Tenants who live in flats, especially flats in Botanic Road where I live, are also expressing fears because the NDC administrators and C7 have already hinted that people who live in flats in three storey houses may be surreptitiously forced to move out so that the houses can be turned into large family town houses for sale to yuppies. The fear amongst tenants who live in flats is that C7 and the other RSL’s will not replace tenants who leave through natural migration and will force other tenants like myself who have secure tenancies to leave by putting stooge tenants into the houses were we live i.e. drug addicts and anti social tenants with mental problems. The RSL officers are experts when it comes to using this form of harassment against tenants who they want out. I am not in any way insinuating that Venture did this deliberately but some years ago Venture put a drug addict into the house were I live. This put me through months of stress and worry. Things got so bad that I was afraid to leave the flat in case it was broken into. The guy had that many drug dealers, who he had ripped off, looking for him that he eventually left. RSL’s have also used the harassment laws against tenants who complain. They do this by building a dossier up on the targeted tenants that they want out. This abuse of the harassment laws, as well as silencing dissident tenants, also put pressure on them to leave.

The £62m NDC initiative’s board has ten elected resident board members representing 5 areas within the NDC zone, two in each area. Only two of the ten resident board members are tenants and one of them has just resigned because she was, amongst other things, upset with the behaviour of C7. Many tenants now believe that tenants are being deliberately excluded from the NDC board and initiative because Riverside and the other RSL’s in the area don’t want any opposition to the stock transfers from their tenants. The recent resignation of the tenant board member surely gives further authentication to the latter statement.

C7, who were registered by the Housing Corporation a couple of months ago, are a subsidiary of the largest housing association in Merseyside called Riverside Housing, this means that C7, although they have their own board, will still have to do what Riverside’s main board orders them to do. Riverside, who have 23,000 properties in Merseyside, are hated and not trusted within the NDC area, especially by the homeowners, who blame Riverside for the areas decline? (Not vetting tenants properly which has led to antisocial tenants being re-housed in the area).

Homeowner’s say Riverside’s appalling record of not maintaining their properties and the antisocial tenant problems has led to the homeowners properties falling into the negative equity bracket, which means their houses are worth far less than houses in better areas of Merseyside.

The New Deal area is comprised of 4,200 houses, flats, and other dwellings, such as shops and small businesses. There are 13,000 residents living in the NDC area. The situation of tenure in the NDC area is 60% tenants and 40% homeowners. There are 11 housing associations in the NDC area, the biggest being Riverside Housing.

I rent from an RSL called Venture Housing. Venture Housing has 1,500 properties, of which about 147 are situated in the NDC area. In my opinion Venture is an oppressive RSL, but it is slightly better run and tenant friendly than Riverside. Venture has a tenant rep on its board (Venture has a board of 12 people, only one is a tenant and he has been on the board for years whereas Riverside has no tenant reps on its main board). Venture is a better RSL in comparison to Riverside because it is much smaller. Most RSL’s, including Venture, have a very poor record when it comes to the issue of tenant democracy and participation.

Venture intends to transfer their 147 properties over to C7 without any real democratic consultation with the residents. In my opinion Venture will put together a form of consultation methodology that will suit Venture and C7’s agenda. I have asked Venture can I visit the 147 Venture tenants and give them a more enhanced view of the situation. Of course, Venture refused to give me the tenant’s addresses claiming that it would infringe tenant confidentiality. This means that Venture can approach the tenants in such a way as to promote the transfers with no opposition from dissenters. Where’s the democracy in this state of affairs?

Most if not all RSL’s are accountable to the Housing Corporation, which has set down standards for them to follow. These standards can be observed in recent Housing Corporations documentation. These documents are called “The Way Forward” Our approach to regulations and “The Regulatory Code and Guidance.” Both of these, rather brief, documents, which can be found on the Housing Corporations web site, are obscure, especially when it comes to the issue of tenant participation and democracy.

It’s interesting to note that the Deputy Prime Minister's office at the DETR are looking at tenant democracy in Denmark, which is far more advanced than in the UK. If you log onto:  http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/local/pat5/09.htm and observe the document which covers housing associations in Denmark you will see that central government must be aware of the fact that there is no tenant democracy in most of the RSL’s in the UK. This is in spite of the fact that central government and the Housing Corporation talk about more tenant representation on RSL boards and more tenant forums, which use open democratic procedures.

This lack of any openness and democratic procedure now permeates nearly every structure of civil society in this country.

If you log onto:  http://www.islingtonfacts.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ and go to “Dishing the Dirt” you will see how tenant representation on RSL boards is non-existent, even though central government and the Housing Corporation recommend it. It would seem that the Housing Corporation and The Prime Ministers office have put together recommendations that are supposed to be consistent with good practice, but as is always the case, the rhetoric does not correspond with reality.