expert housing advice where necessary.

9.      To represent the needs and aspirations of the residents.

10.  To be open to all tenants and lease holders of council housing in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

The MMA is no longer "commercially sensitive"

The following was forwarded to a housing activist from RBKC: 

The MMA and our standing orders are now available on the TMO website at:

http://www.kctmo.org.uk/sub/about-us/22/constitution-and-accounts

Advantages and disadvantages of residents managing their estate

This evaluation of the advantages & disadvantages inherent to residents managing their estate, by a committed housing activist,  also gratefully received.

Tenants (Both leaseholders and Council tenants are considered tenants) in an estate could use the Right to Manage regulations 2012 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1821/contents/made to set up their own TMO to manage their own estate or part of their estate (as long as that part is clearly identifiable), or a number of estates could get together to set up a TMO which would manage their estates.

1.      Advantages:

1.                  Day to day minor repairs: These will take a much shorter time and could be done with a higher quality.

2.                  Major repairs: Costs would be controlled ad most probably reduced.

3.                  Improvement to the estate: By reducing the costs of repairs, money could be allocated to improvement of the estate, whereas an in-house Council management department might only deal with repairs, but then again they might not if they are a Council with liberal views.

4.                  There is a lesser chance of corruption with a small tenant led TMO than what we have witnessed both in KCTMO and RBKC which resulted in increased costs of maintenance of the estate.

2.      Difficulties:

2.1-      It requires a committed group of tenants with a clear idea how to manage the property.

2.2-      It requires the engagement and support of both Council tenants and leaseholders.

2.3-      It is a time consuming process, and if the Council is not supportive, it could  take up to 3.8 years or more, but if the tenants get organised almost professionally and the Council cooperates, it could take one and half years. And right now, the Council seem to be supportive.

A constituted borough wide association could help reduce the above disadvantages to a great degree, by pooling resources, experience and by sharing costs amongst its members, costs that otherwise could be much higher. I will come back to this subject a bit later.

Such a TMO is not the right solution for every community. Success is more likely where there is a committed tenant group with a clear sense of what they want to do and strong links with the community they represent. I would add that both leaseholders and Council tenants need to be very engaged with their RA, as later in the day there would be separate ballots for leaseholders and Council tenants which need a simple majority in favour of forming a TMO.

So the tenant group, before even applying to the Council for Right to Manage, should establish first if there is support within their community for a TMO. To do that they would need to engage the tenants (more easily said than done), debate the issues that they have with the management of KCTMO, and at the end of this consultation process, they should conduct a secret ballot.

But before they do that, the tenant group needs to have a clear idea of how they would manage their estate as opposed to and better than KCTMO. To do that it would be essential to go over a few things. First, KCTMO results for attending to repairs and the quality of those repairs; second KCTMO health and safety records; and third, KCTMO expenditure for their estate. It would not be too difficult to cut down the quality of repairs and the timing of it compared to KCTMO. A handyman (men, depending on the size of the estate) housed in the estate could deal with 75% of day to day repairs. For more major repairs, the RA could through a process of due diligence source, interview and choose contractors such as electricians, plumbers, roofers, lift service companies, damp proof specialist, drainage specialist, heating specialists, gardeners and so on. They would need the services of a surveyor to manage these contractors. As to the Health and safety, the tenants are the people most concerned about this issue so it would stand to reason that they would take care of health and safety problems urgently. As to the expenditure, the tenants would need the help of a qualified surveyor (not necessarily but this is my suggestion), to identify where KCTMO has been overcharging and if the tenant group could bring down that expenditure substantially and allocate the savings towards improving and enhancing the quality of their estate. Armed with this clear view of the management of the estate and how their estate could be improved both from a health and safety angle and making their estate more desirable, the tenant group could deal with the process of consultation with and balloting the residents.

The tenants group need to quantify the man-hour required to go through these first steps of the right to manage process and quantify the cost of a surveyor. I would suggest that the man hours required would be as follows:

1.      Developing a clear idea of how to manage and improve their estate

1.                  Through a process of due diligence, choose contractors and a surveyor for the management of the estate and agree prices and repair quality and timing targets with them. This I would suggest would require 16 hours for developing a due diligence process (Please find attached such a process that I developed for choosing an independent tenants and leaseholders advisor, ITLA) for choice of contractors, 3 hours of research per contractor group and a surveyor so about 33 hours, arranging interviews with three companies for each contractor and interviewing them and choosing one, 43 hours.

2.                  The same surveyor that you choose to run the management of your estate could be instructed to do a report on the three previous years expenditure of your estate, and with the prices that you have agreed with contractors, identify if there could be a substantial reduction of expenses and where the subsequent savings could be invested to improve the estate. This would usually cost £3,000 (we already have a quotation for £2,500 for a review of our service charged at Warwick Road Estate, and I have added £500 for a draft business plan), and the surveyor could even prepare a draft business plan. Of course the surveyor might give you a discount or do it for free if you promise him the management of the estate. You would need to raise that fund (RBKC might pay that, as they would be willing between £20K to £30K for an ITLA). For that the tenant group would need to allocate 40 hours, that is for raising funds, studying the surveyor’s report, questioning the report, and finalising the report. This surveyor’s final report is a formulation of your clear idea on how to better manage your estate.

3.                  So altogether, to achieve a clear idea of how your estate should be managed, you need to spend 132 man hours for 100 properties (you need to add 10 man hours per 100 extra property), or 16.5 working days. If there are 3 of you, the whole process could be done in one and a half months at most, allowing for advance notices for interviews. Of course if there is a constituted borough wide association, it could produce all the due diligence guide lines for choice of contractors, it could source contractors and handymen and surveyors, raise funds, thereby reducing substantially the man hour time above.

2.      To engage and consult the tenants on the clear idea that the tenant group have formulated through the process above.

2.1-      distributing the surveyor’s final report by e-mail and physically. This would cost about £100 per 100 properties and would take 10 hours for the same number of properties.

2.2-      I suggest three consultation meetings of three hours each are required in the space of a month and a half, in which guest speakers could be invited as well a RBKC Councillors. The preparation as well as the meetings would take about 40 hours.

2.3-      I would strongly suggest a door knocking exercise to explain to the tenants the finalised surveyor’s report and to encourage them to participate in consultation. For 10O properties this would take 25 hours.

2.4-      As well as the consultation meetings, e-mail and social media should be used to encourage tenants to participate in a debate about the surveyor’s final report, This could take 40 hours.

2.5-      A secret ballot should take no more than one week and cost about £100 per 100 properties and take about 15 hours for the same number of properties (again you need to add 10 hours and £100 pounds per extra property)

2.6-      All in all the process of consultation requires 130 man hours, or 16.5 days and £200(again you need to add 20 hours and £200 pounds per extra 100 properties) , and should take about 2 months.

3-         together with the surveyor, they should develop a system for supervising and reporting by the surveyor who will manage the estate, as well as agreeing the number of meetings. Usually four meeting per year would suffice and time needs to be allocated for studying the quarterly report from the surveyor. I would say ordinarily 25 man hours per annum is required for that and another 50 man hours per annum for consultation with members should improvements be required.

Whilst some of the above steps could be taken at later stages, I strongly advise that they should be taken before a notice of the intention to form a TMO is served to the Council. For one it is very important that the tenant group has a clear and detailed idea of how to manage the estate, for two it would make engaging tenants easier, and for three it would probably make the Right to Manage process shorter. So all in all the tenant group need to spend 262 man hours in the space of three and a half months and about 75 man hour per annum for supervising the management. If they could not allocate this man hour time, there is no point in going ahead. It would help if amongst them there would be professionals such as surveyors, architects, lawyers and property managers.

Funding of the TMO to manage your estate(s) could be done in two ways, depending on the management agreement. Either RBKC could give the same funding that they were giving to KCTMO to manage your estate, lets call this option 1, or they can allow you to collect service charges and rents, the same way that KCTMO is operating now (option 2). Each option has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of option 1 is that the TMO would not have to serve demands for service charges and rents, chasing service charges and rents, and in case of non-compliance taking action to evict the occupier, in other words it would not need to allocate time for those administrative tasks. The disadvantage is that If there is funding required for a substantial repair/improvement project, and RBKC refuse to provide that funding, or even delays substantially the funding, matters could go pear shaped. Option 2 has the advantage of removing the latter risk, but adds the administrative burden of collecting service charges and rents and so on. Although this burden could be subcontracted to a private firm for a fee, if the TMO budget allows it.

So all in all I would suggest that three and half months of what I call overall due diligence process is required before the committed tenants group decide to go ahead with serving a notice to the Council. Then the timeline is as follows;

1.       The tenant group need to serve a notice to RBKC declaring their intention to use the Right to Manage and form a TMO. I argue that it is much better to form the TMO first, in the shape of a Limited Liability Company, with both Council tenants and leaseholders sitting on its board (there is no requirement in the right to Manage Regulations 2012 for the type of the tenant, ie leaseholders or Council tenants, sitting on the board of the TMO, but Councils have used this excuse before to withhold funding to the TMO in arbitration courts, although if the members of the bard are actually residents with a surveying, property management, legal and architectural/building background, I don’t see this as a problem). It costs less than £100 to do this. I also suggest that it is wise to spend an initial period of due diligence to establish the costs of the Right to Manage process, which could run to a substantial sum, which would have to be paid by the Council. So it is important that these costs are reasonable, to survive any examination in any arbitration tribunal. For doing that the TMO needs professional advice, which they could most probably get for free. If a number of smaller estates come together for this purpose, it will reduce the cost per estate. It will also reduce the Council’s cost as otherwise the Council would have to fork out the same sum for those different estates. A borough wide association could also be useful. Although each estate is different with subsequent different management requirements, there would be a lot of similarities in the costs of the Right to Mange process. Consequently, on those costs, the borough wide federation could employ top firm of surveyors on behalf of its members, thus reducing the cost per member. The consultant could also make sure that the TMO is properly set up, that at the time of the service of notices the requirements of the regulations are fully met when serving a Right to Manage notice. I estimate that this due diligence process could take up to one month.

2.      The Council has 28 days to accept or refuse the notice.

3.      if accepted the TMO could ask the Council for financial support for the cost of the Right to Manage process. This is where the benefit of a top surveyor who costed this process professionally becomes apparent, as the Council could dispute these costs if they are not reasonable.

4.      The Council has 28 days to determine the support, that is to agree or disagree with the costing submitted by the TMO.

5.      If the TMO find the support suggested by the Council insufficient, the TMO could within 28 days refer the matter to an arbitrator.

6.      Within 28 days of referral to the arbitrator, he must determine the support from the Council.

7.      the TMO must within 3 months of the acceptance date apply to the approved assessor service to appoint an approved assessor to report on the competence of the TMO to exercise the management functions set out in the proposal. 

8.      The approved assessor must, within 15 months of the acceptance date, complete the report and provide it to the Council and the TMO. 

Within these 15 months a number of important activities have to be completed successfully. They are:- Developing skills and knowledge The TMO committee must develop their skills and knowledge so that, in the view of an external assessor, the TMO is competent to manage the responsibilities it plans to take on.  They have to show that they have been trained in property management if they do not already have these skilss. A management agreement The TMO will confirm which services it plans to run and will negotiate the main elements of the proposed management agreement with the Council. A business plan The TMO will develop a business plan showing how it will organise and pay for the services it plans to provide. Although as I have suggested previously, I prefer this business plan to have been prepared before the notice was served.

Establishing good governance

The TMO will develop the rules, policies and procedures needed for good governance – ensuring that the TMO will be properly run.

Keeping in touch with tenants

The TMO committee will keep in touch with tenants in their area. Making sure people are informed about the TMO and listening to their views.

Apply for funding and appoint advisors

To help plan and carry out these tasks the TMO is likely to apply for some government grant funding and will almost certainly need to appoint suitable professional advisors.

9.      The Council and the TMO must use all reasonable efforts to take the action suggested by the approved assessor in accordance with paragraph (3)(b); and jointly agree an action plan to enable them to do so. 

10.  The Council must notify the approved assessor within 7 days of the action being completed. 

11.  The approved assessor must within 35 days of receipt of the Council’s notification under paragraph (6) reassess whether or not the TMO is competent and notify the Council and the TMO of his conclusion. 

12.  Where the approved assessor concludes under regulation 13 that the TMO is competent, the Council must within 3 months of receiving his conclusion, make to the tenants of each house identified in the proposal notice, an offer containing— 

(a)the offer notice; 

(b)the conclusion of the approved assessor; and 

(c)information submitted by the TMO concerning the proposal. 

13.  The Council must arrange for a ballot to be carried out within 3 months of making the offer, with a view to establishing whether the tenants referred to in paragraph (1) wish to accept the offer. 

14.  The Council must within 14 days of carrying out the ballot notify the TMO of whether a majority of the tenants who voted and a majority of the secure tenants who voted accepted or refused the offer.

15.  Subject to regulation 17, where a majority of the tenants who voted in the ballot under regulation 15(2), and a majority of the secure tenants who voted in that ballot, have accepted the offer, the Council must within 9 months of the date of the Council’s notification under regulation 15(3), enter into a TMO agreement with the TMO.

So all in all, it will take 3 years and 4 months maximum for the right to manage plus the intial 3.5 months due diligence process, or 3 years and 7.5 months, that is if the Council would not cooperate. But I anticipate if the Council cooperate, it would not take more than 1.5 years.

The advantages and the problems with RBKC taking management in house

This advice was gratefully received from a respected housing activist:

What RBKC was trying to do with the KCTMO resolution 5 and 6 was to become the only shareholder of KCTMO, in order to control it, change the managers and directors, dismiss part of the workforce, train the rest to change KCTMO into an efficient in-house Management department.

Easier said than done. The problem is that by doing so, they could assimilate the same toxic culture that KCTMO represent, within the in house RBKC management department, and let’s not forget that RBKC itself is under criminal investigation, so it could be characterised as corrupt itself. You all know what I am talking about. The simplest of repairs take 6 months, the employees have even been trained how to make use of regulations in order not to provide the repair service, they simply let the repair task remain on their computer for three weeks, after which it automatically gets deleted without the repair having been seen to. Add the kind of corruption that could make painting 6 windows and two doors cost £16,000, which happened in Warwick Road Estate. Change of culture within an organisation is extremely difficult. Many have tried it only to fail.  As some of you might know, I once presided over a change of culture in a small company of thirty employees. These were not corrupt employees, they were hard working honest people. The change of culture had the aim of making the teams within the organisation self-managed instead of managed, and handing in the decision making to the employees as opposed to the managers. The resistance was immense. It took me three years, £300K of investment in training and the introduction of new blood (many of the existing employees just left, they just refused to contribute in making decisions) to bring about that change of culture; it produced amazing results non-the-less. But the point is if it is that difficult in a small company of 30 employees, it would be much more difficult in a huge company, and it would need competent leadership, which RBKC is lacking. So to me , this way of making management in-house by RBKC would be business as usual, and even if they succeed in changing the culture, it will take years.

There is a simpler way to implement a successful RBKC in house management system. Let KCTMO go bust. In that way TUPE ( https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers ) would not apply and the toxic culture could not be transferred. Then RBKC should employ and train smaller teams allocated to a few estates only, depending on size, I would say a team of 5, one surveyor, two property managers and 2 handymen, could manage 350 properties depending on the IT systems and softwares provided to them. These teams have to be completely independent of each other, meaning that they should not share any services, or the danger is that we go back to a huge KCTMO managing all the estates. Then RBKC should have a well-equipped handyman stationed in each estate, one handyman per 150 properties. Each team needs to deal with small to medium size sub-contractors such as electricans, plumbers, roofers, gardeners and so on.  The team might even consider employing electricians and plumbers. 95% of repairs, quantity wise, are done by handymen electricians and plumbers.

Then there is the issue of quality and time targets which the residents and RBKC have to agree.

In the property management teams that I trained and directed, we had the following targets;

• 1-      Upon receipt of a request for repair, depending on the subject of repair, a contractor/handyman would be sent to the property on the same day but not later than the next day. We had already negotiated with the contractors that due to the volume of jobs they were getting, that they would not charge an inspection fee.
• 2-      If the cost of repair was under a certain sum, in our case under £100, the contractor would on the first visit go ahead and see to the item of repair.
• 3-      In any case the repair should not take longer than four days (they were exception to these, for example in cases that we needed to order an item that was not manufactured anymore).
• 4-      Then there was the quality of service. If the contractor mis-diagnosed the cause of repair, they should not charge for the work they have already done. A member of our team was trained to inspect every five jobs that the contractor did to ensure quality.
• 5-      A telephone call was made to the tenant/leaseholder that had requested the repair after the work has been done to make sure they were satisfied.
• 6-      If for some reason repair would take longer than four days, temporary solution would be provided. For example in case of lack of heating, electrical radiators would be provided.

The above are just examples of quality and time targets that each estate has to agree with RBKC.

Then we come to major repairs and improvements. The freeholder is under obligation to serve notice to and consult the tenants about these major repairs, and they have to get three quotations per items of repairs and justify the chosen quotation and the choice of contractor. What happens usually is if the leaseholders are not organised and do not possess the knowledge or do not have a surveyor as their consultant, the freeholder have their way. This is where corruption could occur. They would be charging a percentage of the work as management fee, so the more the cost the higher this management fee. In these cases, the best remedy is to set up a committee including members of the RBKC management team for the estate and the RA(s) to give the opportunity to the residents to directly influence the major repairs and improvements, choice of contractor and so on.

But to do these, the estate’s RA need to be very organised. They need to have been trained in property management, to have engaged the tenants (both leaseholders and council tenants), to consult them regularly so that it could be representing the views of the residents. The RA will need to spend the same amount of time per annum as if they were managing the estate themselves, i:e 75 man hours per annum. But the question is if the RA is this organised, trained in property management and they will have to spend the same amount of time per annum, why would they not take on the management of their estate themselves?

Further more RBKC need to be willing to accept this model of management, have the competence and leadership to train and set up the independent property management teams. They could do that by employing very experienced trainers and property managers, it is actually very simple, but would they have the will to do that? 

The AGM

The TMO AGM took place as scheduled. To gain access inside the Great Hall, you had to have your bags searched, and be scanned by a handheld metal detector. Then you had to show a form of ID, which further slowed down the whole process, as names were manually verified on computers. Obviously, the TMO has never heard of Q codes. No wonder that the AGM started 45mns late.

In the early afternoon, there had been a flurry of consultations, since 2 individuals had obtained legal advice, including an 8 page opinion by a QC, which tore through the reasons for voting for resolutions 5 & 6, badly drafted and unsubstantiated as they were, and the threat of an injunction to declare the AGM illegal.

For those reasons, the TMO "gracefully" bowed to legal pressure and put forward a motion to postpone the AGM. This was carried through, after much bla bla from the board. No time frame was given as to when it may resume. The council Deputy-Leader made a speech, claiming to want to listen to what us tenants & leaseholders wanted, as opposed to what RBKC thought we wanted.

The idea of a consultation was repeated by the board, but no details as to its format & length was given, nor when it might take place.

The entire board of governors was also on the stage, but they never talked or intervened. Imagine a mute chorus in a Greek tragedy, and you won't be far wrong.

There was quite a bit of anger from the audience, but not enough to cause the AGM to be terminated prematurely.

The struggle is not yet over!

Opinion Piece in The Guardian

As funerals are held for those who died at Grenfell, the living continue to fight for their rights.

This opinion piece by Seraphima Kennedy (13 October 2017) points at the patent absurdity of what the TMO seems to be asking:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/13/funerals-grenfell-dead-recovery-scrutiny-committee-survivors

AGM Change of Venue

It appears the 17 October 2017 AGM will be now taking place in a different venue, although most of us TMO members are yet to be formally informed:

Great Hall at the Town Hall, Hornton Street, Kensington, London, W8 7NX. 

If in doubt, call the AGM hotline:  020 7605 6352 or email the Company Secretary Administrator jbilbao@kctmo.org.uk

Time remain the same, 18.30.

And Some More Advice

It’s not easy to follow the ins and outs of the resolutions and proposed amendments, and I’m not sure what the legal advice said or what the final agenda is, but my thinking would be along the following lines.

The government and council have decided to wind up the TMO and close down the contract. My judgement would be that there is little that can be done about this and the reputation of the TMO is so damaged that it will be difficult to get public support for anything else. I understand that winding up might also have the majority support of residents but I have no way if judging this. However, the timing and method of winding up the TMO is all-important and I agree with the concerns expressed that it seems to be being done with undue haste and with insufficient thought – and inadequate consultation. These are the preconditions for a bad decision.

The principle of strong tenant engagement in housing management in the borough is very well established and pre-dates the ALMO status, and the borough should be seeking to preserve this. There is no reason why K&C could not take the management of its housing stock back in-house. This has been done by many authorities, including Hammersmith and Fulham and Brent (currently), where an in-house housing department has had to be re-established. I suspect this will be the preferred option for the majority of tenants: given what has happened, their views must be heard and must be the single most important factor in deciding what to do. It should then be open for debate what kind of relationship there is between the borough and tenants: there are many models for tenant engagement and there could be a genuine consultation on the best model for K&C. The borough will be avoiding its responsibilities to residents if it does not now take and keep direct political control over the management of its housing – with the political imperative of putting things right. It would be unforgiveable if the council now started acting in direct contradiction of tenants’ preferences for the future.

Whoever takes over the management of the stock will inherit the current staff – they are protected under the TUPE regulations – and any issues with current staff will have be resolved whatever option is chosen.  

There is plenty of experience available to the council to enable them to take the stock back in house. The current interim manager of the TMO, Elaine Elkington, has experience of both setting up an ALMO and of directly managed housing departments and could easily be asked to manage the transition back to a housing department. I also understand that the council is currently being managed by the experienced Barry Quirk and has the involvement of Chris Wood, both of whom know a lot about managing this kind of transition. 

It is worrying if the council is talking to housing associations about handing over the stock and wholly inappropriate if this is happening quietly. I don’t know which are involved but I think this option is wholly unsuitable in the current circumstances after the tragedy. None of the associations likely to be involved have a strong enough track record of resident management and any such arrangement would remove the direct political link between residents and the council. The option of involving more than one association, and dividing the stock, might be the worst of all worlds. Any such discussions should be open and transparent – which associations are involved, and the brief for the conversations, should be public. TMO Residents must be fully involved in any discussion about the future and the council should also accept the principle of a full TMO resident ballot on any option that emerges.

It would therefore seem to me that tenants with a vote at the AGM should support deferral on the grounds that decisions are being made hastily and without proper consultation with the wider body of residents. This would also seem the wrong time to be removing the right of members to vote on essential matters and to pass total control to the council. If the resolutions succeed, K&C should be pressed to set up a resident liaison and consultative body.

Motion to Postpone K&C

Further advice from a Resident Representative:

"Judging by the information supplied, both Ordinary Resolution 5 & Special Resolution 6 should not go ahead as currently planned by the council as the procedure that the Cllr’s are currently following are floored and open to litigation claims and proceedings.

As have already been proved by the harrowing experiences of residents in this borough earlier this year which has now courted and is proceeding with a Public Inquiry the failings of this borough K&C to listen to the concerned residents who put these issues of concern before Cllr’s and were ignored much to the detriment of the residents who paid the ultimate price of not listening to those concerns and rushing through decisions without allowing the majority of those concerned the chance to hear all issues and concerns that appertain to the long term future Health & Safety & Welfare of the very people that the council have been charged to Support and Help and Proved for.

What this council K&C are now pursuing is in direct conflict to the promises and assurances that the K&C Cllr’s gave to the government, the public and the residents, further more it also flies in the face of the government and what Theresa May announced to the public and promised the residents of K&C.

Should this council’s Cllr’s decide to continue to BLUNDER their way through these Resolutions despite the concerns raised by the residents, the residents will be left with little option but put forward motions of no confidence in the Cllr’s as they have returned to their previous practice of putting residents at risk and request that the government step in and dissolve this council until the local elections in 2018, and that the housing stock be handed over to the GLA to manage as till such time as proper meetings are arranged to allow all persons concerned time to attend, discuss and consult after all avenues of investigation have been investigated in detail and put before all interested parties who can then make decisions on how to make a final decision on this very important issue that cannot and should not be rushed by anyone.

The letter that has been sent out by the council at the agreement of the Cllr’s who have already promised the residents that they would repeat these costly mistakes after what happened earlier this year, contains misleading (at best) statements that could be considered as TORT which could give rise for all concerned parties to claim damages against the council K&C as the interested parties would view this as a MISREPRESENTATION either by words or by conduct to be a false statement of fact. The statement is made by one party (K&C council) to the other (Residents and Members) of a contract which although not a term of the contract induces the other party (Residents and Members) to enter into the contract.

The Residents and Members could even think about putting in for an UNLIQUIDATED CLAIM for unspecified amount of damages/ compensation to be decided by the Judge i.e. distress or inconvenience etc, all of which would come from the public purse leaving less money to deal with resolving the very problem that this K&C Cllr’s created against the advise of the Residents and Members, exampling how untrustworthy this K&C council and Cllr’s are when it comes to handling public affairs and issues, especially as they have failed miserably to look after the Residents Safety

Reasonable and practical alternatives are available that can be explored given the appropriate time, but Ordinary Resolution 5 & Special Resolution 6 are being used as an excuse – nay a tool in which to deliberately circumnavigate the correct democratic procedures for which these Cllr’s were elected to ensure are carried out with honesty and transparency.  

Should the K&C Cllr’s fail to accept the Residents and Members reasonable request to postpone both Ordinary Resolution 5 & Special Resolution 6 which they show to be in a suspiciously hurried (one could say blind panic) to get signed before all interested parties have had time to browse over all the relevant, we would be left with little choice but to seek support and resolve from trustworthy organisations from outside the borough K&C."

Advice re MMA

What you have accessed on the internet is the standard model guidance for a Modular Management Agreement. 

The MMA contract between the Council and the K&C TMO would however be a more bespoke version as TMOs can opt to carry out a range of different specified management duties. The respective duties of the 2 parties to the MMA can of course get renegotiated over time.

Be very interesting what the actual current MMA says about the respective responsibilities and duties between the TMO and the Council in respect of managing and authorising the Major Repairs spend and budget ie the actual finances that would be drawn upon to pay for refurbishment of something like Grenfell Tower. I suspect that this responsibility lay with the Council and would involve designated Councillors in their financial authorisation role.. This goes to the heart of what went wrong at Grenfell of course.

Last week's Inside Housing  magazine(article 'Council votes to terminate contract with the KCTMO' dated 6th October 2017) carried an article that said that 14 Tenants Associations in the Borough has signed an open  letter expressing a lack of confidence in the TMO organisation. It also said that 25 leaders of residents associations supported removing the TMO from managing the stock. This is quite understandable given what has happened of course but.....

What they are in effect (probably unknowingly and innocently to be fair) doing is surrendering any remaining vestiges of Tenant power to the Council. Just what the Council have always wanted of course. Worth remembering that(despite what Channel 4 mistakedly like to propogate) the Council did not originally want a TMO to be set up back in 1995 but had to go along with it because the Tenants served a 'Right to Manage' Notice on the Council to force the issue. The Tenants Associatiopns in the Borough at that time (1994/5) wanted to get away from what they considered a permanently-in-power Conservative Council that had no interest in looking after let alone improving the various estates. Their setting up the TMO campaign was done at this time in good progressive faith, their campaign slogan was 'We can do it better'. Indeed they could and did run a better service for a number of years. Sadly this would be more variable in some later years. It's not the TMO management model itself however that was at fault but some inadequate staff in certain areas and a less empowered set of  Board Members cultivated by some clever manipulative officers who took over the real power.  I could never understand why the role of Chair was not taken by a Tenant or a Leaseholder. I never heard a single public word from the person who was the TMO Chair in the post Grenfell fire period.  This would prove disastrous in my view. It would come to blight the whole TMO sector which is, by and large, an honourable body who in most cases,provide better services than the Council's own housing management undertake. That's my take on matters.

Delaying the winding up process is clearly going to be challenging but if it were to succeed it might just give time for the Tenants and Leaseholders to know what the next steps would be. To be able to make an informed choice as to the way forward.  I cannot see Tenants getting any say if one of the big Housing Associations took over the management on behalf of the Council. It's a tough call for the Tenants.

I predict that the recently merged Peabody/ Family Mosaic HA will be approached by the Council. This would of course be an absolute disaster for the Tenants. Hope I am wrong here! We shall see.......

Grenfell Speaks to local residents Gordon and Samia about the upcoming TMO AGM

An Interesting Opinion

Read all about it here:

RBKC TMO vote: Electoral mass suicide

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/rbkc-tmo-vote-electoral-mass-suicide/

Attending the TMO Agm

As a TMO tenant/leaseholder AND member, you should have received your invitation pack for 17 October 2017. The letter signed by Elaine Elkington specifies in the last paragraph that you should confirm if you are attending. It is unclear where/how to do this, or if it is obligatory.

To be on the safe side, make sure that you do so, by writing to the TMO or using the Comment TMO page (http://www.kctmo.org.uk/online-forms-complaints), as this will give you email proof.

You can also call 020 76 05 63 52 or email companysecretariat@kctmo.org.uk

You also need to bring proof of ID. No doubt, the kind people of the TMO intend to take us all on a a nice trip on some sunny beach abroad, so have your passports ready!!!

TMO Says No

In response to a request for a copy of the Modular Management Agreement (MMA) which sets out the relationships between a TMO and its members, here is an excerpt of what RBKC TMO replied:

"Unfortunately we are unable to provide you a copy of the Modular Management Agreement as this is a commercially sensitive contractual document. Should you wish to pursue obtaining a copy, you may make a request under the Freedom of Information Act to the Council. The Standing Orders were recently updated and approved by the Board. Once the final amendments have been completed, I will forward you a copy."

Lo & behold, the MMA document is so commercially sensitive that you can find it online on a GOV.UK page:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-to-manage-guidance-modular-management-agreement-for-tenant-management-organisations-volume-1

And this is what a TMO worker (not in RBKC) had to say upon this reply:

"Extraordinary and unacceptable response!  I work for a TMO now and have worked for and around several others in the past.  I hold several copies of the MMA where I work and would make it immediately available to anyone who wants to see it.  I've never heard of anyone doing anything other.  To withhold the MMA from anyone - most of all RBKC tenants - is completely outrageous.  It's a public document, or should be, governing the management of public assets by public authorities.  The sense of a conspiracy to exclude tenants from meaningful involvement in this vital issue grows."

One wonders on whose orders the TMO made this reply. Perhaps we should ask James Bond to go and find out, unless E. Campbell, esteemed, revered and most wise council leader of RBKC, is willing to tell us on this blog's pages.

Further Advice

The following comment was forwarded to this blog:

It's an invidious situation that the K & C Tenants are in as clearly the current TMO Management service has failed them but what the Council are now proposing is to eliminate all tenant presence on the managing board. In a perverse sense, it is punishing what modest tenant empowerment for what has gone wrong. It is an unfortunately predictable response by the Council as it enables them to present themselves as somehow 'rescuing' the unfortunate Tenants from the wicked oppressive management of a body that in theory was supposed to be an example of Tenant empowerment. In reality the organisation became dominated after several years by self serving officers who were able to manipulate to their advantage; they ran the show.

The wonderful enthusiasm of the tenants and leaseholders who set up the original body back in 1995 were gradually displaced. The dedicated Labour Councillor John Keyes, an early promoter of the TMO model sadly passed on a few years after it was set up. I always thought that this was a big blow at the time as he had this empowerment vision. One of the very best Tenant Board activist members committed suicide by jumping off one of the Worlds End tower blocks. My own thinking  is that all efforts to delay the vote be employed so that those who care about the empowerment of the tenants at a management decision making level buy themselves some time to think through/formulate some new alternative governance structure in the managing of the homes. Clearly the current managing body has to go, as everyone has lost confidence in them. The current Chair of the TMO is not even a tenant. I have never seen or heard any comment from this person since the fire; it's as if she does not exist.

If the management of the homes is passed to an agency such as a Housing Association then tenants can kiss goodbye to having the opportunity to take more effective control of their service. Worth remembering that TUPE would kick in if another managing body (even the Council itself) takes over. This can mean perhaps unfortunately that the very same staff who appear to have not responded to the Grenfell tenants’ complaints and representations would transfer across to the new management. How they are managed and turn around their performance and probably more importantly their attitude, is something the replacement management body would need to achieve. It may well be that the current Inquiry will resolve some of the bad management issues by TMO staff anyway.

Before a vote of the TMO members takes place, Tenants need to know what is the proposed alternative and be able to exercise due diligence about its reality.  The Tenants may well need some independent advice on this point. Housing consultant Steve Hilditch may be the best adviser. He was a wonderful inclusive chair for the Hammersmith and Fulham ALMO when it was in operation. They got a 3 star rating. He helped develop tenants (an enormously important support function needed by Tenants) on the ALMO Board; a Councillor on the ALMO Board at the time said Steve was the 'best Chair he had ever come across'. Perhaps what needs to be developed is a fresh governance structure which really involves tenants and leaseholders. Something that groups like the Grenfell Action Group would sign up to. A revised constituency/ new constitution in effect is what is needed. At this stage perhaps there needs to be a Tenants and Leaseholders Steering Group dedicated to exploring the future management alternatives, to take these options forward. I read that there are 25 TRAs operating in the Borough. Consult them first of all to see if they think that developing a new governing management structure might be worthwhile and whether they would support efforts to examine what this might mean.

Terminating a TMO Modular Management Agreement has a voting authority process but it seems that this termination is being proposed without the Tenant membership body knowing what they are voting for ie what happens next. I would respectfully suggest that it is not in the tenants and leaseholders’ interest to leave the decision making up to such an uncaring Council. That is what will happen if the TMO is wound up right now. In 1995 I was part of a small team of TPAS independent housing consultants who helped set up the original TMO. The key motivation was to get away from what the tenant and leaseholder activists perceived as a permanent Conservative Council administration. Their campaign logo was 'We can do it better'. I produced a campaign video of that name for the tenants and leaseholders who wanted this change which featured only the words of the tenants reps. Despite what Channel 4 keep mistakenly saying, it was not the initiative of the Council to 'outsource' the management of the homes to a new TMO. What actually happened was that the tenants themselves served, what is known as a 'Right to Manage' Notice on the Council. The Council could not resist this serving of Notice. For a number of years, it worked well and the management service was generally really good, but changes over time in the personnel changed that. Did you know that Notting Hill Housing Group owned 3 leasehold flats at Grenfell Tower which they leased out to K & C homeless families? Two of the families were lost in the fire. They also own 23 such flats on the next door Lancaster West Estate; families from these 23 flats had to be evacuated due to the fire.