I cannot for the life of me see where the concern is about red tape/beaurocracy re the Charter outcomes. Good quality services provided by existing landlords will not be up for question. What is disappointing is that the SHR sees fit not to run with the Scottish Government on the Charter, to clarify its position about performance measurement.
However, if landlords consult with tenants on setting targets in their processes in acheiving outcomes, then their ought to be no questions from tenants on the level of performance as tenants have been party to setting the performance. Lest we forget the SHR is not interested in the processes but the performance measurement. It is to this we should discuss with tenants/landlords.
Doing this as Ive outlined will NOT result in more red tape! What are we afraid of?

From hugh mcclung - , 3/08/2011 Tagged as: red tape

Replies (4) RSS comment feed Join the discussion: log in or register to leave a reply
  1.  If tenant participation does not work as intended, do you all really believe that the Scottish Social Housing Charter will?
    I know 1st hand what it is to suffer at the hands of a vindictive landlord who although ticking all the right boxes for SHR, still pays God and has no respect for tenants, yet is still beieved to be working in the tenants best interest.
    Rose Bowie Barnstaple Devon.
    PS Sorry TRAG has gone as it was an invaluble group of knowledgable tenants. perhaps too smart for SHR to tolerate?

    Rose Bowie, Central Scotland, Thursday, October 04, 2012 at 7:52:53 PM
  2. If a national charter is agreed and within that the tenants in any area can agree with their landlords how to achieve the outcomes then they really cannot complain ,except where the landlord breaches the agreement.
    The main purposes of the charter is to give everyone concerned a benchmark to work from.To that end the charter should be more specific in its requirements,instead of using words like can be involved or can take these should be replaced with words must,should will or shall.But can only be made to work if tenants have agood and well supported network of tenants associations.This is best achieved by having good TP officers in place

    alex younger, ayrshire, Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 5:31:16 PM
  3.  david you refer to customer satisfaction and to do this requires consultation with customers. i personaly dont feel that tennant parisapation should just be abought assesing satisfaction but allso partisapation and practicaly working with the custmers to get there input practicaly on how the services should work, practical involment in the houseing services, reveiwing them haveing input to changes neaded. this should not just be a desk top papper exarsize but real life practical involvment and input to inprovement and setting of the standards and maintaing them customers asking questions cusstomers assesing the sevices customers reveiwing polices customers in consultation giveing veiws on how things can be inproved or betterd and yes working on the satisfaction which is only 1 part of parrtisapation

    russell easton, edinburgh, Saturday, August 13, 2011 at 6:01:27 PM
  4. CIH Scotland agrees with Hugh that getting tenant input into service standards should be something good landlords are used to doing. We have no beef about red tape in agreeing service standards. Hugh may well be right too that if tenants have been involved in helping set service standards in the first place then, as he says, "there ought to be no questions from tenants on the level of performance".

    But the landlord is still required to ask tenants: in 19 instances in the draft Charter, the outcome is achieved not simply by the landlord meeting the required outcome, but by the landlord proving that tenants are satisfied that they're achieving the required outcome. There's quite a difference between these two things. Our worry, then, is the potential for red tape in having to come up with ways of getting tenants' and/or other customers' views on whether Charter outcomes are being achieved. Perhaps I could give a few examples (with the draft Charter outcomes in inverted commas):

    "Tenants are satisfied that landlords, in partnership with other
    organisations, provide a range of support to enable them to remain
    in their home." This means landlords must find ways of getting tenants who receive support to give their views on this. I don't think that's a straightforward task, either for the landlord or for the person receiving support.

    "People looking for housing are satisfied that landlords make the best use of the housing available." This means finding ways of asking applicants whether they’re satisfied that the landlord uses its housing well: I wouldn't have thought this was an easy one for applicants to answer.

    "Homeless people are satisfied that landlords are working in partnership with other agencies to provide a range of support." This means putting this question to “homeless people”: quite apart from the obvious challenge of identifying sufficient homeless people willing to give their views, this particular question may well be a genuinely difficult one for them to come to a view on.

    I don't think anyone should underestimate the work that seems likely to be involved in trying to prove that tenants/other customers are satisfied that outcomes are being achieved, not least as the vast majority of tenants (let alone applicants or homeless people), unlike Hugh, are not activists and probably don't want to be, even though good services will still be very important to them.

    David Bookbinder, National, Thursday, August 04, 2011 at 1:04:47 PM