Andrew Gibson works in corporate communications. He lives in Lambeth and was a local councillor from 2006 to 2010.
The degree of mismanagement, financial waste, and consequent deprivation in strongly Labour councils is, given the endemic nature of the problem, underreported.
Such is the party’s dominance in much of urban England that its re-election is taken as given and its incompetence accepted; as we shall see, its various leadership failings lead to community discord and deep personal despair.
So it was welcome to see Michael Gove, Housing and Communities Secretary, act on this issue recently – and he cited my own borough council, Labour-controlled Lambeth, as an example of the problem he is working to fix.
It is instructive to consider Lambeth’s housing record, and Gove’s plans for raising standards on behalf of residents nationwide.
Gove wrote to the Lambeth’s Chief Exec and to Claire Holland, the council leader, saying:
“It is regrettable that I write to you again following further findings by the Housing Ombudsman of severe maladministration for Lambeth’s failings in complaint handling and making repairs.”
Cases have included residents being left without heat and hot water through winter, and living amid mould and damp, leading to illness. The Ombudsman directed that compensation be paid. The common theme of Lambeth’s Complaints resolution process is severe delay – and lack of resolution.
My own experience reinforces the view that the failings of Lambeth’s housing service run deep. In recent years and months, I have been asked for help by council tenant neighbours and have been struck by the service’s unresponsiveness.
In one case, a pensioner who is not online could not reclaim money he was owed. It was his money, and he needed it desperately.
Council staff were unhelpful throughout; our phone calls and emails and trips to Brixton to jump through hoops were numerous, and eventually spread over almost a year. The time we had to spend on this was worth more than the debt.
In another case, a council tenant and I went to the housing office to resolve an issue and we received encouraging noises. Yet, despite our follow up, no action resulted. When I called one day to see how my neighbour was, he did not answer the door.
His friend gained access later and found him dead, on the anniversary of his travails.
Bad as this is, Lambeth’s breach with its tenants goes beyond poor handling of complaints.
The Council’s fully-owned housing arm, Homes for Lambeth (HfL), established in 2017, set about becoming a de facto property developer. Six estates were earmarked for demolition and rebuilding.
The process was characterised by sham consultations, disputed projections, court challenges, and a huge residents’ backlash. Tenants united across the borough to highlight the folly of the plans; the Council was intent on demolishing communities for very few extra houses at social rent levels.
So shambolic was Lambeth’s conduct that the council itself appointed Lord Kerslake to investigate housing in the borough. Left-leaning, though measured in his approach, he reported:
“Despite securing significant levels of government grant in 2017… this grant has largely been unclaimed. Lambeth is one of the lowest performing boroughs in London in terms of delivery against its council housebuilding programme. This is despite Lambeth Council having invested some £30m to date in the set up and running of HfL.”
Speaking to residents, Kerslake found that:
“…feedback was uniformly negative. They spoke of inconsistent approaches, poor communications, delays, lack of consideration, and confusion of responsibilities between HfL and Lambeth Council… levels of trust in the Council are exceptionally low.”
Residents had highlighted these problems for years. But the Council’s Labour leadership at the time – inexperienced, arrogant, and even sometimes sarcastic as it was – ploughed ahead regardless.
Let’s hope the current leadership performs better as, under cover of the Report, it performs a reverse-ferret.
So Kerslake has pointed a way forward for Lambeth’s estate management. But what of Gove’s action on tenants’ complaints – and how will they affect councils generally?
The Government has launched a substantial information campaign, running until late April, encouraging tenants to take their complaints to their (council) landlord. If satisfaction is not achieved, escalating the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman has been made easier.
Looking forward, the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill will strengthen the powers of the Regulator: allowing it to enter properties at short notice, make emergency repairs at the landlord’s expense, and issue unlimited fines to failing landlords.
This strengthening of the hand of social housing tenants is welcome. (It would be better still if the Government would increase incentives for councils and tenants to expedite council house sales and get citizens out of the grip of the state.)
But fundamentally, in a democracy, the citizenry will have the council it votes for. The parties are not “all the same”, whatever people may gripe.
Too many Labour councillors see their tenants not as fellow citizens to be served, but as tools to be wielded as the politically ambitious build up their CVs. The consequences for tenants of Labour’s haughtiness is baleful.
Gove’s measures are welcome. But highlighting Labour’s failings to voters in all types of housing tenure is a political and moral imperative for Conservative campaigners.
Andrew Gibson works in corporate communications. He lives in Lambeth and was a local councillor from 2006 to 2010.
The degree of mismanagement, financial waste, and consequent deprivation in strongly Labour councils is, given the endemic nature of the problem, underreported.
Such is the party’s dominance in much of urban England that its re-election is taken as given and its incompetence accepted; as we shall see, its various leadership failings lead to community discord and deep personal despair.
So it was welcome to see Michael Gove, Housing and Communities Secretary, act on this issue recently – and he cited my own borough council, Labour-controlled Lambeth, as an example of the problem he is working to fix.
It is instructive to consider Lambeth’s housing record, and Gove’s plans for raising standards on behalf of residents nationwide.
Gove wrote to the Lambeth’s Chief Exec and to Claire Holland, the council leader, saying:
“It is regrettable that I write to you again following further findings by the Housing Ombudsman of severe maladministration for Lambeth’s failings in complaint handling and making repairs.”
Cases have included residents being left without heat and hot water through winter, and living amid mould and damp, leading to illness. The Ombudsman directed that compensation be paid. The common theme of Lambeth’s Complaints resolution process is severe delay – and lack of resolution.
My own experience reinforces the view that the failings of Lambeth’s housing service run deep. In recent years and months, I have been asked for help by council tenant neighbours and have been struck by the service’s unresponsiveness.
In one case, a pensioner who is not online could not reclaim money he was owed. It was his money, and he needed it desperately.
Council staff were unhelpful throughout; our phone calls and emails and trips to Brixton to jump through hoops were numerous, and eventually spread over almost a year. The time we had to spend on this was worth more than the debt.
In another case, a council tenant and I went to the housing office to resolve an issue and we received encouraging noises. Yet, despite our follow up, no action resulted. When I called one day to see how my neighbour was, he did not answer the door.
His friend gained access later and found him dead, on the anniversary of his travails.
Bad as this is, Lambeth’s breach with its tenants goes beyond poor handling of complaints.
The Council’s fully-owned housing arm, Homes for Lambeth (HfL), established in 2017, set about becoming a de facto property developer. Six estates were earmarked for demolition and rebuilding.
The process was characterised by sham consultations, disputed projections, court challenges, and a huge residents’ backlash. Tenants united across the borough to highlight the folly of the plans; the Council was intent on demolishing communities for very few extra houses at social rent levels.
So shambolic was Lambeth’s conduct that the council itself appointed Lord Kerslake to investigate housing in the borough. Left-leaning, though measured in his approach, he reported:
“Despite securing significant levels of government grant in 2017… this grant has largely been unclaimed. Lambeth is one of the lowest performing boroughs in London in terms of delivery against its council housebuilding programme. This is despite Lambeth Council having invested some £30m to date in the set up and running of HfL.”
Speaking to residents, Kerslake found that:
“…feedback was uniformly negative. They spoke of inconsistent approaches, poor communications, delays, lack of consideration, and confusion of responsibilities between HfL and Lambeth Council… levels of trust in the Council are exceptionally low.”
Residents had highlighted these problems for years. But the Council’s Labour leadership at the time – inexperienced, arrogant, and even sometimes sarcastic as it was – ploughed ahead regardless.
Let’s hope the current leadership performs better as, under cover of the Report, it performs a reverse-ferret.
So Kerslake has pointed a way forward for Lambeth’s estate management. But what of Gove’s action on tenants’ complaints – and how will they affect councils generally?
The Government has launched a substantial information campaign, running until late April, encouraging tenants to take their complaints to their (council) landlord. If satisfaction is not achieved, escalating the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman has been made easier.
Looking forward, the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill will strengthen the powers of the Regulator: allowing it to enter properties at short notice, make emergency repairs at the landlord’s expense, and issue unlimited fines to failing landlords.
This strengthening of the hand of social housing tenants is welcome. (It would be better still if the Government would increase incentives for councils and tenants to expedite council house sales and get citizens out of the grip of the state.)
But fundamentally, in a democracy, the citizenry will have the council it votes for. The parties are not “all the same”, whatever people may gripe.
Too many Labour councillors see their tenants not as fellow citizens to be served, but as tools to be wielded as the politically ambitious build up their CVs. The consequences for tenants of Labour’s haughtiness is baleful.
Gove’s measures are welcome. But highlighting Labour’s failings to voters in all types of housing tenure is a political and moral imperative for Conservative campaigners.