Borough of Poole Poole Housing Partnership Governance Options - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 16
About This Presentation
Title:

Borough of Poole Poole Housing Partnership Governance Options

Description:

Options to vary ownership to tenants/community taking a share or majority part ... Kensington and Chelsea TMO and United Residents Housing Lambeth ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:43
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 17
Provided by: yourp
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Borough of Poole Poole Housing Partnership Governance Options


1
Borough of PoolePoole Housing Partnership
Governance Options
  • 30th March 2009
  • Steve Partridge

2
Agenda
  • Recap organisational options
  • ALMOs
  • Housing Associations and Housing Companies
  • Community Gateway

3
3-D options for ALMO authorities
  • Organisational
  • Financial
  • Governance

ALMO
Transfer
ALMO as is
New form ALMO
ALMO as the HA
New/existing HA
Transfer
Subsidy
Self financing
Gateway
Trad Board
4
Organisational options
  • Continue with ALMO
  • Current ownership 100 council
  • Develop ALMO into different ownership models
  • Options to vary ownership to tenants/community
    taking a share or majority part
  • Currently not supported by government but work
    being carried out
  • Stock Transfer to the ALMO as a new RSL/HA
  • Stock Transfer to the a new or existing RSL/HA
  • New housing association set up for the purpose
  • New housing association in partnership

5
Company limited
  • A bit of theory - companies limited by
  • Share
  • Shareholders purchase shares when they become
    members
  • For housing associations - 1 share for all
    members one member one vote at the AGM
  • Guarantee
  • Shareholders guarantee to purchase their 1 share
    in the event of liquidation
  • Co-operative ownership
  • Membership in common
  • Can take different forms
  • Governance structures are not necessarily linked
    to ownership

6
ALMO current arrangements
  • Ownership
  • A company limited by guarantee
  • 100 owned by the council but the stock stays
    with the council
  • Governance
  • Board of management arrangements reflect the
    experience of stock transfer housing companies
    (see later)
  • RSL governance best practice has had a major
    influence on the creation of ALMO boards
  • Code of practice
  • Length of agreements
  • Currently established with short or long term
    agreements
  • But always short term break clauses

7
Different types of ALMO?
  • Although currently not supported by government,
    RSL models suggest there may be options on ALMO
    ownership
  • Ownership
  • Could expand to community/other organisations
  • Stock would remain owned by the council
  • Governance
  • Could change board of management but not
    necessary
  • Possible advantages
  • If council lt 49 owner, comes out of public
    expenditure and able to raise finance separately
    to the council
  • Would need longer term management agreement
  • Effective control over the rental stream

8
ALMO and community gateway
  • Community empowerment options need considering
  • Within the ALMO framework, there are some models
    already in place
  • Kensington and Chelsea TMO and United Residents
    Housing Lambeth
  • Tenant empowerment could be increased through
  • Ownership widening ownership to include some,
    majority or all tenants
  • Governance changing the composition of the board
    of management
  • Local structures
  • Separate Gateway approach could also be tested
    (see later)
  • Stock stays with the council as remains under the
    ALMO model

9
Different types of Housing Association
  • Independent, self governing, not for profit and
    regulated
  • Housing Association and Registered Social
    Landlord used interchangeably, but several
    different types
  • Charitable Trust
  • Guinness, Peabody, William Sutton
  • Industrial and Provident Society
  • Usually originally established for the benefit of
    specific groups
  • Traditional 1 share for all members
  • Local Housing Company
  • Company limited by guarantee
  • Ownership generally in three groups council,
    tenants and ordinary (independent) members
  • Co-operative models, Abbeyfield societies,
    Almshouses

10
RSL types and transfer
  • The first 60 stock transfers to 1996
  • To Housing Associations along traditional lines
  • Industrial and Provident Societies
  • Since the mid-late 1990s
  • Establishment of the local housing company model
    for transfer
  • Originally associated with urban, low value
    transfers
  • Now used in a widespread way for virtually all
    transfer proposals
  • Advantages of company model
  • Council retains a minority stake in the RSL
  • Able to influence delivery plans directly in the
    critical first years after transfer
  • Reminder ownership not necessarily linked to
    governance

11
Community Gateway
  • A range of Community Gateway transfers in the
    last 4-5 years Preston, Watford, Bracknell
    Forest
  • Tenant ownership and membership
  • Governance
  • Best practice in RSL Local Company governance
    grafted on to the tenant ownership/membership
    model
  • Gateway arrangements
  • Gateway Committee
  • Membership
  • Can be all tenants or opt in
  • Usually linked to a very deep commitment to new
    forms of community empowerment and structures

12
New or existing RSL?
  • Transfer to
  • Stand alone RSL created for the purpose of
    receiving the stock
  • Poole Housing Partnership
  • A completely new organisation
  • Partnership and/or existing RSL
  • New RSL created for the purpose of receiving the
    stock but joining a group structure with another,
    larger, RSL
  • PHP converting and joining a group
  • Direct transfer into an existing RSL
  • Key issues
  • Finance
  • Local flavour

13
Charitable or not?
  • Charitable status can be applied for a HA/RSL
    through the Charity Commissioners
  • Trustees and beneficiaries
  • Housing necessitous circumstances
  • Advantages
  • Financial through avoidance of corporation
    tax/land tax
  • Financial for the transfer itself through VAT
    shelter
  • Helps to promote notion of not for profit
  • Disadvantages
  • May limit certain activities (eg home ownership,
    market renting etc)

14
Note on key differences
  • Ownership of the stock
  • With ALMO always council stock ownership, with
    transfer stock transfers to the new/existing
    RSL (NB Bolton)
  • Ownership of the organisation (PHP or other)
  • Now 100 council, other ALMO models and stock
    transfer involve ownership changing
  • Change of tenancies if transfer
  • Local Authority vs RSL Assured
  • Rights to Repair and Manage
  • Rights to Acquire and Buy
  • Transfer private finance
  • Off public sector balance sheet with greater
    financial freedom

15
Note on key similarities
  • Either ALMO or transfer would mean no change in a
    whole range of areas
  • Continuity of service delivery and staff whatever
    the organisation
  • No name change if transfer to PHP
  • Rent policy
  • Rent restructuring for councils rent
    influencing for RSLs
  • Target or formula rents the same whatever happens
  • Regulation with the Tenant Services Authority
    will be added to ALMOs next year
  • Availability of funding from Homes and
    Communities Agency for new build

16
Summary governance models
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com