South Northamptonshire Council Choice of landlord seminar Choice of landlord seminar Alan Johnson

The Principles Considering New stand-alone RSL or new RSL within an existing Group (A new organisation set up for SN as a subsidiary of an existing RSL) Existing RSL (Transfer of the stock to an existing RSL with local offices but HQ outside SN) Differences are small between Stand-alone and Group Would depend Type of Group What is negotiated

Key issues (1) Identity with South Northants SA: absolute local identity Set up for SN G: strong local identity within Group New subsidiary set up for SN E: limited local identity Will depend on scale of operations and negotiations

Key Issues (2) Control SA: Controlled by local Board Typical Board of 5 Council reps, 5 Tenant reps and 5 independents G: managed by local Board (as above) BUT Parent must have the right to exercise ultimate control in certain circumstances E: No local Board but representation on main Board (by negotiation)

Key Issues (3) Expertise SA: will need to recruit new Management Team G: can call on skills within Group E: skills and experience available Policies SA: developed specifically for SN G: developed for SN but compatible with Group E: already has policies in place Value for Money G: should benefit from economies within Group (eg. central services) E: additional economies may be achievable

Key Issues (4) Community Empowerment SA: Tenant representation on Board SA: Tenant involvement in policy development G: Tenant Representation on local Board but limited opportunities for representation on Parent G: Tenant involvement in policy development (consistent with Group policies) E: opportunities for local representation (inc. tenants) on existing Board

Key Issues (5) New development Housing Corporation requirement RSL must have development status SA: would need to operate through Partner RSL G: would use Parent who would have development status E: already has development status

Similarities and differences (tenants) Major works and improvements Guaranteed: no difference Meet priority aspirations Guaranteed: no difference Service Improvements Guaranteed: no difference Enhanced tenant empowerment May be greater opportunity in SA

Similarities and differences (the Council) Support to the transfer process Group/Existing could offer financial and staff support Capital receipt from sale of housing Group/Existing may be prepared to pay more Provision of additional affordable homes Higher receipt could be used to support more new homes Strategic housing services All three options could support the Council Representation and Influence Council likely to have more influence over SA and least over Existing

Similarities and differences (staff) Job satisfaction Should increase in any of the three options Office location Must be in SN initially But Group and Existing HQ likely to be outside SN Pensions and terms and conditions Guaranteed in all three cases Career opportunities More in Group/Existing but also more competition Opportunity for central services staff to transfer Less chance in Group/Existing

Final considerations Local identity Control Long term viability Flexibility (merger and demerger) Ability to attract the right staff Value for money WILL IT GET THE SUPPORT OF THE TENANTS