DMC's Review - History of the DMC's

An officers report to the councils Housing and Adult Social Care in regards to the review the committee is carrying out into the 5 Committee District Management Committee's (DMC's) HERE


History of the DMC's

Back in the days prior to part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 HERE coming into force in July 2001, the dmc's where sub-committee's of the councils then Housing committee. 

The housing committee and its sub-committees had council tenants as members - legislation allows them to do this.

In 1998, a DMC document HERE reveals that cllrs on the Housing committee bestowed upon some council tenants rights they weren't legally entitled to: voting rights on the councils housing committees (the dmc's).

" RESOLVED 

THAT the Tenants' Associations listed in Appendix A be  formally registered with the Council and their nominated representatives be co-opted onto the DMC, with voting rights for the Municipal Year 1998/99"   HERE

Legislation

The Local Government Act 1972, states under section 101 HERE   in regards to local governments discharge of their functions:

Subject to any express provision contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act, a local authority may arrange for the discharge of any of their functions—
 
(a) by a committee, a sub-committee or an officer of the authority; or
(b) by any other local authority.

In relation to committees section 102 says:

(1) (a)a local authority may appoint a committee of the authority; or
(b)two or more local authorities may appoint a joint committee of those authorities; or
(c)any such committee may appoint one or more sub-committees

 (3)A committee appointed under subsection (1) [F25or (1A)] above, other than a committee for regulating and controlling the finance of the local authority or of their area, may, subject to section 104 below, include persons who are not members of the appointing authority or authorities or, in the case of a sub-committee, the authority or authorities of whom they are a sub-committee, F26. .

Section 13 HERE of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989  adds further to the above:

13 Voting rights of members of certain committees: England and Wales.
(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person who—
(a)is a member of a committee appointed under a power to which this section applies by a relevant authority and is not a member of that authority;
(c)is a member of a sub-committee appointed under such a power by such a committee as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above and is not a member of the relevant authority, or one of the relevant authorities, which appointed that committee,
shall for all purposes be treated as a non-voting member of that committee (my emphasis),  joint committee or, as the case may be, sub-committee.

Section 13 above came into force more or less around August 1990 HERE

By June of 1999 all 5 cllr lead dmc's (the 5 dmc's were aligned with the councils 5 district housing offices) had council tenant reps as chairs or vice chairs.

Each dmc was also given £100,000 pa to allocate on  council housing capital works. This was on top of the existing but smaller revenue budgets (around £35,000 each pa ) dmc's had been allocating.

Council meeting of 17 May 2000 
agenda item  6. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEES AND THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO COMMITTEES 

 The Mayor moved and Councillor Dermot Greene seconded, that the report be received and adopted.
RESOLVED
- THAT the standing committees of the Council be constituted as set out below (my emphasis)

(e) HOUSING COMMITTEE (16) 
Majority Party (11) 
Brian Weekes, Dave Horan, John Rolfe, Charlie Hedges, Heather Johnson, Roger Robinson, Sybil Shine, Anne Swain, Jim Turner Maggie Cosin and Penny Abraham.

Opposition
(C)(3)Peter Horne, Andrew Mennear Piers Wauchope
(LD) (2) Jane Schopflin, Sidney Malin 
Plus named substitute 
(C)(1) Stephen Hocking 
(LD) (2) Flick Rea, Heather Thompson  

Plus 10 non voting members (my emphasis), one from each DMC, one from the Camden Federation of Tenants Associations, one from the Camden Federation of Private Tenants and one from the Homelessness Liaison Group, one from Leaseholders forum and one from TMO Liaison Group

Note it says "Plus 10 non voting members "

Forward a couple of weeks from the above full Council meeting to the Gospel Oak DMC  30 May 2000 HERE 

 1.REGISTRATION OF TENANTS ASSOCIATION AND CO-OPTION OF TENANT REPRESENTATIVES 
RESOLVED THAT all the Tenants Associations listed in Appendix A be formally registered with the Council and their nominated representatives be co-opted onto the DMC with voting rights (my emphasis) for the municipal year 2000/2001. 

Within weeks of the full Council meeting and the agreed 10 tenant reps appointed onto the councils then Housing Committee with no voting rights, had  transformed into the continuation of 5 Housing Committee sub-committees that had at least ten voting tenant reps each.

It was around this time that council tenant reps from the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) started attending dmc meetings.

By 2004 a few estate based council tenants reps (dmc and cftra members) had taken over CASP.

The council had given them housing transfers to street properties in order to do so.

A few years earlier, in January 2001, council tenant members of the dmc's who where also members of the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Association (CFTRA) managed to get the following motion agreed by 4 of the 5 dmc's:

“This District Management Committee agrees that the budget of £456,000 be withdrawn from the Community Involvement Team from April 1st 2001 and that tenants decide where and how the money will be used" 

The CFTRA then set themselves up as a private company limited by guarantee in the same name, and took on the tenant participation service from the councils in house team - to provide services to other council tenants on behalf of the council.

From what I can make of things, the cftra taking on the TP service has been a disaster from start to finish resulting in the current situation where the cftra has lost all its funding and support from the council.

The change of governance system brought in by the Local Government Act 2000 should have meant that the dmc's where shut down but cllrs allowed the dmc's to continue but as council tenant groups funded and serviced by the council.

The dmc's also continued to exercise council functions of allocating large sums of money to themselves. This progressed to dmc members actually being given direct access to council money to buy goods and services/works on behalf of the council - without an apparent formal legal management agreement/contract being in place. No annual accounts of spending required by the councils. No receipts required.

Councils officers agree with the tenant reps how much the cost of the works etc will be and the tenant rep is sent a cheque (or given a government procurement card) to transfer public money into the tra's bank account.

The dmc's don't produce annual accounts of where the money they have allocated to themselves has been spent. The council doesn't require the dmc's to account for the spending.

This set up continues to this day.

Housing Management Efficiencies Review

On 26 June 2013 the councils housing and adult social care (hasc) scrutiny committee held their first (of a limited number of sub- meetings) Housing Management Efficiencies review meeting HERE

Terms of reference 

• Investigate current Housing management structures and consider proposals to address any deficiencies

• Investigate the role and responsibility for each head of service in Housing Management, how they relate to each other and to other council departments, how they work together and share resources, and how they use the budgets allocated to each

• Investigate efficiency saving opportunities without affecting front line service delivery

• Make visits to appropriate departments and carry out mystery shopping within the above scope and investigation

• Consider the implications of the above findings and make recommendations to improve efficiency and service delivery for tenants and leaseholders.

Labour cllr Julian Fulbrook is the cabinet member for housing.

2nd meeting 16 July 2013 HERE 
3rd meeting 30 July 2013 HERE
4th meeting due 18 Sept 2013 HERE
5th meeting 1 Oct 2013 HERE
6th meeting 9 Oct 2013 HERE
7th meeting 24 Oct 2013 HERE
8th meeting 6 Nov 2013 HERE

One theme that keeps occurring in relation to council housing management (and it could be right across the council) is the continued operation of a financial system that allows any tom, dick or harridan to invoice the council for works/services without having to provide receipts.

Such as not requiring council housing repairs teams to provide proof of the works they have done ie get job signed off by tenant as proof it was carried out.

Or not requiring dmc members to provide proof of what they spend large sums of public money on.

I wonder if any improvements have been implemented since the 2002 Audit of Camden Council Leaseholder Service Charges HERE    was carried out? The report is very damning of how the council mis-manages money. 

 

Sexual Freedom and the Far Left

http://www.bolshevik.org/mb/4women.htm

Marxist Bulletin:
Sex, Censorship and Women’s Rights by Barbara Duke

I submitted the following resolution to the North London women’s section in the lead up to the national women’s section conference in late August. Unfortunately it did not gain enough support there for it to be further discussed at the national meeting or at our forthcoming congress. Below I argue why I believe this is an essential discussion on an issue which is important not only for the women’s section but for the party as a whole and the development of our policies.

Sexual Freedom

• Socialist Labour is opposed to restrictions on sexual expression and sexual choices among all those capable of informed consent. We fight all legislation which denies these freedoms.

• We are opposed to all state censorship, including of sexual material – capitalism only uses such laws to strengthen its oppression of women, gays and lesbians, and others.

• We call for the repeal of all age of consent laws (my emphasis) , whether for heterosexual or homosexual youth – such legislation is used by the state to oppress young people and their developing sexuality, often restricting their access to vital contraception, abortion and pre-natal services.

• Neither censorship nor age of consent laws provide any real protection against sexual abuse, which is perpetuated by the domestic and social pressures of capitalist society, and restrictions on the lives of women, children and young people.

• We campaign for the rights of people of any sexual orientation, age, gender, health and abilities to express their sexuality without interference, provided they respect the same rights of others and that all parties are capable of giving their informed consent.

How Hattie’s friends defended paedophilia HERE 

The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) HERE

PETER TATCHELL AND THE PAEDOPHILE BOOK HERE

"Sexual liberation had become – for some reason – a vital part of true Socialism" 

Paedophiles Want The Same Rights As Homosexuals HERE

Amnesty for Tenancy Fraudsters 2013

Camden council is proposing a two month amnesty for tenants who are committing tenancy fraud. DMC report June 2013 HERE

Report Summary:

To inform DMCs of the proposal to hold an amnesty for a period of two months for those tenants committing housing tenancy fraud

- making a false declaration to obtain their council tenancy,subletting their property or not using it as their main home.

The amnesty will allow tenants to return the keys and vacant possession of their properties without facing the consequences of further legal action or risk of prosecution under the new powers contained within the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013. 

Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 HERE  - 
yet to come into force. 

Legislation already exists that makes fraud a criminal offence such as the Fraud Act 2006 HERE which the council has used before HERE

Council Meeting - the Sabotage of Gospel Oak Community Partnership

Webcast of the Development Control committee meeting held on Thursday 21 March 2013 HERE, 

Agenda Item 7(4) Housing and Adult Social Care: Planning application for the site 121-211 Bacton Low Rise estate, 113a, 115 and 117 Wellesley Road and 2-16 Vicars Road Gospel Oak NW5. HERE

113a Wellesey Road is the council owned community hall run by Bacton Low Rise TRA and Wendling TRA. 
115-117 Wellesy Road is the councils Gospel Oak District Housing Office site.  2-16 Vicars Rd are council owned workshops. 

Approximately £68m is cited as the development cost.  

To the east of the site is the junction of Grafton Road and Vicar’s Road, with Grafton Road at this point extending over the rail line. 

To the south are further residential properties along both sides of Vicar’s Road (a combination of Victorian properties, blocks of residential flats and the vicarage building on the junction of Vicar’ s Road and Wellesley Road), the Grade II former St Martin’s Church Hall (now a French School) and the Grade I listed St Martin’s Church. 

To the west of the site is the 22 storey Bacton High Rise Tower residential block of flats (No’s 1-120 Bacton).  

 

Dorian Cortesi chair of Barrington Crt TRA gave a deputation to the committee on behalf of the 9 local organisations neighbouring the development site. 

He isn’t against the application, the deputation is specifically about section 106. He is referring to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 HERE  
 

Section 106 Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy HERE 
The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 HERE

Place Plans HERE

The CIL is money that " developers of larger sites pay to the council to reduce the impact of the development. Developers sign a S106 agreement as part of their planning permission. This is a legal document that specifies what the money is spent on and where. For example, S106 money is used to make improvements to highways, parks, public transport, schools." 

 

The gist of the deputation as I understand it is that during the consultation period when the council were engaging well with the wider community on the proposed redevelopment the section 106 money was not mentioned. 

Meanwhile the council has been working with one group (the Real Deal Community Partnership (RDCP)) on how to spend a significant amount of the money – all other local groups where excluded. They didn't know until recently that the RDCP  had been selected by the council to play an active role in the allocation of places spaces provisions. The existing council forum (I'm guessing he means the gospel oak community partnership the council agreed to in March 2012 HERE ) was in place and overlooked in favour of the rdcp.  

Cllr Valerie Leach cabinet member for Regeneration and Growth and ward cllr for Highgate has been involved in project meetings about the development. She says “we asked the real deal community partnership to take a lead because they are the one’s being most affected by the redevelopment” 

The rdcp 'real dealers' seem to be: (I say seem to be because the rdcp website HERE doesn't identify who the directors of the rdcp are so I am working with a deputation the below group gave to cllr Sarah Hayward  on 30 March 2012 HERE to try and persuade her,  that they are the group that should be recognised as the gospel oak community partnership, hence the name): 

Bacton Low Rise TRA – Dave and Simone Lewis and Sarah Robbins (the housing estate that is being demolished)

Kiln Place TRA –Rita Thorpe and Jackie Kanaris 

Maitland Park TRA – Lynne Bateman

Wendling TRA 

Chair of Gospel Oak DMC, - Terry Wigget 

CASP  

Bobby Armstrong  - Grafton

Onto the meeting where after the presentation had been given, members of the development committee asked questions: 

Cllr Paul Braithwaite says “my main area of concern … There is no doubt here that (makes ref to a deputation) the community does not feel that this process is being transparent….. I got the impression from Cllr Leach that fortunately this is redeemable". 

Cllr Braithwaite goes onto to say " I think it is a concern of this committee of the engagement of community (I think he means the "other" wider community) in the allocation of the section 106 money and indeed engagement with the cllrs..." he goes on to make reference to Maiden Lane Estate - the council had many problems (from the councils side of things) in getting tenants to agree to the councils plans for the estate and it took many years to get to the planning application stage.  

“ ... this real deal community partnership, and it is apparent that quite a few of the resident bodies felt that that it came out of left field, the real deal community partnership has been in a steady dialogue and are quite heavily engaged in making recommendations, so I would really like Stuart Dilley to come back to us on on going transparency and engagement on the 106 money and why it is that real deal community partnership have been elevated and given special treatment to date.” 

Council legal officer states “ there is no legal requirement to consult on the section 106 …. As a matter of law the council can’t delegate expenditure, section 106 money to other parties”(my emphasis) 

Stuart Dilley (senior housing officer) says “the council has asked the real deal community partnership to look at opportunities for committing the 106"  

Cllr Braithwaite “can I come back again on the real deal community partnership and can it be explained to us why they have enjoyed, lets say, this exclusive relationship …”
 

Stuart Dilley “ the real deal community partnership was set up by the community"  … 

NB the development committee chair said “ members have the capacity to direct officers on how to spend the section 106 money…." 

What is clear, is that there are two different "communities" at loggerheads here: the rdcp ( a handful of council tenants who are chums of old and any 'chancers' who may come along - it seems) who the council for whatever reason other than the official "we asked the real deal community partnership to take a lead because they are the one’s being most affected by the redevelopment" favours and the wider community ie other affected council tenants, private tenants, businesses, community groups etc. 

In my view, It wasn't the council who approached the RDCP, it was the rdcp who approached the council and that is plain to see. Regardless of what any council person says the council does have an "agreement" with the rdcp - whether its in writing or verbal (a wink and a nod) I don't know.   

There is a danger I think, that the rdcp "agreement" with the council will turn out to be like the one the council has with the other council tenant group of 5 - the district management committee's (dmc's) who have an "agreement" with the council to allocate money to themselves - but the council "holds" the money and allows tenant reps direct access to it either by way of a council procurement card or a cheque sent to the tra to be deposited in the tra bank account. No annual accounts produced at their agms, no receipts.

Has the ultimate aim been to get their hands on the section 106 money? 

Update
The councils lib dem members  don't seem happy about the shenanigans going on in Gospel Oak ward regarding the rdcp and the section 106 money and have, according to official documents for the upcoming full council meeting to be held on Monday 15 April 2013 HERE, put the following question to the Cabinet member for Regeneration and Growth cllr Valerie Leach:

" There is growing concern over the democratic deficit over the use of Section 106 funds. Residents, community groups and councillors often have no idea where - or even if - the money was spent.  

How much money has the Council administered under Section 106 agreements over the last three years?

How many of these distributions been raised with the Cabinet Member? How many have been raised with ward councillors?

At what level are officer decisions actually being made? 

Does she acknowledge that in light of the great frustrations around the huge Gospel Oak regeneration schemes – amongst many others – much greater clarity should be given and much greater input from local people should be routinely sought?"

And a motion

"  This Council notes that the decision making process for the spending of Section 106 funds allocated for public benefit in a particular ward is still shrouded in mystery for councillors and constituents alike.

This Council agrees that once Section 106 funds are deposited with the Council, the decision to spend them is best taken by the appropriate ward councillors while respecting the s106 allocation agreed by Development Control Committee. Ward councillors will be required to consult their constituents about their proposed decision through consulting their Area Action Group." 

Wonders whose idea it was to set the 'real dealers' up as a private company, and just how did they manage to persuade the responsible people in the council that it was a good idea to work with them - initially on job/fair days and entering into what could be termed as a shady "shadow" section 106 allocation "agreement" with the RDCP - at the exclusion of all others?

Surely by setting themselves up as a private company (with no liability to speak of), the 'real dealers' where expecting (had been promised?) significant sums of public money to come their way?  

Popcorn anyone?  

PS some council tenant reps (the shadow cllrs) have been known to turn up at the town hall and other venues where council business is being conducted - in order to tell council members what they should or shouldn't be doing.

update 25 Dec 2021

The linked is an odd case [imo] of the last remaining leaseholder of the Bacton Low Rise estate - a Russian, who had bought the leasehold  in 2010

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2019/2614353/fer0736963.pdf

Some more about the case HERE 

Rutland County Council Legal Action Against Members

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Rutland-County-Council-plans-legal-action/story-17829181-detail/story.html

Saturday, January 12, 2013

By Tim Healy

A council has voted to take legal action to stop three councillors from allegedly harassing senior staff.

Rutland County Council has set aside £90,000 to seek an injunction against Richard Gale, David Richardson and Nick Wainwright.

The trio have been accused of sending e-mails to chief executive Helen Briggs that, according to legal advisers, "are very likely to amount to harassment".

The councillors, who formed Rutland Anti-Corruption Group (RACP), have repeatedly called for her to launch an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the suspension of a senior officer last summer who, hours later, took his own life.

Ms Briggs has explained to the councillors the widow of the officer wanted the circumstances of the disciplinary action against her husband to remain confidential.

The council claimed the group had also sent it baseless e-mails alleging officers had manipulated land deals, flouted financial rules and regulations and had tried to manipulate the award of contracts.

The council voted on Thursday to seek the injunction. Twenty-three backed the motion, three abstained.

Members also backed a motion to support officers who wish to bring legal action for harassment against the three councillors.

Speaking after the meeting, leader Roger Begy said: "The £90,000 is an insurance policy. Should our senior officers sue us for constructive dismissal, that could cost us £250,000.

"We have a chief executive and staff team who are simply doing their jobs to the best of their ability.

"Of course they should be subject to scrutiny and challenge as that is the basis of local democracy.

"However, they should not have to put up with false allegations about their conduct and regular questioning of their integrity."

A report by lawyers Bevan Brittan said the actions of RACP were damaging the ability of the council to recruit outstanding officers, hampering efforts to secure funding for education and recreation and distracting senior officers.

Councillors Begy said: "As councillors, we have to protect our staff and this decision sends out a strong message. Now we have to move forward."

The council decided to defer a claim for defamation against the group.

It decided to monitor all communications with the group through a single point of contact, subject to review by the chief executive, and that members of RACP must use the council's secure e-mail system.

Alan Duncan, MP for Rutland and Melton, said: 'The council has been forced to take this entirely proportionate action in response to the disgraceful conduct of these three councillors.

"Their campaign of harassment went far beyond legitimate and open scrutiny of the council

                              -----------------------------------------------------------------------  

Heres a blog by Martin Brookes Oakham: Private Eye, The Rotten Borough, Helen Briggs, Aman Mehra, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Leicestershire Police 

apparently a senior council officer Aman Mehra died [found hanging at his home] following being suspended and escorted from the council building by the councils CEO Helen Briggs.