To consider the following Notice of Motion, which has been submitted by Cr. M.J. Roberts pursuant to Standing Order 9 (1):
“This Council seeks to have a meeting with senior management members of VIVID Housing Association within the next 2 months to discuss issues in relation to:
1. The failure to continue dialogue with Rushmoor Borough Council, its Councillors and seemingly residents.
2. To note the level of performance as being less than positive.
3. To examine why in a number of instances such as the disposal of garages there was a complete failure of support as to the outcomes that have occurred.
4. To establish a dialogue pattern which is not cancelled.
Minutes:
The Council was asked to consider a Motion which had been submitted by Cllr M.J. Roberts in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 9 (1). It was MOVED by Cllr M.J. Roberts; SECONDED by Cllr A.J. Halstead – That
“This Council seeks to have a meeting with senior management members of VIVID Housing Association within the next two months to discuss issues in relation to:
(1) The failure to continue dialogue with Rushmoor Borough Council, its Councillors and seemingly residents;
(2) To note the level of performance as being less than positive;
(3) To examine why in a number of instances such as the disposal of garages there was a complete failure of support as to the outcomes that have occurred; and
(4) To establish a dialogue pattern which is not cancelled.”
Speaking in support of his Motion, Cllr Roberts referred to the views of a cross-section of residents in respect of repairs, specialist works, anti-social behaviour, communication with tenants and morale support. Cllr Roberts was of the opinion that communication by VIVID with Members had been poor and urged the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to summon VIVID to a meeting to discuss these matters.
During discussion, reference was made to the Council’s current positive working relationship with VIVID by phone, email and in person and that this was also available for tenants, including the existence of regular communications and a secure website. It was felt that there were also mechanisms in place to resolve problems. Members were also advised that VIVID would be appearing before the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Registered Providers’ Group in the Autumn. It was also pointed out that the process of the sale of garages had been carried out by First Wessex and not VIVID as referred to in the Motion.
In seconding the Motion, Cllr Halstead referred to the large deaf and hearing impaired community in Farnborough, some of whom had been in touch to complain about VIVID not answering emails or letters and making it impossible for them to communicate with their landlord. Cllr Halstead commented that this was indirect discrimination under Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and also highlighted that, under Section 149 of the Equality Act, 2010, the Council had to take reasonable actions to eliminate discrimination, both direct and indirect, and urged Members to give their support to the Motion.
In summing up, Cllr Roberts stressed the need for VIVID to think of the needs of the tenants and to follow-up issues raised thoroughly and conscientiously before matters deteriorated.
On a Recorded Vote there voted FOR: Cllrs D.M.T. Bell, T.D. Bridgeman, A.K. Chowdhury, Keith Dibble, Sue Dibble, C.P. Grattan, A.J. Halstead, B. Jones, Nadia Martin, M.J. Roberts, P.F. Rust and M.D. Smith (12); AGAINST: J.B. Canty, M.S. Choudhary, Sophia Choudhary, R.M. Cooper, Liz Corps, P.I.C. Crerar, Veronica Graham-Green, Barbara Hurst, G.B. Lyon, Mara Makunura, J.H. Marsh, Marina Munro, K.H. Muschamp, M.L. Sheehan, P.G. Taylor, M.J. Tennant, B.A. Thomas and Jacqui Vosper (18); and, ABSTAINED: Cllrs Diane Bedford, A.R. Newell, J.E. Woolley and the Mayor (Cllr S.J. Masterson) (4) and the Motion was DECLARED LOST.