send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Friday, 5 December 2014


Robert Black, boss of the TMO, took up his appointment with many extravagant promises....'the culture would change'; 'we will listen to you' and 'things will be different now'.

Mr Black has not kept his word. Whether this is due to ineptitude or indolence we can only hazard guesses.
The Dame has a copy of the 2009 Memoli report which RBK&C attempted to hide. 
Reading the report of the dire mis management of the TMO it seems little has changed. 
She will be putting up extracts from time to time

So we have this monster of a failing organisation soaking up £12 million a year from council taxpayers led by a management team who would be out on their ear in any decently run management organisation.

So can tenants and council taxpayers get a better deal?

The obvious solution is to dismantle the TMO and hand back housing management responsibility to the Council: after all, councils used to run their own housing departments quite well.
So the Dame, with the help of her in house research team, started to run the numbers.

Strikingly, the result indicates some huge cost savings as below...

The following TMO Senior Management posts would cease to exist if the Council took management back in house......

  • TMO Company Secretary and all staff employed on TMO Governance issues
  • TMO Director of Finance, (the Council already has one)
  • Director of People and Performance and all TMO Personnel Department posts (the Council has an HR Department)
  • The Council Officer's post monitoring the TMO's performance would no longer exist.
  • The Council would have a Director of Housing (combining the two TMO posts of TMO Chief Executive and TMO Operations' Director)
  • TMO Business Improvement Manager would be replaced with the less expensive post of Policy Officer at the Council 

A senior housing expert adviser to the Dame wrote... 

"There are probably other TMO posts that would be deleted but have not, as yet, come on the radar.
The above mentioned high level post holders at the TMO would have to apply for any posts that they might want with the Council because they would have no assimilation rights under TUPE Regs.  

Of course, there would be a substantial one off costs but substantially  reduced costs going forward

Many staff members could be TUPE'd across to the Council. This would mirror what happened in 1996 when much of the Council's housing department were TUPE'd across to the newly formed TMO. 
But the most senior members of staff (the CEO, Exec team etc) would probably have to be made redundant as their posts would simply cease to exist. 

The current "cost" of the TMO is effectively £12 million/year. This is the management fee they receive from the Council for managing the stock (approx. £1,300/property/year) and is used to cover their operating expenses (staff, offices etc).

Contractors and contracts (for repairs, cleaning, gardening etc) are already directly financed by the Council from the HRA. Those costs won't change until the contracts concerned are re-tendered."


  1. Shocking. This is yet another grossly overpriced service contracted out by RBKC. It's strange how every such council service ends up working to the detriment of residents, but for the benefit of the wallets of those paid to run them.

  2. Emmanuel Goldstein5 December 2014 at 14:41

    This seems a logical sensible step to take to reduce costs and increase efficiency of the organisation, so obviously nothing will be done.
    Logic and sense have no place in this council, who act as though they are not there to protect the interests of the residents, but of their special interest groups, developers, Holland Park Opera, overseas investors, etc. and jobs for their friends.

  3. Someone needs to take a close look at the TMO's running costs and what that management fee is being spent on. People want someone to look after where they live by either delivering an actual service or managing those who do. The TMO appears to be failing on both counts - front line staff have been slashed to an all-time low and the monitoring of contractors appears to have gone down the pan if the sorry tales we hear about poor repairs and maintenance are anything to go by.

    1. In the last five years the number of caretakers on my estate has been slashed from four to two. And the remaining two are overwhelmed by the work. At the same time the layers of management between them and the CEO appears to have doubled, from two to four. There are clearly too many chiefs.

    2. On my estate we have one caretaker that we share with many other estates. The caretaker is never on site and certainly does not supervise the cleaning as stated on TMO propaganda. That is left to OCS to do. Part of the cleaning contract with OCS (the cleaning company) is to self supervise the cleaning. I question what we pay the TMO for? Deep cleans that are not undertaken as stipulated and signed off by our caretakers in the full knowledge of the TMO head of cleaning.

  4. Most Councils, including Conservative-run Councils like Wandsworth, still manage their own housing. It is usually the most cost effective arrangement. RBK&C however has to be different, as usual, for no obvious benefit to anyone, as usual.

  5. Silly Billy. RBKC's system is of enormous benefit the TMO management.

  6. On abolition of the TMO, the generous monthly allowances paid to each of the six Resident Board members of £ 100 PLUS each month would be saved as would the £ 150 PLUS paid each month to the Chair and Vice Chairs; that is a saving of over £ 11, 000 a year.

    By the way a Chair is something people sit on not someone who runs a company.


Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.