Tenants say no to house transfer
10:14am Tuesday 3rd January 2012 in News By Josh Layton
SWINDON council tenants have overwhelmingly voted against selling off their homes to a private housing association.
In the ballot 72.3 per cent voted against, and 27.7 per cent in favour. The turnout was 65.6 per cent, which compares well with votes in other similar-sized authorities.
The council had said it would not have been able to modernise its 10,500 properties under a new government funding scheme.
The results of the ballot, which followed a consultation between August and November 2011, were revealed this morning.
Councillor Russell Holland, in charge of housing, said: "Right from the start, the council's view was that there were benefits to transfer, but that it was up to tenants to decide how to vote.
"We worked hard to make sure that everyone got clear, factual information about the reasons for the proposal and what it meant for them.
"I'm delighted that so many people took the chance to have their say and we will respect their decision."
The council will now have to borrow £139.6m under a new self-financing system which comes into effect on April 1.
The changes affect the way all councils pay for housing. Bernie Brannan, director of housing, leisure, libraries and culture, said: "The extra borrowing we'll have to take on under the new housing finance system will limit the amount of money the council has to spend on improving homes and services over the next 10 years.
“But we will of course continue to do our very best to provide the highest standards possible within the resources available to us."
Residents had told the Adver they were worried the new set-up would prioritise profits and the homes were being sold off too cheaply.
Comments(59)
beaulieu
says...
10:37am Tue 3 Jan 12
AMSOSA
says...
10:38am Tue 3 Jan 12
And no, they can't raise the Council tax based on losing what they thought was a done deal!
Robfm
says...
10:40am Tue 3 Jan 12
Also it may encourage higher earners who may shortly be required to pay commercial rents for council houses will move on and allow those in genuine need to have a house.
It was announced yesterday that a staggering 160,000 council houses are currently sub-let, with over 6000 additionally occupied by 6 figure earners.
malctg
says...
10:56am Tue 3 Jan 12
Disco20
says...
10:59am Tue 3 Jan 12
These properties are meant for people in need, not people wanting more disposable income.
Also, my understanding is that sub-letting is not permitted..
That issue will need to be addressed also.
Robfm
says...
11:05am Tue 3 Jan 12
Disco, the info came from the Housing Minister. When asked about the sub letting he stated the reason they were looking to make it a criminal offence is because currently the only thing that could happen is the 'actual tenant' would lose the tenancy, and the person to lose out would be the sub-let as they would have no legal redress at all and be made homeless.
As he explained given they didn't live in the house anyway it wasn't a real sanction.
Disco20
says...
11:12am Tue 3 Jan 12
If they would not qualify for a council property, provide them with 2 months notice (rent to still go to the council in that period).
It isn't rocket science.
If.you.say.so.....
says...
11:47am Tue 3 Jan 12
We are all better off if it were to go private!!!
itsamess
says...
12:03pm Tue 3 Jan 12
I personally believe Councillor Holland ensured the widest range of information was given to tenants and indeed the public--despite coming under fire from quasi political aspirants. I also consider his honesty is not in question and his very open approach makes him a good candidate to lead the Council and clear up the mess its in.
There have been numerous interviews on the major channels and press releases as to the fraudulent use of council housing due to slack councils who cannot have the common sense to compare databases.
There is no question of an increase to council tax due to any debt the council will have to take up as the housing account is a standalone account funded solely from housing income.
Rents are governed by law by a st yearly increase.
Figures being given as to the value of houses if they gave a yes vote are purely academic as they are not actually sold--just transferred. Under the right to buy scheme the houses are given a market value which is discounted on an escalating scale on tenure. If you have any doubts i would suggest you contact any of the housing officers who will give yo the most up to date information--rather than listening to commenters on here who have no experience in council matters--or have political motives.
The proposition to alter the points system as i understand what the wiser MPs are saying is to include more financial information to ensure new tenants with a greater need. Clearly if a tenant during their tenancy improves their income they cannot be penalised--nor forced out of a rental property--usually in that case they would use the right to buy--or purchase private housing.
A peculiarity in the law makes any sibling over 18 liable for council tax and the council quite possibly get council tax from siblings if the parents are on benefits (they rarely do).
Robfm
says...
12:09pm Tue 3 Jan 12
Perhaps your fellow tenants believed a little paid now would bring gain later, something that Russell finally admitted on this forum.
Having a fully owned housing stock with no debt in 10 years time will enable a far better funding regime for the future by the Borough.
Robfm
says...
12:13pm Tue 3 Jan 12
As for the correct information in in the public domain on the Direct Gov website. No need to bother the overworked housing staff:):):)
itsamess
says...
12:42pm Tue 3 Jan 12
Obfuscation is a word often misused and in this instance wholly wrong as the tenants had very well laid out information which produced a very clear vote.
As for the correct information (in in) the public domain Direct Gov--the information is as clear as mud. A housing officer usually has all the answers in very simple terms.
Never lived in a Council House SM for 20 years current detached property locally.
Robfm
says...
12:51pm Tue 3 Jan 12
What on earth does the above mean.
Gritter
says...
1:48pm Tue 3 Jan 12
house on the hill
says...
1:50pm Tue 3 Jan 12
Itsamess has summed it up best, this isnt a "sell off" is was a transfer so the value of the houses was irrelevant. Rent increases are set by Govt Guidelines and would not have changed whether they jumped ship or not. Councils and HA's are regulated by the same body so no change there. Council tax has nothing to do with housing rents and vice versa, although there was a one off cost to the tax payer of setting up the consultation and the massive overtime bill to the tenants from thier rent.
There were a few minor changes that would have happened over time but this was basically a financial choice but far too many made their decision based on politics, fear of the unknown or in the main not fully understanding what they were voting for.
As a result, the housing department will now have far less money to spend on improvements and will no doubt make some job losses in order to cut their costs, but overall the tenants will notice a marked reduction in the service they receive. Having said that if they got rid of the right staff they need to (the lazy, the incompetant and the disruptive) they would actually improve the service and save money too but that wont happen as most of them are the ones at the top making the decisions....
The other thing to take into consideration is that SCB's partner, Capita PLC have it written in to their contract that they take over more and more of the admin services year by year and the only reason they havent been taking on housing roles is because of the potential to move away to an HA which they would not be allowed to be involved in. They will now take more and more of housing and run it at the minimum required to fulfil their contract and make as much money as they can out of the excercise so service will decline steadily as this happens.
I think someone said that it would be good to have no debt and council owned in 10 years, but by then the houses will be in such disrepair that it will cost a small fortune to bring them up to standard so no it is not a good thing.
And to all those who said a victory for democracy, when you see your houses decline and the service drop off a cliff, I do hope you wont be a buch of hypocrites and complain, you have to live with this now and good luck!!!!
I 2 Could B
says...
2:06pm Tue 3 Jan 12
As it stands, the Council can now demonstrate that the tenants have freely had their say and made their view very clear.
What happens next can only therefore be the responsibility of the carefully organised 'No' brigade and those who heeded their encouragement to vote against the proposal. I suspect this will prove a Pyrrhic victory and one which tenants may well come to rue.
Moth
says...
4:59pm Tue 3 Jan 12
house on the hill wrote:There were no misconceptions. The Council tried to get a "yes" vote based on bribery, i.e. vote for transfer and get a new kitchen/bathroom or whatever.
As has been evidenced by numerous posters on this and previous coucil housing threads, there are many misconceptions and incorrect statements and assumptions made on here.
Itsamess has summed it up best, this isnt a "sell off" is was a transfer so the value of the houses was irrelevant. Rent increases are set by Govt Guidelines and would not have changed whether they jumped ship or not. Councils and HA's are regulated by the same body so no change there. Council tax has nothing to do with housing rents and vice versa, although there was a one off cost to the tax payer of setting up the consultation and the massive overtime bill to the tenants from thier rent.
There were a few minor changes that would have happened over time but this was basically a financial choice but far too many made their decision based on politics, fear of the unknown or in the main not fully understanding what they were voting for.
As a result, the housing department will now have far less money to spend on improvements and will no doubt make some job losses in order to cut their costs, but overall the tenants will notice a marked reduction in the service they receive. Having said that if they got rid of the right staff they need to (the lazy, the incompetant and the disruptive) they would actually improve the service and save money too but that wont happen as most of them are the ones at the top making the decisions....
The other thing to take into consideration is that SCB's partner, Capita PLC have it written in to their contract that they take over more and more of the admin services year by year and the only reason they havent been taking on housing roles is because of the potential to move away to an HA which they would not be allowed to be involved in. They will now take more and more of housing and run it at the minimum required to fulfil their contract and make as much money as they can out of the excercise so service will decline steadily as this happens.
I think someone said that it would be good to have no debt and council owned in 10 years, but by then the houses will be in such disrepair that it will cost a small fortune to bring them up to standard so no it is not a good thing.
And to all those who said a victory for democracy, when you see your houses decline and the service drop off a cliff, I do hope you wont be a buch of hypocrites and complain, you have to live with this now and good luck!!!!
Tenants were not taken in.
No-one in their right mind would swap a secure tenancy for an assured tenancy (and there is a world of difference between the two).
As for buying the house. I asked the woman who came to my door if I could exercise my right to buy my house for the £5000 the council have valued it at. I was told that I could buy it for market value, so forgive me for having a quiet chuckle to myself. In order to try and secure the "yes" vote, the Council try to write our homes off as virtually worthless, yet try to "gazump" us with "market value"?
Since the Council have put the value of our homes at £5000 each in black and white, will they be legally obliged to sell the homes to the tenants for that price? (Said tongue in cheek).
Seriously, the whole exercise was a gross waste of time and money that could have been better spent elsewhere.
The same exercise happened some years ago and the result was the same - a decisive "no".
In many areas where transfer to an association has taken place, it has been a complete disaster for the tenants.
The tenants of Swindon were not taken in by the Council's bribery.
adverwatch
says...
5:40pm Tue 3 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
6:55pm Tue 3 Jan 12
It is not a misconception to say the houses would have been 'sold off'. What does selling mean, to part with ownership. SBC were parting with ownership.
The interest rate the Council claimed for the loan was 2% higher than reality drastically reducing the time scale to pay off the one off payment which itself we are told is no where near what they claim either.
I have no doubt the council will use this decision to 'bash' the tenants, nothing more than we would expect from this administration who will hopefully no longer be in control after May 3rd.
They have presided over the biggest demise this town has seen in many a year, from .2% unemployment just 5 years ago to knocking on 10% now. Our town centre is derelict, our road network a laughing stock and house building plans a complete shambles.
Well done to the tenants for standing up for their rights.
itsamess
says...
8:06pm Tue 3 Jan 12
In the May elections--if the people are wise they will kick out some of the senior councillors who have failed to listen to the electorate. Get a new leader that is open and transparent.
There will not be a change in the ruling party-but a change in the mix of councillors. Hopefully some of the smaller parties with credible candidates will get votes--but i cannot see any getting any seats.
Swindon has to stop the slide into obscurity and ridicule.
Scott Thunes
says...
8:31pm Tue 3 Jan 12
I hope that this is a sign of the electorate waking up to the reality of the Bluhtocracy that misuses taxpayers money and is driving Swindon into the ground, ridden with debt.
I for one will continue to spread the word far and wide to open the public's eyes to the need to send this shoddy, arrogant, undemocratic administration packing come May.
deborah50
says...
9:20pm Tue 3 Jan 12
house on the hill
says...
9:24pm Tue 3 Jan 12
deborah50
says...
9:39pm Tue 3 Jan 12
Moth
says...
9:57pm Tue 3 Jan 12
Robfm wrote:adverwatch says...
Some talk of misconceptions, and that tenants are to stupid to decide, what utter Middle Class twaddle.
It is not a misconception to say the houses would have been 'sold off'. What does selling mean, to part with ownership. SBC were parting with ownership.
The interest rate the Council claimed for the loan was 2% higher than reality drastically reducing the time scale to pay off the one off payment which itself we are told is no where near what they claim either.
I have no doubt the council will use this decision to 'bash' the tenants, nothing more than we would expect from this administration who will hopefully no longer be in control after May 3rd.
They have presided over the biggest demise this town has seen in many a year, from .2% unemployment just 5 years ago to knocking on 10% now. Our town centre is derelict, our road network a laughing stock and house building plans a complete shambles.
Well done to the tenants for standing up for their rights.
5:40pm Tue 3 Jan 12
Why give tenants the vote it's obvious they won't vote for it, they are nice and comfy as they are plus it takes away their right to buy as housing assn's do not sell off their stock,although they could be entitled to an amount of money as a house deposit if they wished to buy. It's a shame that these tenants didn't fully understand the implications of their decision. The council should have just acted for the good of the borough and sold, think of those of us who don't rely on social housing and who now will have to suffer less services. Tenants are getting cheap housing without any hassle of having to make repairs themselves - a roof for life. The council should also sort those out who are under occupying a house and move them to smaller properties, means testing should also be brought in to eradicate the high earners from social housing.
What a load of rubbish. Easily known you live in the private sector.
I have lived in my house for the past 12 years. I am STILL waiting for a repair to be done 8 years later to the down pipe at the back of the house. Fortunately, the temporary repair they did on it (some kind of tape) is still holding.
My windows, if pushed in the right place would fall out and there isn't a seal between the glazing that is intact.
Those who have transferred to an association have found their rents have rocketed but the service they pay for has declined.
As for not having to make repairs ourselves, many of us do and, indeed, certain repairs ARE NOT covered by the Council, particularly indoor repairs.
Some of us have ended up in social housing through no fault of our own.
We lived in a very nice, private rented house for a good number of years. When the house prices rose, our landlady decided to sell the house, thus making us homeless. Due to our age we knew getting a mortgage at an amount we could sensibly afford was impossible and so we ended up in a council house. We would have loved to have stayed where we were, but it was impossible. Not everyone is blessed with a high income job. Then add to that serious (life-threatening) illness to two close family members, son and husband and, had we bought our house, we would have ended up on the street. As it happened, my husband died last year so there are things in life that can hit you when you least expect it and it can happen to anyone unfortunately.
Although I love my house and living where I do - I have lovely neighbours, it is still a dream of mine to one day be able to buy my own house in the private sector but that is what it is - a dream but I live in hope.
Don't tar all council house tenants with the same brush.
Robfm says...
6:55pm Tue 3 Jan 12
Some talk of misconceptions, and that tenants are to stupid to decide, what utter Middle Class twaddle.
It is not a misconception to say the houses would have been 'sold off'. What does selling mean, to part with ownership. SBC were parting with ownership.
The interest rate the Council claimed for the loan was 2% higher than reality drastically reducing the time scale to pay off the one off payment which itself we are told is no where near what they claim either.
I have no doubt the council will use this decision to 'bash' the tenants, nothing more than we would expect from this administration who will hopefully no longer be in control after May 3rd.
They have presided over the biggest demise this town has seen in many a year, from .2% unemployment just 5 years ago to knocking on 10% now. Our town centre is derelict, our road network a laughing stock and house building plans a complete shambles.
Well done to the tenants for standing up for their rights.
Agree with you Bob.
Gooey
says...
10:38pm Tue 3 Jan 12
Scrumping
says...
11:13pm Tue 3 Jan 12
Gooey wrote:hahahaha as if anyone is going to oust the tories after labour has destroyed this country. The tories are needed to restore some order. Things are beginning to look up ...... unless of course you are a workshy scrounger.
Well done the tenants or seeing it for what it was. Now to oust the Tories in may
Robfm
says...
7:41am Wed 4 Jan 12
There are those who abuse the system and they should be brought to book.
However I also have experience of what happens when a Housing Association takes over (Cotswold). The Council did the upgrade work before transfer, the Housing Director became CEO of the housing association at twice the salary and the maintenance was practically non existent or substandard.
Let us now hope that SBC offer the increased discounts and people buy their council houses and that money is used to build more starter homes, and that the rules are changed so that people in public sector housing have a property appropriate to their needs.
I was staggered the other day that a man had the cheek to go on National Television complaining that the new Housing Benefit rules meant he wouldn't be able to afford his £2000 a week (not a mistake) terraced house in Hampstead.
Foxhill
says...
7:48am Wed 4 Jan 12
al buildings and buildings such as the DMJ which are maintained by private contractors and not SBC.
These residents received a letter in October notifying them that whilst the council's website stated 'all tenants will get a vote' -
(Quote) The Council holds a small number of properties separately to its main housing portfolio. Your home is one of these, which means that you will not be invited to take part in the ballot scheduled for December this year. The Council will continue to own your home, whatever the outcome of the vote.
If the proposed transfer to Swindon Housing Association goes ahead, it is likely that the Council would ask the new landlord to take on responsibility for managing your home on its behalf.(end quote)
Petshopgirl
says...
7:49am Wed 4 Jan 12
g etc & an amazingly low rent. But because they will remain with SBC an extra £136.9 million of the National Housing debt has been picked up as a result. Who is going to be paying for that?? Incidently,hats off to Bernie Brennan & his team who have done so well with housing in Swindon. Until yesterday the SBC housing debt was very low. Lets hope when the council house tenants service diminishes,as it surely now will owing to lack of funding,they will at least man up and accept the consequences of their actions.
Robfm
says...
8:02am Wed 4 Jan 12
The debt spoken of will ultimately enable the real value of the housing stock to raise capital to build more Council Houses, and Councillor Holland admitted on these threads that the ongoing rents would be retained totally by SBC with the increasing negative payment scheme bringing in more money.
Let's be realistic here, this was about SBC acquiring funds to pay off other debts unrelated to housing.
Take a look at your council tax booklets and see how much debt for their crazy schemes we now have.
itsamess
says...
8:12am Wed 4 Jan 12
The housing account is a standalone account and self funding and cannot be used for any other Council services. Despite a debt being incurred the benefits are now all the rents go into the housing fund--not as before what the govt decided to give back to councils. Further govt grants can be claimed solely for housing.
Housing revenue has no part in the Council tax.
Robfm
says...
8:23am Wed 4 Jan 12
So rather than bleating about what was inevitable since 2001 they were incompetent in not addressing the problem then.
itsamess
says...
8:38am Wed 4 Jan 12
Swindon has always been underfunded in most areas--due to lack of credible councillors.
Robfm
says...
8:55am Wed 4 Jan 12
The scheme however was another Labour scam where some LA's were paying 38p in the pound to HMG and getting less than half that amount back.
The Tories have been no better the net benefit to HMG for 2010 is expected to be £400 million, so there is no justification whatsoever for the one off payment.
Robfm
says...
9:07am Wed 4 Jan 12
New research carried out for our group shows
that the government has siphoned out a total
£68.6 billion from council house rents and ‘right
to buy’ sales since 1979.'
Want to know the facts read this report, it's all there.
http://www.defendcou
ncilhousing.org.uk/d
ch/resources/HOCCHG_
TimeToInvest3.pdf
itsamess
says...
9:18am Wed 4 Jan 12
itsamess
says...
9:28am Wed 4 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
9:52am Wed 4 Jan 12
COUNCIL HOUSING GROUP and led by the highly respected Austin Mitchell MP.
I note once again your usual standby trick, 'the rules' have changed, since when Walter. Since Aug 2011.?
Successive Governments have hived off nearly £70 billion that rightly should be part of Council House funds. There simply would be no historic debt had that money been used for purpose.
The current historic debt is just £18 billion. Tens of thousands of new houses could have been built in the last 10 years if Labour had released that money, but they were as bad as the Tories as the report says.
itsamess
says...
10:19am Wed 4 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
10:32am Wed 4 Jan 12
SBC could simply make a stand and say, no we are not going to pay this money, it's not our debt. The evidence exists that this debt would not be which I explained were it not for miss-use of monies by successive Governments.
Robfm
says...
10:46am Wed 4 Jan 12
http://www.ipetition
s.com/petition/nodeb
tpayment/
I 2 Could B
says...
1:30pm Wed 4 Jan 12
Don't be so naive. The taxpayer pays for *everything* because the taxpayer has no alternative, other than emigrating (as record number do and have done for many years now).
house on the hill
says...
1:56pm Wed 4 Jan 12
As others have said, they a hampered by lazy out of date staff who are more concerned about making sure they have their coffee breaks and flexi time rather than actually putting the customer first as they expect to be when they are the customer spending their own money.
Too many meetings and focus groups and 1-1's, too much duplication of work, too much sick leave, too many middle and junior managers who add no value whatsoever and just act a conduit between those below and those above at the sort of salary and benefits most in Swindon would give their right arm for, too many staff who have never experienced working in the private sector where the customer comes first and you live or die by the quality and price of your service, rather than the safe complacent environment of housing with your endless wating lists for your houses and no competition for council housing other than yourselves.
Get rid of Swindle Cowboy Services who have been ripping them off for years and Capita who are only interested in making as much money for their shareholders as possible and dont give a monkeys about the service or the customer as evidenced by them closing the cash desks in April pureley to save money, forcing people to use "cheaper to Capita" methods of payments with no thought of the tax payer who pay their wages or those wanting to pay their rent, watch the arrears go sky high again.
Move on and everyone be realistic about what wiill happen with this new debt to be paid off. Changes will have to happen as the payments on the debt will be more than the subsidy they were paying so less money for the tenants in the short term. Yes in time things will improve when the debt is finally paid, but that is a long way in the future and we need to look at now as no one knows what will happen 10 years down the line anyway. Efficency and value for money with a customer focus are the order of the day, sadly I am not sure there is anyone there with the vision, experience or drive to see it through, but I would love to be proved wrong.
Robfm
says...
8:46am Thu 5 Jan 12
As the report I posted said both Labour and the Tories share the guilt for this miss-use of the funds, so why should we all pay again.
Just for once SBC should grow a pair and say no.
itsamess
says...
9:07am Thu 5 Jan 12
Get off your soapbox and tell the true facts--it only affects the housing budget which is self funding--nothing to do with the general populace as it cannot add to council tax--or do you not understand the Housing is a standalone account.
On that basis WE do not contribute to the housing budget--nor the debt.
Robfm
says...
10:19am Thu 5 Jan 12
Anyway the detail is clear in the report I published which of course you could not even be bothered to read, being the expert on everything.
itsamess
says...
10:42am Thu 5 Jan 12
Housing benefit is not solely for Council Housing and paid from general taxation--nationally rich or poor.
We all know what commons groups do-collect useless information put a spin on it to keep a few happy--then do nothing.
Definately not an expert but i do know what a standalone account is.
Robfm
says...
10:48am Thu 5 Jan 12
But I guess you in the end believed SBC were telling the truth over the sale of these houses, unlike me and thousands of tenants. Provably wrong again backing the losing side.
itsamess
says...
11:13am Thu 5 Jan 12
I supported only the right of the tenants to decide--you seemed to think everyone should have voted--despite the clear facts given that Housing is a separate entitity.
Do tell us where you were elected to any LA. Do tell us where you studied corporate finance. Perhaps having failed in every election you have stood for should tell you something.
You seem unable to work out how this debt has occurred--its very simple when you accept the known factors.
Robfm
says...
11:37am Thu 5 Jan 12
The tenants simply saw through the scam and voted overwhelmingly to stay with the council. You backed the wrong horse get over it.
itsamess
says...
11:57am Thu 5 Jan 12
That dear boy was reflected in the vote knowing the level of upgrades could go down by staying with the council--and the promises of claimed better conditions with a HA.
My personal position is they made the right decision. My advice to the group would be to ensure the council used maintenance operators who are capable of reducing costs which would see the debt reduce quickly--but most of all not listen to idiotic claims.
Robfm
says...
12:20pm Thu 5 Jan 12
As for the maintenance contract SCS still have it so costs will simply rise. SCS don't do value for money.
The culvert put in by them outside the pub took 3 weeks and I am told cost £15k. Other ground work contractors said it was a 3 day job and at the outside £5k.
Nice work if you can get it.
itsamess
says...
12:33pm Thu 5 Jan 12
Most agree SCS are not VFM so yes you should have questioned the cost and time with the Council as you are a resident.
Robfm
says...
1:14pm Thu 5 Jan 12
Now can we simply give it a rest as you've now tried to start another row on the newer thread.
itsamess
says...
2:25pm Thu 5 Jan 12
12 votes 6 ukippers mickey mouse and donald duck.
When you are wrong you always become abusive.
Biblebabe10
says...
2:37pm Thu 5 Jan 12
house on the hill wrote:Yes I wholeheartedly agree with the above comment and I think the "No" brigade will rue the day. I for one am not at all hopeful for the future as the Counsel now has to pay 145 million of our money and so repairs will go downhill as they will only be able to do the minimum to maintain our homes. And no the houses were not being sold they were being traansfered into a HA that we would have a say in running now we have no voice. I live in Sheltered housing and they can not garentee that our Wardens will be still in existence after the next five years why because the money just won't be there instead we will be in debt up to our eyes. It seeems to me that those who voted No didn't take enough time to get the true facts. I do worry now about the future for us all. As the government take more and more control if we had gone private it would have meaan't we had more control. We have now tied the handsw of the Counsel and many I believe will expect too much of them as the money just won't be there we will rue the day mark my words.
As has been evidenced by numerous posters on this and previous coucil housing threads, there are many misconceptions and incorrect statements and assumptions made on here.
Itsamess has summed it up best, this isnt a "sell off" is was a transfer so the value of the houses was irrelevant. Rent increases are set by Govt Guidelines and would not have changed whether they jumped ship or not. Councils and HA's are regulated by the same body so no change there. Council tax has nothing to do with housing rents and vice versa, although there was a one off cost to the tax payer of setting up the consultation and the massive overtime bill to the tenants from thier rent.
There were a few minor changes that would have happened over time but this was basically a financial choice but far too many made their decision based on politics, fear of the unknown or in the main not fully understanding what they were voting for.
As a result, the housing department will now have far less money to spend on improvements and will no doubt make some job losses in order to cut their costs, but overall the tenants will notice a marked reduction in the service they receive. Having said that if they got rid of the right staff they need to (the lazy, the incompetant and the disruptive) they would actually improve the service and save money too but that wont happen as most of them are the ones at the top making the decisions....
The other thing to take into consideration is that SCB's partner, Capita PLC have it written in to their contract that they take over more and more of the admin services year by year and the only reason they havent been taking on housing roles is because of the potential to move away to an HA which they would not be allowed to be involved in. They will now take more and more of housing and run it at the minimum required to fulfil their contract and make as much money as they can out of the excercise so service will decline steadily as this happens.
I think someone said that it would be good to have no debt and council owned in 10 years, but by then the houses will be in such disrepair that it will cost a small fortune to bring them up to standard so no it is not a good thing.
And to all those who said a victory for democracy, when you see your houses decline and the service drop off a cliff, I do hope you wont be a buch of hypocrites and complain, you have to live with this now and good luck!!!!
Russell Holland
says...
9:52pm Thu 5 Jan 12
Few points.
The debt will not have an impact on Council tax - the debt will be paid from rents. Housing finance is in the housing revenue account and is ring fenced it can only be spent on housing and cannot be subsidised by Council tax.
Tenants pay rent and they pay Council tax. Same as everyone else. It is correct that some tenants have benefits to help them pay their rent and Council tax because of their financial circumstances. But to me this is no different in principle from people sending their children to state schools or using the NHS.
On Bob's petition I can appreciate the sentiment but the reality is that if the Council refused to pay the debt it is highly likely that the Government would either take legal action which they would certainly win and we would have to pay their costs or they could not give us our revenue grant. Not paying is not an option. The debt was reduced from £145million to £140million and the Council is writing to the Government to request that the debt is reduced or that the ability of the Council to borrow is increased.
The point about the transfer value is that this is a transfer - if the houses had been "sold" to the Housing Association at market rates then the Housing Association would have paid more for them thereby giving the Housing Association less money to spend. I have found some comments that tenants should have been offered first refusal to buy at transfer price to be profoundly misguided.
The ballot did have to take place in a tighter time scale than was desirable and because the Housing Department does a good job when people get a lot of information and surrounding political noise it is understandable why they voted to keep the status quo. I did offer Jim Grant a meeting to agree a joint set of facts but this was refused.
The decision has now been made by tenants and while there are going to be significant challenges over the next 10 years because of the capital shortfall I am confident that staff and tenants working together will be able to make the best of the situation.
I think tenants would have had a greater say as board members of a Swindon Housing Association. I am currently looking at ways of giving tenants a greater opportunity to be involved. Many people joined the Swindon Housing facebook page during the ballot period so it is good to have more people on that. If tenants have views on how they can get more involved I am open to all suggestions.
Davidsyrett says...
10:25am Tue 3 Jan 12