Tenant Management Works!

We were really disappointed to come across a letter in The Guardian a couple of days ago which was submitted in the wake of the announcement by The Housing Ombudsman that complaints about housing had increased by 474% in recent years. The letter outlined difficulties being experienced on a large South London estate which is being managed by a Tenant Management Organisation (TMO).

I was disappointed for two reasons. Firstly, because, as the representative body for TMOs, we’ve been extolling the virtues of tenant control for decades and, secondly, because the author of the letter believed that giving tenants control through a TMO had “…become an open door for abuse” and “…only seems to protect those who manage social housing estates…”. Neither of these statements should be true but, occasionally, we recognise they can be. An article in the Observer earlier this year reported (from what is probably the same estate in South London) and highlighted similar issues but also repeated some tired old tropes about tenant management referring to a website that hasn’t been updated for almost 15 years and which was rooted in a very localised dispute between two residents.

Perhaps unintentionally this website also highlighted one of the safeguards that exist to protect residents from poorly managed TMOs by pointing out that a developing TMO had comprehensively lost the ballot of residents that is required before a TMO can assume management services. Such a ballot has to be repeated (and won) every 5 years so residents have this regular opportunity to reject a poorly performing organisation – try doing that with a council or housing association!

We know that tenant management isn’t a panacea, it doesn’t provide more money (although the evidence shows that the existing funds are better spent) and TMOs don’t tend to take on the major investment programmes to address structural issues (new roofs, new lifts etc.). TMOs provide a day-to-day responsive service and oversee the basic repairs, cleaning and grounds maintenance functions. That said, they are good at what they do, are based in the block or estate they manage and build up relationships with those they serve. All of which is overseen by a committee of people who live in the same homes  and experience the same issues as everyone else.

RBKC TMO and Grenfell Tower is often referred to in the context of tenant management and, in its response to the phase 2 report from the Inquiry, the government acknowledged that it was in fact both a TMO and an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) in fact we would argue it was neither and reflected instead attempts to avoid/exploit government policy. Given that the average size of a TMO is just under 300 homes, the 9500 homes managed by RBKC TMO was off the scale in comparison. It was originally established to side-step government legislation in the mid-1990s to introduce Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) of council housing services – TMOs were exempt. In the early 2000s it amended its governance structure to something akin to an ALMO so that it was able to access funding to achieve the Decent Homes Standard – TMOs weren’t permitted to.

Leaving the governance structures aside the main issue was that the local authority landlord adopted a laissez faire attitude to what happened with its housing stock and this seems to be repeated in the recent article and letter. All TMOs operate under the terms of a management agreement between with the landlord. This sets out in detail how the relationship works, who does what and what standards must be achieved. If the TMO fails to do so there are a range of measures the landlord can use. These range from warning notices, direct supervision of services or the termination of some or all of the services. Far from protecting the TMO, these measures are weighted in favour of the landlord and issues have mainly stemmed from overuse of the powers by the landlord.

Put simply, tenant management empowers residents to design and deliver their own housing services using the same level of funding that the landlord would spend on delivering the same services. TMOs are set standards to be achieved that must be the same as the landlord’s own performance targets but TMOs are free to reach them using the best methods for their area.

This can mean using local contractors or directly employing cleaners or repair operatives. It often means that services are delivered in a different way from the landlord.

One area that does need to improve is the communication between the TMO and the landlord where the council retain responsibility for the repair. This is often the area that causes greatest concern covering Condensation, Damp and Mould or other repairs requiring more major investment. It is for the landlord to prioritise its investment strategy but this can leave the impression that the TMO isn’t doing anything about poor living conditions. Better communication with the tenant would help – but it doesn’t get the investment made any quicker.

The introduction of Awaab’s Law is rightly holding landlords to account in this area but the root cause is often structural and therefore will still be a landlord responsibility. Too often landlords ‘forget’ TMOs when it comes to how cases are referred for action to address matters of this nature.

Of course, if the TMO achieves the required standards (quality, timeliness etc.) and does so more efficiently (less cost) then they are able to retain any surplus and invest it in their area for the benefit of all. This has seen many many improvements across TMO managed homes, including new kitchens and bathrooms for tenants, improved play facilities, block redecoration, improved community facilities and social events for all. I can point to community kitchens, after-school/homework clubs, new ball games areas, partnership working with local charities and even the provision of a free to use cash machine all of which have actively improved the lives of those living in the homes TMOs manage.

We know Tenant Management Works!