Dear.
My father , aged nearly 100, is a tenant in (name withheld)
sheltered housing. I write to you in respect of my deep
concern about your procedures. My father is dependent on my
oversight of his affairs and the services of the council.
There are no other family members nearby who can help. I
live in France which presents difficulties for me and I
depend greatly on the service and moral support of the
resident 'on-site manager'. She exercises her role with
skill and compassion and has frequently come to my father's
aid in emergency. Now. I understand. that you are seriously
considering the removal of resident managers and replacing
them with non-resident 9-5 personnel. There appears to no
proper consultation of tenants with regard to this
proposal.
My father has been very well cared for by your council and
this is greatly appreciated. A developed society is judged
by the ability to care for its vulnerable members, I
believe it to be important to maintain the standards
achieved and not to move backwards: the 'market-driven'
business model applied to social care is unworkable. A
proposal to change the status of the site managers is
considering economic issues without due consideration of
the long-term social cost. Resident personnel create a
community in which tenants are encouraged to support one
another and avoid isolations. The emergency services can
rely on resident personnel for access ; a resident manager
knows the tenants well and can enable support services to
carry out their work more effectively; without the aid of
the resident manager my father's quality of support and my
concurrent peace of mind would be threatened. These matters
are difficult to quantify. The resident wardens model was
considered a good one. What justification can be offered
for this retrograde step ?
Extracts from the reply
The ALMO concerned claimed in reply that there were several
issues facing the service:
The cost of providing
subsidised rents.
The taxation issues around such subsidies.
They currently have a 2 tier service with 50% of their
schemes having non-residential
wardens
Extracts , in reply to the
above, taken from a letter by the same author as
follows:
The issue of providing subsidised rents would appear to be
the direct result of housing now being run by a Limited
Company as opposed to being run as a public service. I do
not think these repercussions were clear to tenants when
they were asked to vote for setting up of XXXXX homes.
I cannot accept that achieving a 50% 2 tier service is an
argument for carrying it through to 100%. I should like to
know on what basis the 50% level was achieved. Can you
direct me to the evidence for level of success in the
schemes currently operating with non-resident managers ? In
order to make such a fundamental change in the service it
needs to demonstrated as an improvement. What are the the
advantages to the tenants ?
Many sheltered housing tenants are vulnerable and fearful
of those who hold power over the decisions affecting their
lives. It was even suggested to me that I should not
intervene in case it adversely affected my father's
position !. If Board members decide to pursue this policy
on economic, as opposed to social, grounds I ask them to
state that clearly in any consultation exercise.