New pressure group vows to fight council housing transfer plan (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
New pressure group vows to fight council housing transfer plan
11:00am Tuesday 2nd August 2011 in News By David Wiles
Campaigners Brian Shakespeare, Eileen George and Martin Wicks
A CAMPAIGN group has been launched to oppose plans to offload Swindon Council’s housing stock – just ahead of the housing minister’s approval of a ballot on the issue.
The council wants to transfer all of its properties to a new not-for-profit housing association in order to dodge a £158m bill from the Government, which it says would prevent it from keeping the 10,500 homes at minimum standards of decency.
Announcing yesterday that housing minister Grant Shapps has given it the nod, a council boss said they will hold a ballot of tenants later in the year. However, some have already banded together and set up Swindon Tenants Campaign Group to convince others to vote ‘no’.
Informal group secretary Martin Wicks, who has lived in a council property in Welcombe Avenue, Park North, for 27 years, said: “The council wants to give the impression that we have to flog off our council housing because we don’t have enough money to maintain the stock.
“In reality this is a political decision by a council which has already outsourced services, including the in-house home care service. Now they want to flog off our housing on the cheap: £66m for 10,500 housing units, just over £6,000 each.”
Mr Wicks, who is also a member of the consultation body, Swindon Tenants Voice, added: “The council downplays the differences between council housing and Housing Associations. HAs are businesses that have to be run on commercial lines. We are told we can have ‘tenant representatives’ on the board of a housing association. This is not true. Individual tenants can be on the board.
“However, they have a legal duty to the interests of the HA and are barred from representing any tenant organisation. They cannot be mandated to express the collective view of any tenant organisation. They are therefore unaccountable.
“At least council tenants can vote their landlord out of office in the local elections if we are unhappy with them. You cannot vote out the board of a business.”
Mr Wicks claimed that housing association rents have been 20 per cent higher than council landlords and HAs are vulnerable to increases in interest rates because they borrow money from private sources.
The campaign group is made up of those involved in the Swindon arm of the national campaign group, Defend Council Housing, who fought to save Swindon’s council housing in 2002 and 2009.
Coun Brian Mattock, Swindon Council’s cabinet member for health, housing and adult social care, said an independent tenant adviser would be appointed for the ballot to give tenants the correct facts surrounding the decision and to debunk scaremongering.
He said: “I’m delighted to say that we have just heard that the minister has given approval for Swindon to go to ballot. As far as terms and conditions for tenants are concerned, these will be covered within the contractual arrangements with the new organisation.
“We want to give tenants the choice of either accepting that huge debt and living with the consequences of reduced maintenance, or moving to a housing association which wouldn’t have that huge debt imposed on them and would be able to borrow the £72m to continue improving the housing stock.”
Tenants interested in the campaign can email stcg@btinternet.com or call Mr Wicks on 07786 394593.
Comments(40)
sn5
says...
12:10pm Tue 2 Aug 11
martin wicks says housing associations have to be run on business lines, but it says they are not for profit organisations. how many businesses are set up as not for profit organisations? sounds more like they are going to transfer from sbc to a charity
Spurs Fan
says...
4:24pm Tue 2 Aug 11
SN5 is correct in saying that HA's are registered charities. Housing Associations can make a surplus but it must be reinvested in the Housing association. So the better run the landlord the more it can spend.
At the end of the day tenants need to make their choice based on facts not falsehood. No campaigners are entitled to their opinions and those in favour of transfer are entitled to equal press space and to have their opinions voiced. The Adver needs to get away from using loaded language like "off loading housing" and join in a reasoned debate. Political ideology needs to be seen for what it is and then and only then can tenants make informed unbiased decisions that will impact upon the rest of their lives
Dirty Barry
says...
4:26pm Tue 2 Aug 11
candid friend wrote:Totally agree with your comments, If Swindon Council is allowed to wash it's hands of it's moral and legal responsibly for providing and maintaining housing for those who need it in it's own community,current and future generations will suffer.
The tenants need to vote against. If they agree to a transfer they will get a nasty shock.
The Council needs to get it's act together and stop trying to shed responsibilities.
Dirty Barry
says...
4:58pm Tue 2 Aug 11
sn5 wrote:Housing Associations are run like a business in the respect they can merge with other Housing Associations just like large corporations can, and as some Housing Associations have already merged, this may become the national trend over the next few years, and tenants in Swindon would have no local voice or power as they do with the council, i.e. they can lean on their local councillor if a repair is not done. Also tenants could find themselves competing with people in Glasgow for upgrades and repairs out of a national budget.
oh great, a bunch of 21st century luddites.
martin wicks says housing associations have to be run on business lines, but it says they are not for profit organisations. how many businesses are set up as not for profit organisations? sounds more like they are going to transfer from sbc to a charity
Until the council start offering some guarantees and safeguards over future rent increases and how the housing stock can be transferred and managed at any time the future, it will always be case of better the devil you know.
shirls
says...
6:01pm Tue 2 Aug 11
Robfm
says...
6:05pm Tue 2 Aug 11
That's a net difference of almost £500 million.
Forget the tenants having a vote what about the rate payers, these houses belong to all of us.
It would be scandalous to let them go at a ridiculous price, why not simply mortgage them to sitting tenants with a buy back clause. The council would then not have to maintain them, but still retain first option and have an income from them.
Robfm
says...
6:07pm Tue 2 Aug 11
house on the hill
says...
6:09pm Tue 2 Aug 11
The housing in Swindon was built some time ago and some of the houses were not even designed to be still standing now. it takes a massive amount of money to keep them up to standard and that money is running out and the exisiting houses will fall into disrepair. the council has the chance not only to wipe out a massive Govt debt, they will also bea able to spend the money they would have sepnt servicing the debt on improvements and hopefully in time building much needed new houses.
On top of that all this scaremongering about rent is dangerous. It is the Govt who set the critera for rent increases not councils or housing associations and it is still the wish of Govt that all council and housing association rents are the same as they should be or its discrimination. and unfair. The rent will not just jump up over night and there will be critera in place to ensure it goes up at the same rate if they stay or go so that is not an issue to argue on.
There is far to muct assumption and disinformation going on here and tenants need to make sure they get the full facts from those who really know not from those hell bent on derailing the process on their own political or idealogical agendas.
Please get the full facts first before you make any decisions, their are pros and cons on both sides and they need to be weighed up rationally
Robfm
says...
6:21pm Tue 2 Aug 11
Fact 2. The housing associations will have no legal obligation to upgrade the houses.
Fact 3. Housing associations elsewhere, the nearest in Cotswold have proved far more expensive for tenants and the standards of maintenance when I lived there were appalling.
It is right the tenants should know the facts, so how can the Council appointing the tenants representative/advis
er be independent.
Spurs Fan
says...
6:55pm Tue 2 Aug 11
Fact 1} Councils can only transfer stock with their tenants in place. This is called Tenanted Market Value (TMV). Under this rule stock is worth a fraction of what it might fetch on the open market. TMV on average is 6k. Of course he might say make 20000+ homeless but I don't think any sane person would agree with that.
Fact 2} Absolute Nonsense. HAs have to have stock that reaches Decent homes Standard, just like councils.
Fact 3} There are HAs operating in Swindon already. Westlea and Sovereign to name but two. I too have lived in a HA property which was poorly maintained. The answer was to get tenants together and demand better services.
Robfm is right to say that tenants should know the facts. The fact is Robfm is misguided or just plain wrong. The council does not appoint the independent tenant advisor.....Tenants Do!
Dirty Barry
says...
7:06pm Tue 2 Aug 11
house on the hill wrote:Your previous post on this matter where you shared your views that everyone who lived in a council house was on benefits and was too thick to understand this matter summed up both your and the councils outrageous arrogance over this matter, so arrogance and outrageous in fact that 600k is to be wasted when it's clear that almost every tenant is against it!
As expected there is a lot of disinformation flying around, mainly from those against, but then why let the facts affect a good excuse to air your leftist views. This isnt jsut about poltics there are some hard financial facts that seem to be continually ignored.
The housing in Swindon was built some time ago and some of the houses were not even designed to be still standing now. it takes a massive amount of money to keep them up to standard and that money is running out and the exisiting houses will fall into disrepair. the council has the chance not only to wipe out a massive Govt debt, they will also bea able to spend the money they would have sepnt servicing the debt on improvements and hopefully in time building much needed new houses.
On top of that all this scaremongering about rent is dangerous. It is the Govt who set the critera for rent increases not councils or housing associations and it is still the wish of Govt that all council and housing association rents are the same as they should be or its discrimination. and unfair. The rent will not just jump up over night and there will be critera in place to ensure it goes up at the same rate if they stay or go so that is not an issue to argue on.
There is far to muct assumption and disinformation going on here and tenants need to make sure they get the full facts from those who really know not from those hell bent on derailing the process on their own political or idealogical agendas.
Please get the full facts first before you make any decisions, their are pros and cons on both sides and they need to be weighed up rationally
Robfm
says...
7:26pm Tue 2 Aug 11
You've acknowledged yourself that there are bad HA landlords.
As for the tenant representative this is what was said,
'Coun Brian Mattock, Swindon Council’s cabinet member for health, housing and adult social care, said an independent tenant adviser would be appointed for the ballot to give tenants the correct facts surrounding the decision and to debunk scaremongering.'
Which rather suggests the Council want a 'yes' man in place.
Perhaps the council should include on the ballot a question asking if a tenant wished to buy at £6k, let's be honest even Banks and Building Societies would be falling over themselves to fund this no risk venture.
her_in_doors2
says...
7:47pm Tue 2 Aug 11
shirls wrote:You could also say the homeless problem has been down (in part) to people like you staying put for 30 years with cheap rent and complaining about the lack of maintenance.
I have lived in my council house for almost 30 years since my husband came out of the RAF, and I am very happy there. However my parents lived in a housing association house and frankly it was left to rot when they became old and infirm. We had to fight to get things fixed, until my mum and dad moved into care homes, so I can’t see how they will have money to sustain maintenance. I have maintained my council house lot of myself, such as fitting our own kitchen as the council did not do this (I feel) due to a lot of houses near us being sold off, so as a councilchouse we are in a row on our own. I feel the homeless problem has been down (in part) to selling off council houses in the first place, now they want to sell them all off cheap!
Maybe you should wake up and move with the times.
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
8:10pm Tue 2 Aug 11
You wouldn't be the first to point that out.
Robfm
says...
8:16pm Tue 2 Aug 11
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
8:20pm Tue 2 Aug 11
Robfm
says...
8:27pm Tue 2 Aug 11
MrAngry
says...
8:34pm Tue 2 Aug 11
A fairer system would be to charge full market rate for council housing, but offer a means tested Housing Benefit to those who need help.
That way, if you win the lottery and want to stay in your house you can, but you lose the Housing Benefit and pay full whack.
I am not against helping those in need, but I object to subsidising those who are better off than me.
On another note, if the council are faced with a £158 million bill if this transfer doesn't go through, then surely the ballot/consultation should be extended to all tax payers and not just tenants. Who is going to pay the bill if it doesn't go through? Not the tenants.
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
9:38pm Tue 2 Aug 11
Robfm wrote:That would be another of your lies.
What you never contribute to any debate.
Oik1
says...
9:43pm Tue 2 Aug 11
As a tenant of over 30 years in a council house I have no wish to buy, I have never wanted to buy despite being in a position to do so, it has always been my belief that council properties should never have been sold off in the first place.
Now if I'm part of the problem her- in- doors2, then so be it, now please could you explain how I'm part of the problem?
No complaints from me about the property I live in, as a tradesman most repairs that need doing I do myself paid for by my wages and my time,new kitchens, bathrooms etc, it may well still be a council house but it's my home, that's the important bit, it's my home of choice, and as a council house tenant it's my choice, my vote that matters as to who I want as my landlord, your opinion your entitled to but it will be and is as worthless as the next puff of wind on a stormy day.
Robfm
says...
7:23am Wed 3 Aug 11
Mum and MrAngry's point are valid, council/social housing are supposed to be for the less well off, and yes I spent the first 21 years of my life living in a council house.
We simply couldn't afford to buy, my father was forever on strike for the greater good of mankind so he wasn't a good risk.
Alan B'stard
says...
8:07am Wed 3 Aug 11
Alan B'stard
says...
8:09am Wed 3 Aug 11
So he was a loser.
Spurs Fan
says...
8:17am Wed 3 Aug 11
Swindon Borough Council is being made to accept this debt by government. If transfer goes through most of the current housing staff will transfer to the new HA. This will ensure that the new organization will be well run and can continue the good work already started.
There are good councils out there and good HAs, Swindon tenants need to realise that a vote for no change will have a big impact on repairs and improvements. £14+ million pounds every year from your rents will go to central govt, so none of that money can be spent on repairs, do the maths!
Robfm
says...
8:29am Wed 3 Aug 11
As for staff transfer same happened in Cotswold, made little difference in the end, the service tenants went down the pan.
Foxhill
says...
1:24pm Wed 3 Aug 11
David Renard
says...
2:23pm Wed 3 Aug 11
Robfm, you really should keep quiet on matters that you clearly do not understand.
Spurs Fan
says...
3:38pm Wed 3 Aug 11
As for other councils wanting out of the new subsidy system, many will have their debts reduced come 01/04/12, It just so happens that Swindon seems to be getting a raw deal.
I do hope that over the next three months that an open and honest debate happens and all 10,500 tenants can access non biased, non political, non ideological information. If this is allowed to happen then tenants I am sure will reach the right decision for the future.
house on the hill
says...
7:35pm Wed 3 Aug 11
3:38pm Wed 3 Aug 11
Robfm please understand that Council Houses do not belong to you and I as rate (council tax) payers they belong to the housing dept and that dept is paid for by rent money only. Look on your last council tax bill it shows that money goes to pay for things like Police, Refuse Collection and Libraries, no where does it say council housing!! In the old days as I previously said rent money used to prop up other areas of the local council!""
That is true Spurs Fan or Housing Worker or whoever you really are, but it must not be forgotten that the housing department receives more than half of its income in housing benefit paid for by the tax payer, so while we may not own the houses we do contribute in no small way to their upkeep!!!!
as always in these situations everyone wants the vote but very few make the effort to really understand what is at stake here and sadly too many will be swayed by those who shout the loudest rather than those who shout the facts as happens too much in politics too. How many of the 15000 tenants understand fully how social housing is funded or the implications on both sides of their yes or no vote.
If I were a betting man which I am not, i would say this will result in a no vote driven by apathy and misinformation, no matter how hard you and your colleagues try, most tenants wont want to know or listen to you. How many came to your roadshows the last time you tried this? about 10% maximum I think, could have been even less and less than a dozen usually turn up to the rent setting meetings but they all still compain when it goes up.
Good luck to you and your colleagues, this will be a very hard sell, it shouldnt be but it will!
Security word is sell-safe, have to agree with that one!
martinwicks
says...
7:47pm Wed 3 Aug 11
Hello Derek, I didn't know you were a Spurs fan.
Your view that this issue is just about adding up the sums is misguided. You cannot have 'non-political' information for the simple reason that this is a political choice as well as a financial one.
This is a Council led by a political group - it is the Party of the biggest component of the coalition government. If I were you, being applauded by David Renard should give you pause for thought.
The Council has negotiated, apparently, an extra £76.2m, just so long as the stock is transferred, but they weren't prepared to negotiate over the £145m debt. The government could have cut the proposed additional debt in half and still held onto £70 million themselves. I thought they had some financial troubles. Yet they appear to be prepared to write it off in favour of transfer. They and the Council have colluded in stacking the finances in a way that favours transfer. That is a political choice.
The idea that the Tory group is a victim of the nasty government is risible.
But, of course, they cannot rig it entirely. Under 'self-financing' we keep all our rent. According to the Council's own figures the 'negative subsidy' we would have had to hand over to the government over the next 30 years if the current system had continued is £667m. We will be able to keep all this money under 'self-financing'. It's not a small sum.
You've got to laugh - opposition is 'ideological' - but the Tory Council isn't!
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
7:57pm Wed 3 Aug 11
That is sadly unlikely to happen. Once the almighty gob has opened, no matter how wrong he is, there is no going back.
house on the hill
says...
8:25pm Wed 3 Aug 11
Oik1
says...
8:41pm Wed 3 Aug 11
It's called choice, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it, I WISH TO REMAIN A COUNCIL TENANT, IT'S WHAT I PREFER, I HAVE NO WISH TO OWN MY OWN PROPERTY, now if that upsets you, then too bad, it's your problem to live with, I'm quite happy as I am.
Now when it comes to voting for my landlord, the council or housing assc, I have another choice and a vote, you don't, you have to live with what I along with others decide, it's a strange thing this democracy Robfm, perhaps you ought to allow some of it into your life and not try to force your ideals and ideas on what others should do.
house on the hill
says...
9:52pm Wed 3 Aug 11
Robfm
says...
7:58am Thu 4 Aug 11
Just a question, how can the housing department own the houses, the housing department is part of the council, the council are funded by the rate/tax payer.
In any event when you could get £500k minimum on the open market selling for £66k is nuts.
And David thank you for so clearly pointing out your Conservative administration doesn't believe in democracy and free speech. You would make your namesake Cameron very proud.
Spurs Fan
says...
9:06am Thu 4 Aug 11
The Council housing Dept operates on a ring fenced budget so it is possible to say that it is Housing Dept owns the stock as opposed to whole Council. You can argue that a significant portion of rental income comes from central government as housing benefit, but this comes from central imposed taxes not local council tax so Robfm's original argument was flawed.
The tory led coalition is implementing plans that were first put forward by the last Labour govt, so it would appear that both of our major parties want this new funding regime to start in April 2012.
Criticising people who live in council housing by choice by using the argument that council housing was set up to house the poor only is another falsehood. Council housing really boomed after WW2 when there was shortage of housing and anyone could become a tenant. Until the 1980s most people in the UK rented their homes. It's only since she who should not be mentioned started flogging off the national assets that there became more owners than renters in the UK and this perception that council housing is only for the poor began!
Finally, I am not a housing worker or paid employee of this council or any other. I'm a long standing tenant who believe is personal choice and passionately believes in social housing of all types. SBC on the whole is a good landlord. There are good landlords out there who are HA and LA. By the same argument there are bad ones of both persuasion. Both major parties want to implement this new funding regime and I believe Swindon Tenants needs would be best served by a new HA.
martinwicks
says...
6:54pm Thu 4 Aug 11
Then when they started worshipping home ownership (New Labour included) people who could not really afford to buy a home either had to, or they had money thrown at them by the banks - remember the 125% mortgage.
That was one of the reasons for the crash, and the housing crisis we have today.
'House on the Hill Wroughton': what makes you think that the money will run out very soon. What figures have you seen? Please enlighten us.
itsamess
says...
10:44pm Fri 5 Aug 11
Those who follow this site are well aware he is quite prolific in giving out
his personal information which ultimately shows many of his claims to be distant from the truth.
The article is about Council Housing
and of course bobby as per norm lived in Council Housing for the first 21 years of his life with his parents.
He kindly let everyone know his history on this site as leaving school
late in 69 due to his birthday falling in october--in 74 he joined the police
and due to disputes he published on another site a photo of PC Bob which summarised his career to that date and where he was moving to in another force. So he either moved to Police lodgings or housing set aside for the police. The article claimed 12 and a half years and the force he was joining. He was 33 at the time of the article which ties in. i have not accounted for the years claimed served in the other force as again in this site he has claimed skills in numerous trades including designing
a specific type of generator and electrical contracts--teaching school children and a host more occupations
yet proudly announced 30 years in the hostelry trade. My maths are excellent and from the newspaper article if he went into hostelry for 30 years he would be 65 now as that claim was 2 years ago in this site. He will be 60 in Oct from the information he gave on this site.
He has also claimed he rented houses out and was turned over on an article that dealt with that issue.
Now he is an expert on Council Housing and has never been an elected councillor and tried to claim on a UKIP site he was an elected Councillor and indeed his name appeared as such--and was quickly removed when his superiors were informed--he falsely claimed UKIP had
200 elected Councillors after the 2010 local elections nationwide when in fact a very small figure were elected and a few defected on election.
Once again he tries to claim expert knowledge as to Council owned and tenanted property and wild claims as to valuation and tenants rights--and the standard Council steering the tenants in the direction they want and snipes at a well known councillor.
Others have set out very clearly the exact position with housing stock and the rights of the tenants to decide at
a time when they have taken advantage of the consultations and consider their best option.
So folks if you have any doubts as to the facts i have given here do read the advers archives or just search bobbies name and you will find every post he has made. I dont do links as it is all so easy to find. Good luck all you Council tenants--do listen to the folk who will give you the true facts rather than hypocritical rantings.
Robfm
says...
9:15am Sat 6 Aug 11
As for the Councillor thing, Walter everyone knows that is a lie by you, I never made any such claim. That was doubt with on the TS site by their Administrators and your sockpuppet was summarily dismissed as the lair.
Aside from when I lived in my parents Council house Walter, I have never lived in another, or in any form of police owned housing, so do try a bit harder.
Also I only ever served in one Police Office.
So not a lot of facts in your diatribe as normal.
candid friend says...
12:08pm Tue 2 Aug 11
The Council needs to get it's act together and stop trying to shed responsibilities.