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.

Consultation Now!

Residents demand consultation now on the interim and future arrangements of management of their homes.

Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) are not fit for purpose. Over the years, they have systematically failed tenants and leaseholders and treated them with contempt and institutional indifference. RBKC have also consistently ignored the views and concerns of its residents. Consultations have been meaningless and mostly just a tick boxing exercise.

On 7 September 2017, RBKC took back control of their powers from Gold command and have returned to business as usual. This is despite an appalling response to this tragedy that was partly caused by the RBKC business conduct when it comes to residents. 4 months on, the voice of residents continues to be ignored and there is still little engagement on decisions that affect our future. We are yet to see tangible action from RBKC that would help rebuild some public confidence in their ability to serve our community.

 KCTMO have now called for an AGM to be held on 17 October 2017 proposing a resolution to give notice of termination of the agreement (Resolution 5) with RBKC and for RBKC to then become the sole member of KCTMO (Special Resolution 6). Residents will lose their membership of KCTMO. Residents are concerned that KCTMO will get its way again. They must remain accountable for their actions leading to Grenfell fire for the purpose of the criminal investigation and the public inquiry.

This is born out by the blatant attempt to use our traumatised emotional state and our anger towards the KCTMO to encourage the residents to vote for Resolution 5 and Special Resolution 6 that will be detrimental to the rights and voice of the residents.

What KCTMO is effectively asking is that the members agree to end the agreement themselves, because the Council is asking them to. It appears that this is a blatant attempt to circumvent the set procedure RBKC should follow should it wish to terminate the Modular Management Agreement (MMA). It may be that this is an attempt to pass power to the Council prior to engaging in a consultation process with members, which is a cause of some concern.

An even stranger aspect of this is a second resolution Special Resolution 6 containing alteration’s to be made to the KCTMO Articles of Association (its constitutional document). This is a highly unusual proposal, which provides for RBKC to itself become a member of the TMO – preparing for a future situation in which it will become the “sole member”. What seems to be proposed here, rather than the ending of the TMO as suggested in Resolution 5, is the continuing existence of the TMO, which will at some future point consist only of the Council itself. According to the draft MMA as we understand it, RBKC have the power to take measures including the serving of a supervision notice serviced in respect of all of the TMOs management functions.

How can we trust them when we do not have a copy of the MMA, we have made a Freedom of information request however we have been ignored.

As a result, Gordon Futter, coordinator of an RBKC residents groups put a motion calling on a postponement of the vote for Resolution 5 and Special Resolution 6 that would jeopardise the interests of over 9,000 households in Kensington and Chelsea.

Gordon Futter commented that” we want KCTMO gone but they must go on our terms and without further prejudice or detriment to the residents. KCTMO are playing with our emotions. By voting for these 2 resolutions and without further clarifications or guarantees, we are vulnerable to a transfer of the Council housing stock and we would lose our right to participate. Promises of consultations are meaningless in this borough and we expect guarantees. It is not a political game. Our future depends on it. We are entitled to access information and advice, and to be given adequate time to make a real choice of what happens now. We have had no say in the transitional arrangements between RBKC and KCTMO. We have no access to the contract that gives options to end the KCTMO after Grenfell; we can never go back to being ignored and side lined or consulted RBKC style. It simply doesn’t work. My motion is the first step for resident’s to take back control and choose what is right for us.”

Residents expected full and proper consultation to take place on any interim arrangements about the future management of our homes. Instead of using their powers to take actions such as serving supervision notices or other warnings, they have been in bilateral discussions with KCTMO without consulting with residents.

Residents are concerned by the lack of information/action to advice on the consequences of adoption KCTMO’s resolutions. Residents are also concerned that KCTMO yet again attempt to mislead them and that the proposed way of ending KCTMO management is an attempt by both KCTMO and RBKC to circumvent the consultation process, Furthermore, the adoption of the special resolution effectively means that residents are relinquishing their right to participate

For more information please contact Gordon Futter:
g.futter@mac.com

Stand up and be counted

Once more, RBKC & TMO are acting with all the arrogance they are capable of. They have called an AGM, asking us to vote in a certain way on certain resolutions. They have decided, in their supreme wisdom, what is good for us.

They still have not learnt.

There is no need for an AGM to start talks on the future of the management of the properties where we live.

There is no need for a vote on such and such resolutions to start a borough wide consultation. This AGM is either a smokescreen, or the Tories still have not got a clue.

There is no need for us to wait for this AGM to start getting ideas together, and to consult with respected housing activists & housing groups.

Any consultation ought to be residents led, with RBKC & TMO assisting us in producing viable propositions. Then negotiations can start, inside a proper governance framework.

I have no wish to be the Tories's next victim of their incompetence & arrogance. Do you?

Voting

There are 3 ways to vote at the forthcoming AGM: in person, by post, or online. DO NOT give a proxy vote to anyone whatsoever, as there is no guarantee that the holder of the proxy vote will vote in the way you have indicated.

The Danger of that Special Resolution 6

This is what came out of a meeting of the Kensington Residents Association on 1st October 2017:

AGM Resolutions & Special Resolution 6

The KCTMO AGM takes place on Tuesday 17th October to end its management agreement with RBKC. But the KCTMO is trying to push through a Special Resolution 6 to make important changes to the Articles of Association. This is for the purpose of winding up the LTD company however this also give both RBKC and the TMO the right to end the Modular Management Agreement (MMA) at any time.

After the announcement made by Kim Taylor-Smith on Wednesday evening the 27th September and the announcement of the KCTMO AGM it would appear that the KCTMO have agreed to end the agreement in modules over the coming months (no time frame given)

The Special Resolution 6 gives the right to the RBKC to become the soul member of the KCTMO after Special Resolution 6 is inserted into the current Article’s of Association of the KCTMO where currently only the KCTMO members have the right to vote.

Apposing the Special Resolution 6 ensures that the KCTMO members have to be consulted before either RBKC OR KCTMO can end the MMA.

3. AGAINST:  Re-appointing of Auditors, we would like independent Auditor’s to be appointed.

4. FOR: Auditor’s remuneration. The new Auditor’s should be paid.

5. FOR: Termination of Management Agreement with the TMO. Yes we do want the TMO to end with the partnership and co design of residents in the formation of our future 

Special Resolution 6

AGAINST: Charges to the Articles of Association. Because all TMO members would loose their vote if either RBKC or KCTMO ended their MMA agreement without consultation of the TMO members.

UPDATE (4 October 2017):it is both resolutions 5 & 6 which TOGETHER, represent danger.

A letter to the TMO

Some of us have been worried about this forthcoming AGM. So we put our heads together, and as a result, the following letter was delivered today 2 October 2017 at the TMO office at 346 High St Kensington, for the attention of the Chief Exec:

===

Motion to postpone voting  on Ordinary Resolution 5 and Special Resolution 6 pending Consultation with Members & residents.

We are  gravely  concerned  about  the  lack  of information made  available  to, and consultation with  Members  and Residents as regards  the justification for and consequences of Resolution 5 and Special Resolution 6.

These  proposals   potentially  constitute  a  violation   of  statutory  duties   to consult  on matters relating  to the management of housing.  They also appear to  be an attempt to  circumvent the  correct  procedure  as designated  in  the Modular  Management Agreement  which  council  should  follow  if  it wishes  to terminate the agreement. The termination procedure  contains  clear steps for the council to follow in addition  to significant periods  of consultation.

The letter provided to Members dated 22 September 2017 contains misleading information in respect  of the consequences  of not  passing  these resolutions. The council  cannot,  as is suggested,  simply  cease to  fund  the TMO causing its insolvency.  There will not be, as is suggested, wholesale loss of services and jobs, the latter  of which will be protected by the provisions  of TUPE. This  letter  is  therefore extremely misleading, and  may  in  fact  veer into  the realm of misinformation.

All should  be aware that  these Resolutions as currently proposed  could have very  drastic  consequences  for  the  future   of  the  management of  the  Royal Borough  of  Kensington  & Chelsea's  housing  stock.  On  a  prima  facie  view they  appear to surrender the Residents' stake in future  decision-making and provide  for a complete  hand-over of control  to the Council. Given the current Council's  less  than  unblemished involvement  in  the  events  leading  to  the Grenfell  Tower disaster, we have  no faith  that  they  are  the  best  agents  to represent the interests of the Residents at this time, without  any oversight.

This  decision  is  a  momentous one  and  simply  cannot  be  rushed  through without Members   and   Residents   having   the   opportunity  to   be  further informed, with a view to seeking independent advice on the consequences of such a motion. It is also vital  that  Members  and  Residents have  a genuine opportunity to look into potential alternatives to the proposals in these Resolutions.

We do agree that  the functions  of the TMO must  be systematically reviewed. If it is the case that  the TMO comes to an end, it is essential that  this is done following  correct  procedure, and at a time  when an acceptable  proposal  for the  ongoing   management  of  RBKC's housing  stock  is  in  place.  We firmly believe  that  the continued participation of the  Residents in an oversight role in  the  TMO is  necessary   and  proportionate in  the  circumstances. In  any event,    no   decision   relinquishing  this   participation  and   thus   drastically altering  the   management  structure  of  the   TMO  can   be  on   such   little information and with  no consultation.

We therefore urge  all  present   to  vote  against   Ordinary   Resolution   5  and Special  Resolution  6, and  to  instead  support  a  postponement of  decision­ making    in   respect   of   the   future    structure  of   the   TMO   until    proper consultation has occurred.
===

It is hoped that this motion will gather maximum support at the AGM.