Future of Haggerston Tenants Association

Options Paper

• Introduction:

The December 1998 Management Committee of the HTA resolved to draft an options paper for discussion amongst the TA’s membership on the future of the TA following the loss of the ballot on transfer of part of the Estate to Canalside Housing Partnership.

It is intended that this be distributed to tenants as part of the TA newsletter and also to interested tenants and leaseholders on Kingsland and Whitmore Estates as part of a discussion about ongoing tenants’ organisation in the area.

While constitutionally, any change to the HTA constitution must be made via resolution carried at a general meeting, a solution which is acceptable to our neighbours would seem to be an appropriate aim of this process.

It is intended to have an open discussion meeting on this issue in late February followed by a General meeting of the TA in late March.

• Principles for Consideration:

The TA Management Committee considers that the following 6 principles are key in discussing the future of tenant organisation for Haggerston tenants:

• 1] any organisation should be independent of the landlord/s
• 2] any organisation should be democratic, open and participatory. It should have equal opportunities built into its way of operation via the provision of childcare and translation facilities.
• 3] any organisation should be open to all residents, including leaseholders and ‘unauthorised occupiers’ but remain ‘tenant led’ in a context where tenants are the vast majority of residents.
• 4] any organisation needs to be sustainable - i.e. an organisation covering too small an area will not have the resources to carry out operations in a way that ensures equality of access as well as sustainabilty of organisation.
• 5] any organisation needs to be large enough to support tenants on parts of the estate which are being decanted.
• 6] any organisation needs to be structured to continue to allow representation from a range of parts of the estate/s, from tenants as well as leaseholders, and from a range of parts of the community [gender / ethnicity / age].

Finally the TA Management Committee recognises that two on going projects need to be sustained:

- The IT project for which funding has been secured until April 2002

- The National Office for Defend Council Housing, which if the new organisation decided to withdraw support, would need at least 3 months to relocate.

Each option is discussed with regard to:

a] positive aspects b] negative aspects

c] financial implications d] constitutional implications.

• Option 1: Continue as present:

This would be the easiest option in the short term - requiring no constitutional changes. However, the TA has already been affected by the reduction of tenants on the estate [by losing active members] and this would intensify if the decanting of Haggerston West goes ahead. The TA would find it difficult to represent its membership on Haggerston East unless a working relationship could be formed with tenant organisations existing on the rest of Canalside [effectively Whitmore EDMC.] Support for residents of Haggerston West would be affected by ongoing reduction in the organisation’s financial and person base.

Funding would be at a minimum be cut by around £2,000 for next year’s environmental grant [which is not confirmed as yet] - meaning the complete draining of all reserves and some deficit. At worst all funding would be lost from Hackney and from Canalside as there is no guarantee that HTA would remain or be recognised by either.

The IT project [a management fee of £600 a year] and tenant levy funding [from Haggerston West] could provide some phone and photocopying expenses but not a tenant support worker. Funding may be available under the Tenant Involvement strategy for a Haggerston Area Trust worker - but the Haggerston focus of such a worker would be limited.

• Option 2: Shut Down.

The IT project would need to be given away with the approval of the National Lotteries Charity Board.

An unofficial self funded tenant’s organisation could be developed and would presumably retain significant support.

Development of an official ‘residents’ organisation could be left in the hands of Canalside and the EDMCs.

A local advice centre could be extensively briefed on the issues regarding Haggerston West to provide support to these tenants.

• Option 3: Federation of TAs:

This option would meet many of the principles listed above. A clear problem is the lack of a TA on Whitmore to federate with - this would need to be developed.

A loose federation with an agreed cross estate executive would preserve the independence of differing estates but could tend to fracture given the differences between the estates and might not provide the scope for the diversity of membership wished for. It has to be recognised that to some extent the differences are not between estates as much as between different perspectives which exist on all estates.

A tighter federation, for example with area sub committees, would overcome some of these difficulties, but require more detailed work to reach an agreed structure.

Financially a federation would be stronger - the first few years of such an organisation could use LBH funding for existing LBH estates, and then continue to provide support in the later years of the work on Haggerston West and Kingsland with new sources of funding. Initially at least, most of the financial backing for such a federation would need to be provided by the HTA.

Constitutionally any federation would be very difficult to construct.

• Option 4: ‘Expansion’ of Haggerston TA

Expanding the remit of the HTA to cover Whitmore would be constitutionally simple - if that was what was wanted by Whitmore tenants. An agreement regarding safeguards in terms of representation and participation could be sought. The HTA would be open to a range of options to do this although would be concerned about too strict a ‘quota’ system as this would inhibit the organic development of the organisation.

A further agreement about the amalgamation of Kingsland TA and Haggerston TA would be necessary. It would seem a negative step to have one organisation covering Haggerston and Whitmore Estates leaving one block excluded in Canalside [Bryant Ct 37 -78] and half of the ‘non ERCF’ area covered by one TA and the other half covered by ourselves. Divisions have already been exploited by Hackney and should be avoided.

This structure would meet many of the principles listed but present significant problems in terms of previously opposed groups working together. The TA Management Committee would be willing to do what is necessary to address this issue - i.e. this would not be a takeover but rather a putting aside of differences in the interests of tenants.

The financial implications would be similar to Option 3, except that funding from LBH for a single organisation mostly based on non Hackney estates may be questioned.

• What next?

The above options list may not be complete. The T.A. Management Committee has not formed a view as to which is the preferred option.

Our membership and neighbours need to consider the various options and the reasoning behind them carefully. We are open to discussions, and can make our constitution, financial records and planning available to interested parties as part of this discussion.

Passed by the HTA Management Committee 11/1/99

Principles for Consideration

Option 1: Continue as present:

Option 2: Shut Down.

Option 3: Federation of TAs:

Option 4: ‘Expansion’ of Haggerston TA

What next?