south northamptonshire council choice of landlord seminar alan johnson
DESCRIPTION
South Northamptonshire Council Choice of landlord seminar Alan Johnson. The Principles. Considering New stand-alone RSL or new RSL within an existing Group (A new organisation set up for SN as a subsidiary of an existing RSL) Existing RSL - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
South South Northamptonshire Northamptonshire
CouncilCouncil
Choice of landlord Choice of landlord seminarseminar
Alan JohnsonAlan Johnson
The PrinciplesThe PrinciplesThe PrinciplesThe Principles
• Considering • New stand-alone RSL• or new RSL within an existing Group
• (A new organisation set up for SN as a subsidiary of an existing RSL)
• Existing RSL• (Transfer of the stock to an existing RSL with local offices
but HQ outside SN)
• Differences are small between Stand-alone and Group
• Would depend • Type of Group• What is negotiated
Key issues (1)Key issues (1)Key issues (1)Key issues (1)
• Identity with South Northants• SA: absolute local identity
• Set up for SN
• G: strong local identity within Group• New subsidiary set up for SN
• E: limited local identity• Will depend on scale of operations and
negotiations
Key Issues (2)Key Issues (2)Key Issues (2)Key Issues (2)
• Control• SA: Controlled by local Board
• Typical Board of 5 Council reps, 5 Tenant reps and 5 independents
• G: managed by local Board (as above)• BUT Parent must have the right to exercise
ultimate control in certain circumstances
• E: No local Board but representation on main Board (by negotiation)
Key Issues (3)Key Issues (3)Key Issues (3)Key Issues (3)
• Expertise• SA: will need to recruit new Management Team• G: can call on skills within Group• E: skills and experience available
• Policies• SA: developed specifically for SN• G: developed for SN but compatible with Group• E: already has policies in place
• Value for Money• G: should benefit from economies within Group
(eg. central services)• E: additional economies may be achievable
Key Issues (4)Key Issues (4)Key Issues (4)Key Issues (4)
• Community Empowerment• SA: Tenant representation on Board• SA: Tenant involvement in policy development• G: Tenant Representation on local Board but
limited opportunities for representation on Parent
• G: Tenant involvement in policy development (consistent with Group policies)
• E: opportunities for local representation (inc. tenants) on existing Board
Key Issues (5)Key Issues (5)Key Issues (5)Key Issues (5)
• New development • Housing Corporation requirement
• RSL must have development status
• SA: would need to operate through Partner RSL
• G: would use Parent who would have development status
• E: already has development status
Similarities and differences Similarities and differences (tenants)(tenants)
Similarities and differences Similarities and differences (tenants)(tenants)
• Major works and improvements• Guaranteed: no difference
• Meet priority aspirations• Guaranteed: no difference
• Service Improvements• Guaranteed: no difference
• Enhanced tenant empowerment• May be greater opportunity in SA
Similarities and differences Similarities and differences (the Council)(the Council)
Similarities and differences Similarities and differences (the Council)(the Council)
• Support to the transfer process• Group/Existing could offer financial and staff support
• Capital receipt from sale of housing• Group/Existing may be prepared to pay more
• Provision of additional affordable homes• Higher receipt could be used to support more new homes
• Strategic housing services• All three options could support the Council
• Representation and Influence• Council likely to have more influence over SA and least
over Existing
Similarities and differences Similarities and differences (staff)(staff)
Similarities and differences Similarities and differences (staff)(staff)
• Job satisfaction• Should increase in any of the three options
• Office location• Must be in SN initially• But Group and Existing HQ likely to be outside SN
• Pensions and terms and conditions• Guaranteed in all three cases
• Career opportunities• More in Group/Existing but also more competition
• Opportunity for central services staff to transfer• Less chance in Group/Existing
Final considerationsFinal considerationsFinal considerationsFinal considerations
• Local identity• Control• Long term viability• Flexibility (merger and demerger)• Ability to attract the right staff• Value for money• WILL IT GET THE SUPPORT OF THE
TENANTS