Showing posts with label Kate Davies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kate Davies. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

"How the housing crisis is affecting the sector’s own staff"

A harrowing and disturbing article by Inside Housing's Jess McCabe. What happens when the workers who try and provide homes for the vulnerable are themselves living as homeless. What a sick society we live in. Employers must accept their responsibility for their staff and raise their game. See motion to UNISON Community Conference on this need.

A lack of decent, affordable housing is also affecting social landlord employees. Jess McCabe investigates. Illustration by Nick Chaffe

Social landlords are proud of their social mission: to provide decent and affordable housing. So what does it mean if some of their own staff – tasked with that very mission – are struggling to keep a roof over their heads?
Earlier this autumn, the chief executive of a large London housing association made a passing comment during an interview with Inside Housing. She had discovered that members of her own staff were living in insecure housing.
“If they were in the social sector we would consider them homeless.”

“They’re all in shared houses, or even shared bedrooms, or living in places that are disgusting,” said Kate Davies of 32,000-home Notting Hill Housing. “If they were in the social sector we would consider them homeless in those circumstances.”
It sounded shocking that a housing association’s staff could be considered effectively homeless by its chief executive.
Inside Housing wanted to investigate if this was a one-off, perhaps focused on the struggles of London life. Or was it a widespread phenomenon? We launched an anonymous survey to find out more.
What we discovered was startling. Members of staff in housing associations, councils and homelessness charities are going into work every day to contribute to the running of Britain’s social housing – and then coming ‘home’ to face the hard realities of the modern housing market (see below).
First, we must put into context that such housing problems do not affect the majority of respondents. A full 68% said they are satisfied with their housing situation. Indeed, 59% of respondents own their home, while a small number (2.5%, or 14 individuals) are in shared ownership. Another 12% live in social housing themselves. This is not always a cakewalk – particularly for staff whose employer is also their landlord – but these respondents are, by and large, happy with their lot.
Most of the problems were reported by the remaining one in five housing staff who live in privately rented homes, temporary housing, shared housing, or with friends or family. Some of these respondents were at the beginning of their careers on salaries well below the national average salary, which is £27,271 this year.
“We have members who rely on food banks and mini cabbing in the evening.”
But earning above this average, and having a managerial job, was not an absolute protection either. Even homeowners on a high income are affected by housing problems: one chief executive reported that their own child was sofa-surfing.
The majority of housing staff spend more than 30% of their salary on rent or housing costs, while 7% spend more than half their earnings on putting a roof over their head.
Many respondents told us of struggling to pay the rent – or prioritising their rent but struggling to afford food as well as things that, while not essential, are part of a satisfying life. “Some months I’m not left with much or anything after my rent goes out,” one told us. Another simply said: “I just go without everything else.”
It’s a story that is familiar to John Gray, a housing officer in east London who is Unison’s National Executive Committee member for the housing sector. “We have members who rely on food banks and mini cabbing in the evening and weekends to support their families,” he says.
Staff in the capital are particularly affected, and some are “fleeing London” for less expensive parts of the country, Mr Gray adds. He has submitted a motion calling for action on this issue to Unison’s community conference in February 2018.
Several respondents admitted to feeling despondent and even depressed about their housing. “Good housing makes for a good family life,” one noted. Of course, the converse is that a lack of good housing is not conducive to good family life.
“Depression, unable to imagine a future, no possibility of raising a family,” summarised one manager in the East of England.
When shown the results, Alison Inman, president of the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: “I wonder what the consequences are when staff feel that the tenants they are working with are housed more securely, and in far better maintained homes than they are able to access themselves?”
“I feel like people [living] in social housing should be more appreciative of what they have.”
When we asked housing staff about how their own housing conditions affect how they feel about their job, a minority simply said: “It doesn’t.” But for most there is a direct connection.
Some of this is good, such as for one staff member who commented: “My job keeps reminding me of how lucky I am to have a safe, secure home, unlike others who do not.”
But the feelings stirred up are not all positive. Two respondents simply said they felt “angry”.
Others admitted resentment. “I feel like people [living] in social housing should be more appreciative of what they have, rather than expecting the housing association to fix every little thing that goes wrong,” said one administrative staff member, who lives with their mother. “If I was a resident, I would be grateful.”
Another said: “I love my job and what we do is so important but it’s frustrating that at 35 I still can’t afford something more permanent than a house share and because of my circumstances will never qualify for any useful help.”
Yet another comment was: “Sometimes you see residents who have [a] higher standard of living than you yet [are] still getting state aid in the form of social rents.”
Those who had experienced housing problems and been directly refused help by their employer were particularly disillusioned.
Speaking to Inside Housing about these results over the phone, Ms Davies of Notting Hill Housing is not surprised. But what can landlords actually do? Is the answer higher pay?
On the one hand, Ms Davies says that London employers in particular may struggle to retain staff if they can’t afford to live in the capital. The problem is real, she says, with “people in couples and even with kids in shared housing”.
But it may not be possible for landlords to solve their staff’s housing problems by raising salaries alone. “If the average salary is £26,000 to £27,000, that only sustains £700 a month [on housing costs]. Wages would have to be doubled to make any difference whatsoever,” Ms Davies notes.
If that is unlikely to happen, should employees despair of their employers doing anything to help?
Ms Davies argues not, pointing out that Notting Hill runs a tenancy deposit loan scheme for staff, which can help with one large cost of housing in the private rented sector.
Since April 2015, 19 employees have taken up the loan, with five currently making repayments. Landlords also should ensure that their staff are not excluded from renting or buying, or applying for schemes their employer runs.
Even if these measures are not going to be enough to solve all the housing problems of staff, they might help people working in housing feel less excluded, and as if the sector has no answer to their housing woes.
The results of this survey are in many ways a challenge to social landlords.
Knowing that their own staff members are suffering from the housing crisis, what – if anything – are they going to do about it?

HOUSING STAFF SPEAK OUT

The below are all quotes from staff working in the social housing sector:
“I suffer from mental health problems after being served so many Section 21 notices when a landlord is ready to sell. I live in London and have had 14 addresses in 13 years. I have had to seek counselling for this and was medicated in the past. My two-year-old daughter has had four addresses already.”
“I always have low-level anxiety about security. I feel unable to better my situation – trapped, it exacerbates my depression and feelings of dependency.”
“My job makes me appreciate how lucky I am and how fragile housing security can be.”
“I ended up on antidepressant tablets for depression and anxiety. I was breaking down in tears and my company didn’t support me or help to rehouse me when I asked for help.”
“I’m not paid enough to afford a decent home event after working full time. It makes me realise how close I am to the people I support (one month’s salary away from homelessness).”
“It affects all aspects of your life, because you do not have your own personal space or privacy, especially when you’re living in an overcrowded flat.”
“I am struggling currently and am going to be homeless soon and am unsure where I am going to go. This makes me feel anxious and the unknown is daunting.”
“It makes me appreciate the work housing associations do for people, but I’m annoyed at government for ignoring housing as an issue to be dealt with.”
“I feel sad that I have very minimal rights in relation to those we serve – I see the contrast between the rights of social and private tenants to be worlds apart.”
“Of all the people that promote and lobby for more social housing, few live in it and are often homeowners despite being disparaging about those who aspire to have this choice.”
“I have moved to cheaper accommodation (sharing with seven people) in order to reduce costs.”
“I am always looking at things from a customer’s point of view and find myself empathising with their financial struggles. It can be difficult to then turn these emotions off and think of the needs of the business first and pursue arrears when tenants are struggling, often through no fault of their own.”
“I feel unable to complain about occasional poor service as my landlord is my employer.”
“I am a grown adult living with parents.”
“Most of my colleagues are homeowners of social tenants themselves so it can feel very lonely as they really do not understand some of the issues with living in [the private] sector.”
“Very frustrated sometimes. I am helping people all the time but there is no help for me and my situation.”
“I live on a mixed-tenure estate and think that’s an incredibly positive experience for my family.”
“My housing association is rubbish and penny-pinching when it comes to repairs. They are also quite arrogant.”
“My relationship is fine but I couldn’t afford to stay on if we separated.”
“Other people are in a much worse situation, and without housing associations would end up homeless. I am frustrated that my own housing situation isn’t better, but I think this is the result of government housing policy.”

Monday, January 16, 2017

"One article does not wipe the slate clean"

 A really important and interesting article by Steve Hilditch on the Labour Housing Group website "Red Brick" about the undermining of social housing during the last decade. The CEO of Notting Hill is not the only one and actually not the worse by far.

Yet another reason to start a National campaign to democratise Housing Associations make them accountable and bring them back  their real roots. Watch this space.

"Having attended Owen Jones excellent lecture on ‘optimism’ over the holiday, I had resolved to view 2017 with more positivity, looking at what is possible in the future rather than what has gone wrong in the past. Sadly, the feeling didn’t last long. I read an article by Kate Davies (the chief executive of Notting Hill Housing Trust for more than a decade) in Inside Housing. On the surface there was little to complain about, mostly I agree with the content. It explains the benefits of social housing, low rents and security, and complains about the lack of grant for new homes. It sets out the serious implications of the shortage of social housing, a common enough theme on Red Brick.
But context is everything. My annoyance at the piece stemmed from knowing Kate’s role, as I see it, in undermining the cause of social housing over the past decade, in two ways. First, she has led an organisation which deliberately decided not to provide as many social rented homes as it could have done – amounting to thousands of homes over the period which could have been used to house people in housing need. Secondly, she was a leading light in the campaigns and lobbying that seriously challenged the existence of social housing as we had known it, policies that were taken up directly by the Coalition and now the Tory Government. In her article, she makes no acknowledgement of her previous views and takes no responsibility for their impact.
Of course, she was not alone. There were many others in UK housing who went down similar paths. People fell over each other to disparage the social housing ‘offer’and to stereotype its occupants. It is the combination of failing to deliver as much social housing as possible, failing to defend genuinely affordable housing from attack, and failing to contradict the media’s demonisation of tenants, that has led me to be so critical of leading figures and institutions, especially in the housing association world. Homeless and badly housed people have been the victims of their loss of commitment and weakness of vision.
I was on the Board of Notting Hill Housing Trust for six years, from 2002-2008, having served on area committees before that and having had connections with the Trust since 1972. It is an organisation that really matters in west London and has transformed thousands of lives. Along with Kate and many others I worked hard, with some success, to improve the performance of a once great organisation that had hit the doldrums. With regard to housing development I am a pragmatist: I supported Notting Hill’s role in promoting shared ownership, and have had a long-held interest in providing homes in the ‘intermediate’ sector as well as for those most in need. As a Board member I supported tentative moves into highly profitable private development because it could be used to cross-subsidise an increase in social rented homes. It was a time when grant for social housing was substantial and the Brown Government had increased the budget considerably.
But the Trust came to be dominated by a philosophy which saw social renting as something to be disparaged, a ‘dead end’ and a route into ‘dependency’, and which also placed home ownership on a pedestal called ‘aspiration’. Provision of social rented homes was downgraded in priority, there were moves into making tenancies conditional (eg on seeking work), whilst more and more effort went into shared ownership and private development. There were skirmishes at the Board over individual schemes where the proposed balance between social rent and shared ownership was weighted in favour of the latter even though the finances of the scheme seemed to allow for more social renting in the mix.
It came to a head in early 2008 when a new 5 year development programme was put before the Board. It was fully costed, certified by the Director of Finance as a credible and viable plan, and it reflected in full the policy of the then mayor, Ken Livingstone, that development should be 50% affordable (35% social rent and 15% intermediate). Having drafted Ken’s housing strategy, I was delighted that NHHT planned to follow the lead. But the proposal was withdrawn by the chief executive and a different strategy was brought to the next Board. The amount of shared ownership was significantly increased and the share of social rent significantly decreased. After a long and difficult Board meeting, where I was an isolated advocate for the first strategy, the revision was passed (as I recall) by 8 votes to 1. The mix in the programme was proposed to shift from (social rent: intermediate) 70:30 to 40:60, much more extreme than even the policy of the incoming mayor Boris Johnson (although still much better than now).
I resigned. In my (July 2008) letter to the Chair, a clever businessman who helped improve the Trust in many other ways, I commented:
I cannot support the Board’s decision to approve the strategic plan proposed by the Corporate Management Team and the underlying attitudes it reflects. The basic premise of the growth strategy is that NHHT should make ‘shed loads of money’ from private development, which can then be applied to meeting housing needs.  But this argument falls if CMT and the Board then decide to provide many fewer social rented homes than could be provided within reasonable business parameters.  Real choices were available in deciding the strategy – and the final decision reflects serious differences of principle.  In short terms, I feel that NHHT is fixated with promoting home ownership and has insufficient commitment to meeting housing need.
Any reasonable analysis of housing need in London shows that the highest priority is for more social rented homes.  Of course other objectives come into play, and I have consistently supported mixed development and intermediate housing options .………  Compared to the first version of the corporate strategy in March (which was also recommended by CMT), the revised strategy would produce 1,500 fewer homes for social rent over 5 years. 
Externally, Kate was often heavily involved in policy development and lobbying. Amongst other things, she was a key advisor to the extremely influential Localis review (Principles for Social Housing Reform) on which Red Brick has commented many times (for example here). She chaired the ‘Housing and Dependency Working Group’ for Duncan Smith’s (misnamed) Centre for Social Justice producing a report – using NHHT resources – on housing poverty in 2008, where she repeated her call for an end to security of tenure and criticised social housing for providing ‘low cost living for life funded from the public purse’.
Of course Kate is fully entitled to hold her own views and to pursue them as she wishes. In many ways she is very good at her job. But the antagonism to social renting affected both what NHHT was doing and what it was saying to Government as a prominent housing provider. For example, in 2006 I managed to get the Board to agree not to submit draft evidence to the John Hills review on the future of social housing because it supported tax relief for first time buyers (without evidence) and because it called for the ending of security of tenure for social tenants and higher rents. My view was that the proposed evidence stigmatised tenants: social housing was described as ‘subsidised’ whilst shared ownership was not; tenants were seen as second-class citizens who needed ‘a springboard back into society’; social housing was a ‘dead end’ where lives ‘stagnate’. Home ownership was seen as the miracle cure for social ills.
It has become fashionable once again for leaders in UK housing to describe in graphic terms the rise in homelessness and the appalling degree of housing need in our country. But the industry has an awful lot to feel ashamed about and failing to defend social rented housing is top of the list. People should be held to account for what they did when the money was available, what they have advocated for as individuals in public debate, and, crucially, how they used the platform and resources provided by their organisations to promote their views. One article does not wipe the slate clean".

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

The Bile on Sunday turns on its own: The Tory CEO and the Tory Housing Advisor

Yesterday, UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis, at our Community conference, referred to the ideologically motivated attacks on vulnerable workers and carers by the Tory Housing Advisor and £197k per year CEO of Notting Hill Housing Trust (Kate Davis). 

The day before, the usually hideous "Tory On Sunday" published a full attack on Kate Davis (who believe it or not is also allegedly a former General Secretary of the  Revolutionary Communist Party) and her partner Nick Johnson.

Nick use to be the £203k CEO of Tory Bexley Council.  He had a heart attack and was medically retired with a pension of £50k a year.  The Tory "Bile" claims that 4 months after being medically retired he was appointed as CEO of the Tory Council Hammersmith and Fulham Homes (ALMO) at £260k per year! 

"The Bile" further alleges that Nick's permanent health disability pension is not reduced (I think the correct term is "abated") due to his new employment because Hammersmith and Fulham have allowed him to receive his income via a private company?  If this is true it it absolutely outrageous to Council tax payers and those who have been dismissed due to ill health but would lose their pension if they are able to work.

But, what can you expect? this is what Tories do for their own!

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Notting Hill Housing Dispute: UNISON Housing Association Branch Press Release.

UNISON BEGINS LUNCHTIME LOBBIES OF EMPLOYERS’ HEAD OFFICE

The first of a week-long series of Lunchtime Lobbies of Notting Hill Housing Trust’s (NHHT) head office got of to a rousing start yesterday. UNISON members shared lunch with many of their non-union colleagues whilst protesting at senior management’s continuing refusal to negotiate on the new terms and conditions that they have imposed.

“It’s very encouraging to see non-union members supporting UNISON’s campaign to defend Family Friendly Policies at Notting Hill Housing Trust”, said UNISON Regional Organiser, Colin Inniss. “It contradicts the Trust’s claim that most members of staff are happy with imposed change. Unison’s campaign will continue until the Trust realises that cutting family-friendly benefits demoralises staff and has a negative impact on service delivery”.

UNISON’s dispute with Notting Hill Housing Trust is now in its third month. A day of strike action was taken on 15th March; further strike action is planned for May. In an effort to resolve the dispute, UNISON has referred it to ACAS for mediation.

For Further information or comment please contact:

UNISON Regional Organiser, Colin Inniss on 07703 194 127 or C.Inniss@unison.co.uk

Notes for Editors

1. UNISON’s Housing Association Branch represents approximately 3,500 members in the Greater London Region and the South East. UNISON Members at Notting Hill Housing Trust took successful strike action on 15th March.

2. NHHT manages 25,000 homes in London and the South East. According to its own website NHHT has an asset base of £1,317m and an annual turnover of £167m. Group reserves on 2008/2009 totalled £188m and its operating profit was £19.8m. In June 2009 the group absorbed 3 smaller BME housing associations – Presentation, Pathway and Croydon People’s.

3. 14% of staff took paid carers’ leave in 2008/09 at a total cost to the organisation of £40,000. Chief Executive, Kate Davies total pay and reward package for the year 2008 to 31March 2009 was £192,000.

4. Paul Hodgkinson is the Chair of NHHT’s Board. He is also a Trustee of Parenting UK, a national charity that sets the policy for parenting focus in the UK. Respect for cultural diversity and the different needs of men and women within the context of human rights for all, is one of Parenting UK’s key principles.

5. UNISON’s Lunchtime Lobbies of NHHT Head office will take place during the first week of May. 2 days of industrial action will take place at a later date.   Check out here and here

(picture is an artists impression of the new Notting Hill Housing Group proposed headquarters in Kings Cross)

Notting Hill Housing Dispute Protest


Yesterday there was the first of 4 planned protests outside the Headquarters of Notting Hill Housing Group by UNISON members who are furious at their CEO who has attacked family friendly policies and terms.  Non members and agency staff joined the protest.  The next one will start 12.30 today and will continue for rest of the week.  Check out "Altogether Worse" for further details.

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

Notting Hill Housing Dispute "All Together Now" lunchtime protests!

I'll post on today's first UNISON Notting Hill Housing Group protest later.

But I have never, ever, met so many people, who feel so let down and badly treated by their employer.

They think it is personal. That their CEO, Kate Davies, "hates" her staff and wants to get rid of all who she doesn't like aka those who aren't in the "Kate's Camp". How many times I have heard this term?

What a way to run what is supposed to be a publicly responsible and socially responsive organisation?

Monday, May 03, 2010

Notting Hill Housing Dispute: Lunchtime Protests Tuesday 4 May to Friday 7th

Tomorrow (Tuesday 4 May) there will be the first of 4 lunch time protests, 12-2pm, this week by UNISON members of Notting Hill Housing Group over their Campaign for dignity and respect for workers in the (so-called) “Trust”

This is the latest stage in the official industrial dispute (see here, here and here) between trade union members and the NHHG Chief Executive Officer, Kate Davies, who has imposed savage cuts in family friendly employment policies and terms and conditions.

She continues to refuse to allow UNISON to even speak to the NHHG Board about the dispute or to refer the problem to ACAS for independent mediation. There was a successful one day strike action on March 15 and further strike action is planned.

Please join the protest outside the main NHHG headquarters at Notting Hill Housing

1 Butterwick, Rear of Metro Building, London, W6 8DL. Check map here but the site is within walking distance of both Hammersmith underground stations.

Check out the website “All together Worse” for further details.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Notting Hill Housing Trust: Strike Action Back on!

Following last month’s successful strike UNISON had suspended any further action while trying patiently to negotiate and reach an agreement with Notting Hill Housing Group to resolve the dispute. Despite this act of good faith senior management are still refusing to allow UNISON to even speak to its Board and are still refusing any attempt at mediation via ACAS.

You do wonder what is the point of such nominally “independent” Boards when they are so scared of going against their CEO that they will not even listen to their employee representatives? What is wrong with having genuine two-way conversations? Isn’t it supposed to be “good to talk”? Why do they only listen to their Executive team's hugely expensive "remuneration consultants" - but not their own staff reps???

No wonder so many people believe that governance in our sector is so poor and pathetic. Many Housing Association Boards (not all) are accused of being undemocratic, unresponsive self perpetuating oligarchies controlled by over paid and under supervised CEO’s. Where there are no real or meaningful “checks and balances”.  These organisations will eventually fail. Unless this is changed we will face further “Project Jerusalem's".

The Chief Executive at Notting Hill, £192k per year, £16k per month, £3,692 per week, Kate Davies, has even gone on record that the savage cuts to family friendly policies and staff terms and conditions have not gone far enough!

To come out with such stuff while on such high pay in what is suppose to be a “not for profit” charity proves to me that these people think they are some sort of superior human beings or class above the rest of us mere low wage earning proles.

Check out further background of the dispute here, here and here. Lobbies will take place next week and further significant strike action is being organised.

Housing associations are supposed to be here for the long term. They produce financial plans and projections in great detail for the next 30 years. I don’t think that people understand that perhaps the biggest threat to the long term survival of these organisations is not getting wrong a possible 30 year projected cash flow.  The real risk is the lack of any meaningful or accountable governance in the organisation towards all its stakeholders.

I have always argued that organisations and management teams such as Notting Hill who treat their staff as rubbish will also treat their residents in the same dismissive manner and will have no long term future.

Some more info from UNISON press release:

1. UNISON’s Housing Association Branch represents approximately 3,500 members in the Greater London Region and the South East. UNISON Members at Notting Hill Housing Trust took successful strike action on 15th March.

2. NHHT manages 25,000 homes in London and the South East. According to its own website NHHT has an asset base of £1,317m and an annual turnover of £167m. Group reserves on 2008/2009 totalled £188m and its operating profit was £19.8m. In June 2009 the group absorbed 3 smaller BME housing associations – Presentation, Pathway and Croydon People’s.

3. 14% of staff took paid carers’ leave in 2008/09 at a total cost to the organisation of £40,000. Chief Executive, Kate Davies total pay and reward package for the year 2008 to 31March 2009 was £192,000.

4. Paul Hodgkinson is the Chair of NHHT’s Board. He is also a Trustee of Parenting UK, a national charity that sets the policy for parenting focus in the UK. Respect for cultural diversity and the different needs of men and women within the context of human rights for all, is one of Parenting UK’s key principles.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Notting Hill Strike on Dave Hill’s London blog

On Friday Guardian blogger Dave Hill posted here on the dispute, Notting Hill CEO Kate Davies, her close links with Conservative run Hammersmith & Fulham Council and her partner Nick Johnson who just happens to be the CEO of Council owned “Hammersmith & Fulham Homes”.

Dave ponders on the infamous social housing Toryfest “round table discussion” on the pamphlet “Principles for Social Housing Reform” that took place with Kate, Nick, Stephen Greenhalgh, John Moss and Boris's deputy for policing Kit Malthouse and Tory shadow housing minister Grant Shapps's chief of staff Tim Collins.  This pamphlet described social housing as “barracks of the poor” and urges market rents for all tenants and the ending of security of tenure. Or in other words - evicting Grannies whose kids have left home. Very Compassionate Conservatism.

As Dave says “Conclusion? Don't leap to sinister ones: just because people meet to discuss some wide blue sky idea doesn't mean they all find them practical or beguiling. That said, a powerful constellation of Tories and sympathisers with Tory housing policy ideas - and, UNISON would say, Tory management attitudes too - has firmly established itself in Hammersmith and Fulham - just in case that wasn't already crystal clear”.

Nuf said.

Don't forget to check out "All Together Worse" for updates on the dispute.

Monday, March 01, 2010

“Dear John...fob off” - Notting Hill Housing strike

This morning I received this letter from Notting Hill Housing Trust CEO, Kate Davies. This is in response to my letter to her here about the lack of dignity and respect for staff at Notting Hill Housing. It is the same bland, inaccurate and rather pointless stock response that I have seen been sent to all the other people who have contacted her on this same issue. Regardless of what they have said. It’s a wonder that it took a fortnight for her to reply?

Her staff has now voted by 93% for strike action which is unheard of in the sector and must demonstrate to anyone how disastrous industrial relations are in the organisation she supposedly “leads”.

There will now be a strike of UNISON members on Monday 15th March. Well done Kate. The first strike by our branch in decades.

(double click on picture left to bring up detail)