As from the 1^st April 2008 it is proposed that all tenant’s will pay an extra £2.30 per week with their rent for estate caretaking, grounds maintenance and alarm monitoring; let me put it in perspective for you.

On the 1^st April 2008 a pensioner receives from this government a great big pathetic raise in their pension of £3.50 per week, less £2.30 there will only be £1.20 left but wait there is also a rent rise to be announced how much that will be I do not know, but it will certainly be the same if not more than last year’s. The facts are that the most vulnerable people in our society through this council’s levying of stealth charges are being deprived of the little bit of money they receive, I expect some councillor will jump on the age old band wagon to ask as to why pensioners cannot heat their homes, they will not look inwardly for these answers. They will look outwardly to put the blame on others. There are many other people that are vulnerable in our society i.e. “invalids and the sick”, etc.

We now have to decide who would benefit if this proposal is passed by your Board Members, certainly not the tenants as we would be out of pocket, and not RBH as this money would go directly into the Housing Revenue Account which is administered by the council, at which point the money trail seems to vanish. You will know that you already contribute to this fund to the tune of Half-One million pounds per year through the payments of your water rates, the only payments from this fund that I can recall was I believe to the forced retirement of the M/D and the Operations Director.

You may be interested to know that the rent you pay at present is inclusive of payments for estate caretaking and grounds maintenance you also pay for grounds maintenance through your council tax, the answer I received when I asked WHY tenants pay twice for this service was and I quote: - “The money paid to ground maintenance from council tax is for the grounds maintenance of Public spaces”, I and you must therefore not be part of the public, we must therefore be only referred to as tenants, if we are not part of the public I ask the question again “WHY” tenants pay twice for this service? I suggest that you ask your tenant Board Members and your Councillors this question, but do not hold your breath for a satisfactory answer.

At the last Board Meeting I attended on 30/10/07 when the Service charge review paper was presented there was much discussion on this matter and the proposals where referred back for more information to be presented to the Board. I am very surprised to see the minutes from the Board Meeting of the 30/10/07 states and I quote the minuets No5 (3) :-

The board agrees in principle to support the proposal to implement service charges for estate caretaking and grounds maintenance based on option 2 described in paragraph 5.4.

No we did not agree to this, neither I nor any of the other Board members I have spoken to agree with this.

The next question I must ask, is this another proposal from the council that is being railroaded through RBH to the detriment of tenants?

On the 20/11/07 this proposal returns to the agenda at the next Board Meeting in a different form under agenda item No 8, I will have to wait to find out which way the Tenant Board Members vote on your behalf, if item No 8 is past through in its present format, they will be voting for the service charges of £2.30 to be charged from next April, as the vote is for only one item on the agenda. In my opinion the item should be voted on separately and not inclusive of service charges.

I trust that you may now be getting an understanding some of the concerns that we as Tenant Board Members on your behalf have had to put up with over the past twelve to eighteen months with the different proposals being forced through by this council. I have no doubt that you will remember the shocking state that your property was in prior to your vote to create RBH. One of the questions that has been asked many times is how long is the arm in this Arms Length Management Organisation, in our case (RBH) it is very short, I suggest that it would not reach the elbow

I have put to you the facts as I perceive it, now what are you going to do about the problems, you can of course pay up and be happy, or you can of course ask questions.

I look forward to your comments. Keith Gordon.

Once again I am the bearer of bad news .Sadly it is to announce the death of Abdul Chowdry on Tuesday 24^th July 2007 .He was a former councillor and chair of housing he was a good friend to RoFTRA and a tenants champion. He was killed in a car accident on the way to the airport on his way back to England he was travelling with two of his relatives. Our thoughts and sympathy go to his family He will be sadly missed by the people of Rochdale and Sahiwal.

Derek Brown Co.Secretary RoFTRA

Article posted by Emma Lord from Chesham Estate in Castleton

MY VIEWS IS GOOD NEWS

My name is Emma Lord I am 24years old and I am from Chesham Youth Section on the Chesham Estate in Castleton.

I would firstly just like to say as a young persons view point. what a really clever idea and an excellent way of bringing the communities around us together to unite as one.

I would like to say that this is a fantastic way of being able to give people the chance to have there say everyone has a voice so lets all speak up and use it.

I would like too see everyone come together to support this website and show there appreciation to everyone who works at Roftra who has supported us and been there for us to help build up our relationships with internal and external agencies around the borough and to thank them for all there supporting helping us to build our bridges in helping our Tenants and Residents Associations and Youth Sections grow and to help us build up our own confidence and for helping us to be as successful as we are today.

I having been doing voluntary work since the age of 14 and i am now 24yrs old and i am the Chairperson of Chesham Youth Section. In 2005 i won Rochdale Borough wide Housing Volunteer of the year 2005 for my dedication and commitment for the voluntary work which i have carried out within my community and i feel without the support i have gained from Roftra and other agencies. i would not be were i am today a great BIG THANKYOU goes out to everyone at Roftra in helping support me.

Article posted by Ian Shaw from Moorclose TRA

Dear Gareth

As you may be aware I have had experience of the Area Boards and, while not perfect, they did fill a need of the Tenants to have a voice in the Governance of RBH and in the running of their areas.

With a little work and an increase in some of their powers much could have been done, instead we have seen the SIPS practically rammed down our throats and only got any real consultation when it was pointed out that RBH were breaking the law!

Even then, our suggestions which were made in the workshops were compiled, whittled down, cherry picked and finally sent to the tenants so they could select a few of what remained.

Now after despairing of you ever producing anything we could describe as acceptable you have come up with Township Panels.

Having read your proposal that: 'each of the panels will develop its own remit, terms of reference and way of working' I have to ask: Where is the structure?

'They will be developed so that tenants are able to have influence and control in relation to their key priorities in their own area.' Great in theory, but without firm terms of reference and a strong structure what would be the point?

'Many of the issues are likely to be outside RBH's remit, hence the need to tie in with the township structures and gain the support of other agencies.' Erm... I may seem dense, but this seems incredibly vague.

If we WERE to have contact and support from other agencies what would that contact entail?

'It is proposed to encourage each Township Panel to agree a number of key issues each year so that we can work in partnership with the Council and other agencies to address these.'

Without structure and with each panel operating in whatever manner seems best at the time?

Please!!!

With RBH effectively directing what the Township Panels key issues will be - without a recognised committee structure that is a very real probability - and with no governance, RBH could be able to ignore anything they didn't like and cherry pick only the issues they wanted to address.

'It is proposed to give the Township Panels real powers and influence.' Without governance what exactly would those powers be and what influence if RBH is free to ignore anything it didn't like?

'As a minimum they will control the same budgets (Estate Design Improvement and One Off Tenant Participation Grants) that the Area Boards did and we will work to ensure that over time more budgets are delegated.' Sounds ok, but an Improved Area Board would do the same.

Boroughwide Service Improvement Groups

'Meetings will be topic based with sufficient time for full discussion of issues rather than having long formal agendas.' Without Governance this is just a talking shop.

'They will often be based around visits, guest speakers and training events.' How often - and will this detract from the aims of the talking shop?

'It is suggested that an optimum membership of around 10 tenants per Service Improvement Group (although this can be flexible) with restrictions on the number of panels that an individual could be on. The aim of this will be to broaden involvement without losing the large number of current tenant activists.' Where are you going to find an average of forty tenant volunteers when we can't find enough to deliver a newsletter?

'The groups will have clear terms of reference with powers delegated to them from the Board on the areas they deal with.' How without Governance?

'It is intended that additional staffing resources will be allocated to help ensure their success.' Very nice, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

As for the plans to elect people to the Township Panels and Service Improvement Panels: You had to elect a tenant to the RBH Board, a very important post for a dedicated volunteer.

How many candidates did you have?...

Yours: Ian Shaw.