Simon Martin from the TPAS will attend to respond to questions on tenant representation on Housing Associations.
Minutes:
The Steering Group welcomed Simon Martin from TPAS, who had been invited to answer questions on tenant representation on housing associations and through the transfer process. It was acknowledged that Bracknell Forest had not yet reached a decision to ballot for transfer and the advice and comments provided were given in that context.
There were several points and questions the Council and Tenants would need to be aware of and plan for:
(i) rumours and misinformation would begin to circulate among tenants and staff unless the Council and tenant bodies were clear about the process they were taking and this was communicated clearly to all stakeholders.
(ii) The Shadow Board would not be allowed to include staff so the Council would need to consider how it would involve and engage staff.
(iii) Tenants representatives needed to be clear and understand each proposed decision before it was taken.
(iv) In deciding what type of housing association to propose for a transfer, it would be necessary to show that other options had been considered.
(v) The size of the Board would need to be considered. It was usually either 12 or 15. Would tenants be the largest group on the Board or would there be equal numbers of councillors and independent persons? The time-commitment involved in serving on the Board would be very heavy and this was a consideration when deciding how many busy councillors and tenants’ representatives to appoint.
(vi) How would Tenant Members of the Board be recruited? Open invitation, election or selection? How would it impact on the tenant participation processes if the most active tenant representatives all joined the Board?
(vii) How will leaseholders be involved in the process? Most authorities test the opionion of leaseholders in parallel with the tenant ballot, even though they are not formally balloted.
(viii) The timetable should be realistic and achievable. It was not worth rushing ahead without all stakeholders being engaged in the process.
(ix) Board Members would receive help, advice and training to take up their new responsibilities.
(x) The corporate image of the new association would need to be considered early on, including appointing a chief executive and director of finance
(xi) The Council would need to consider and give clear commitments on how the capital receipt would be spent.
Simon Martin answered questions from the Steering Group and the salient points were:
· It was often an advantage to have one of the tenant members as Chair of the shadow Board. This demonstrated that tenants were in control of the process.
· Independent members would be selected to complement the skills and experience of the other Board Members. The tenant and councillor representatives together would select the independent members, which had be comprise one third of the total membership. All Board members would serve for a fixed term, which would be renewable and phased to ensure continuity.
· Housing associations normally have charitable status –for VAT purposes.
· Issues such as housing benefits and the waiting list would remain a function of the Borough Council, which would retain sufficient staff to manage those aspects. Other housing staff would transfer to the housing association.
· The Government normally made an annual announcement of the transfer programme when any authorities could bid to be considered. Once a place on the transfer programme was confirmed the process normally took about two years to complete, with no more than one year between the ballot and the transfer. The Government had not yet announced when it would be inviting bids for the next programme.
· The Council would not have to go out to tender to sell the homes – that arrangement would only apply where a council was setting up an Arms Length Management Organisation, which option had already been disregarded as it was not a viable option for Bracknell Forest.
The Steering Group thanked Simon Martin for his contribution.