View Full Version : Affordable Homes Fraud
frank ward
23-Oct-06, 10:57
I see that Pentland housing Association is building 24 homes, half for rent, half for sale.
Frankly I fail to understand why taxpayers are subsidising companies to build houses that are then sold at full market value to homebuyers when there is a desperate need for rented housing in the Highlands. Why not make all 24 homes available for rent?
A very interesting piece on the government's 'Homestake' scheme can be found here:
http://www.hast2006.org.uk/hsfraud.htm
cuddlepop
23-Oct-06, 11:24
We bought a house using this scheme and it brought with it so many problems that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
We had a faulty connection that was under the sink in the kitchen that had been pouring water out under the floor.They argued it was covered by contents insurance and that company argued quiet rightly so it was fixtures and fittings.It ping balled back and forth until the housing association blamed the plumber who had gone bust.It was eventually sorted by the company who had done the work of building the houses supplying the material and my x doing the work on his own house for no payment[disgust]
Building insurance had to be taken out with housing association ,regardless even if you got a cheaper quote.I could go on....
frank ward
23-Oct-06, 12:58
sorry to hear about the building problems. These can happen with even the best-built houses, but unfortunately Homestake houses are built for profit, not for endurance.
The article on Homestake is an eye-opener, but you won't find Caithness.Org mentioning it. The man who runs this site is in favour of privatisation so little else appears here.
For an alternative view, here's a good site:
http://www.hast2006.org.uk/
cuddlepop
23-Oct-06, 13:03
Start a thread Pussycat then we can have our own wee vote now.
What i find really unfair is the points process when applying for a house. I feel that I am being penalised because:
1) I have two jobs and don't claim any state benefits
2) I have been a good boy and don't have any criminal convictions
3) I am not a single parent
4) I get along with my parents and am not being evicted from my own house
The only thing which does seem to go my way is a health condition which I have. My condition may add a few points to my score so I guess thats something to smile about! (sarcasm folks!).
I have been on a list for approx 2.5 years now. Had a telephone interview with one housing association the other day only to be told that because my brothers have both moved out I would LOSE points for the house is no-longer overcrowded!
Does anyone else feel the same?
Hi Moncur, although I sympathise with your position I think its a bit unfair to use your list of points to make it appear that unmarried mothers and good parents are responsible for you not getting a rented house. :eek:
Theres always rumours about rented housing but I suspect if half of them were true people would be living on luxury liners berthed in Thurso bay next to another luxury liner packed full of lifers and dope fiends.
Seriously though, I think Pentland Housing have been great for the town. They have built some choice housing in select areas of Thurso and are still doing so.
I know this thread is more about the politics but thats all down to the small print.
Hi Gleeber .
Sorry ,but i think you've been smoking what Pentland is shovelling. Pentland write the rules that suit them when it suits them .If you say anything else you must either work for them or have family/friends that do...I agree that the houses are of crap designed and quaility and if they spend the same on the upkeep as they do on there present stock (17% as to the councils 34%) ,the houses will be in a skip within 15 years ....
Hi Moncur, although I sympathise with your position I think its a bit unfair to use your list of points to make it appear that unmarried mothers and good parents are responsible for you not getting a rented house. :eek:
Theres always rumours about rented housing but I suspect if half of them were true people would be living on luxury liners berthed in Thurso bay next to another luxury liner packed full of lifers and dope fiends.
Seriously though, I think Pentland Housing have been great for the town. They have built some choice housing in select areas of Thurso and are still doing so.
I know this thread is more about the politics but thats all down to the small print.
Sorry, I should have worded my points differently. I didn't mean to offend single parent families, I actually know quite a few single parent families and have respect for them all as their role as a parent is probably more than twice as difficult. The same respect goes to having such a good, close family unit.
My point was more aimed towards people on benefits who do not bother looking for jobs (much respect and sympathy goes out to those who cannot find the right career, I have been in that same boat myself before) and simply wait for the benefits to roll in.
I was just having a laugh but I am aware of that whole nightmare.
I hope dozy goes back to bed and gets up on the other side next time. :)
Scaraben1976
23-Oct-06, 17:32
What i find really unfair is the points process when applying for a house. I feel that I am being penalised because:
1) I have two jobs and don't claim any state benefits
2) I have been a good boy and don't have any criminal convictions
3) I am not a single parent
4) I get along with my parents and am not being evicted from my own house
The only thing which does seem to go my way is a health condition which I have. My condition may add a few points to my score so I guess thats something to smile about! (sarcasm folks!).
I have been on a list for approx 2.5 years now. Had a telephone interview with one housing association the other day only to be told that because my brothers have both moved out I would LOSE points for the house is no-longer overcrowded!
Does anyone else feel the same?
I know the feeling. Because I live with parents in a 4 bed, I am bottom of the heap, Even when I applied when the ex lived here with us all we got points for was the fact we shared a kitchen and living room with parents.
Also, because I have a decent job at Dounreay, I don't (I believe) qualify for the grant to buy a first house (upto £15k, anyone know more about this??) So for me to afford the mortgage on my own for a reasonable house with more than just a box room and a shower, I'd have to sell my kidneys and half my right arm.
I think I will just by a cardboard box and live outside Dounreay........ Wonder if it needs to be painted Hi-viz yellow with reflective stripes??
frank ward
24-Oct-06, 12:17
Scaraben, you've hit the nail on the head.
The 'Homestake' scheme is a fraud - according to the article on the HAST2006 website, only 4 of 160 'affordable' homes could be bought by a person on the average wage. Incredible!
The same website also shows the admin costs of Pentland housing association and others - yikes!!
The other scheme you mention I think is a grant for council tenants to move out and buy a different home. This was I think £10K and may have applied in England only, and only to the name on the tenancy. It may now be defunct anyway.
cuddlepop
24-Oct-06, 12:58
No it applies to scotland too.The housing asociation offer a grant to first time buyers here too.What you have to do is find out how much of a morgage you can get and the difference if realistic is given as a grant.
Found out yesterday that no one else has too want the house:confused so in these times of increasing housing turnover dont know how this will work
Take a look at http://www.nethouseprices.com/index.php?con=sold_prices
It's a free site, it's simple to use and shows the prices that properties, new and old, have sold for in other areas. You can check for premises by post code, by street or for a whole town.
It will give you an idea of how prices here compare with places elsewhere.
another good site is www.ourproperty.co.uk (http://www.ourproperty.co.uk) - it includes properties not shown on Jaws' link.
j4bberw0ck
24-Oct-06, 18:59
It's fairly clear that some people contributing to this have a limited understanding of what Housing Associations do and are for. And before going any further, no, I don't work for one neither do I have any interest in any of them.
Frankly I fail to understand why taxpayers are subsidising companies to build houses that are then sold at full market value to homebuyers when there is a desperate need for rented housing in the Highlands. Why not make all 24 homes available for rent?
A very interesting piece on the government's 'Homestake' scheme can be found here:
http://www.hast2006.org.uk/hsfraud.htm
Housing Associations have to raise the capital to build the houses, which they do like you and me - they get a mortgage (effectively). Theyt borrow large amounts, though, and can set one lender against another to get the lowest interest rates. Tell me, how much taxpayer's money goes into subsidy?
Houses are not sold at the real full market value. They're sold at the Valuer's assessment of the market value. Under the Scottish system (supposedly so superior to the English system of house buying) people expect to receive offers over the market value, forcing a premium onto the value of the property. Mortgage lenders will lend only on the value of a property as security (should it have to be force sold), so a purchaser of a non-HA house has to find up to tens of thousands of pounds as a deposit because he / she has to pay the "market premium" which a lender won't lend on.
Housing Associations are not-for-profit organisations, registered Charities, and regulated as to what they can and can't do. They don't write the rules, they just have to live with them. Some people are happy to rent; others want to buy. Who are you to dictate to someone that they can't have an opportunity to buy a house?
We bought a house using this scheme and it brought with it so many problems that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
We had a faulty connection that was under the sink in the kitchen that had been pouring water out under the floor.They argued it was covered by contents insurance and that company argued quiet rightly so it was fixtures and fittings...... <snip....>
Building insurance had to be taken out with housing association ,regardless even if you got a cheaper quote.I could go on....
If your view of HA housing is founded on a leaky sink, then you're looking at the wrong things entirely. The insurance claim would be known as an "escape of water" claim and therefore damage to your floor coverings and other items would be covered by your contents policy (which you're free to take with anyone you choose). HA housing is generally all covered by a 10 year guarantee from the builder under NHBC or a similar scheme; the faulty worknanship or fittings would be his liability to replace. If he'd gone bust, the liability would be with the indemnifier - i.e. NHBC or whoever.
Buildings insurance is taken through the HA because lots of their smarter purchasers wouldn't bother, leaving a debt if the house was damaged or destroyed. It's usually people on low incomes who say they can't afford buildings insurance....... also, because you can't get buildings insurance from Direct Line and the like for a house you don't own. Try it some time.
sorry to hear about the building problems. These can happen with even the best-built houses, but unfortunately Homestake houses are built for profit, not for endurance.
The article on Homestake is an eye-opener, but you won't find Caithness.Org mentioning it. The man who runs this site is in favour of privatisation so little else appears here.
For an alternative view, here's a good site:
http://www.hast2006.org.uk/
Rubbish. The houses are built by a builder, who must make a profit to survive. But the HA puts work out to tender and accepts the best quote. The HA does not need to make a profit but does need a supply of good quality, well-built homes.
HAST are misguided and giving misinformation. If they had the slightest grasp of statistics and a little less interest in politicking they'd see the "fraud" is market forces. No one "forces" young couples to buy; they've all become convinced they have to to make money.
Hi Gleeber .
Sorry ,but i think you've been smoking what Pentland is shovelling. Pentland write the rules that suit them when it suits them .If you say anything else you must either work for them or have family/friends that do...I agree that the houses are of crap designed and quaility and if they spend the same on the upkeep as they do on there present stock (17% as to the councils 34%) ,the houses will be in a skip within 15 years ....
Dozy, you're as ignorant of reality as you are rude. If an insurance company thought the housing quality was so poor it "would be in a skip" in 15 years, do you really think they'd insure it? And I repeat. Pentland do not write the rules. Perhaps they spend less on upkeep because the houses are newer and better built? And they're more efficient in administration than the Council?
Also, because I have a decent job at Dounreay, I don't (I believe) qualify for the grant to buy a first house (upto £15k, anyone know more about this??) So for me to afford the mortgage on my own for a reasonable house with more than just a box room and a shower, I'd have to sell my kidneys and half my right arm.
How about this for an idea; go to all the people who're sitting on houses massively increased in value and ask them for a sub from their profits? The rise in house prices is hardly the HA fault and is simply market forces at work. I sympathise with your plight, but you're not alone.
Scaraben, you've hit the nail on the head.
The 'Homestake' scheme is a fraud - according to the article on the HAST2006 website, only 4 of 160 'affordable' homes could be bought by a person on the average wage. Incredible!
Yes, but what do you propose? Would you control house prices? Limit how much people can sell for? Force them to sell at lower prices? The real problem is the low wage economy in the Highlands colliding twith high house prices. And don't kid yourselves it's the English, moving up with pots of money; there's an amazing number of people owning two or three houses "as their pension scheme".
The other scheme you mention I think is a grant for council tenants to move out and buy a different home. This was I think £10K and may have applied in England only, and only to the name on the tenancy. It may now be defunct anyway.
And it goes to show the stupidity of government, local and national, who think grants are the answer to everything. If you give someone £10k to move, the price of the property they're wanting to buy will go up £10k as well. Always did, always will.
Scaraben may be referring to the Rural Homes Ownership Scheme where qualifying first time buyers and some others can get a grant of up to 29%, subject to conditions. It really only works for people self-building because again, the Scottish "offers over" system ensures people have to pay a premium over market value which the grant rules won't fund.
The RHOS is more a loan than a grant; it has to be repaid if you move within 10 years, and is secured by a Second Charge on the property - which is why most lenders won't touch them with a bargepole.
Thanks for doing some of my homework for me j4bberw0ck!
I don't know the first thing about housing associations and haven't (or hadn't) a clue whether they're better or worse than councils at what they do. However, I read most of the HAST 2006 website yesterday and concluded that housing associations must be ok if that's the best their opponents can do to put them down. :lol:
Seriously, I think the website says more about its publishers than it says about housing associations. After reading page after page of poorly-argued prose and dozens of disingenuous comparisons of chalk with cheese I decided I'd have to go elsewhere to find any reliable analysis. But I wasn't sufficiently interested so I left it to someone else to explain what's going on.
Did you manage to find a half-decent, relatively-unbiased analysis of the pros & cons of housing-association vs council housing? A personal opinion would suffice at this stage - but I don't want a reaganomic rant. ;)
j4bberw0ck
24-Oct-06, 19:53
After reading page after page of poorly-argued prose and dozens of disingenuous comparisons of chalk with cheese I decided I'd have to go elsewhere to find any reliable analysis. But I wasn't sufficiently interested so I left it to someone else to explain what's going on.
Your servant, sir...... ish......
Did you manage to find a half-decent, relatively-unbiased analysis of the pros & cons of housing-association vs council housing? A personal opinion would suffice at this stage - but I don't want a reaganomic rant. ;)
If you cut me, do I not bleed?
Let's just say that at one or two points in a varied working life and list of interests, that I've come across Housing Associations a few times. The main difference between Councils and HAs is that HAs can raise funds in ways Councils can't (not directly, anyway) which is why Councils often hop into a warm and cosy bed with HAs. Also, HAs are subject to oversight on a scale that'd expose the incompetence of your average Council Housing Department in a heartbeat; but to be fair to Councils, they're usually expected to do the impossible with what they have - like deal with tenants who trash houses (one council house here cost £35,000 to put straight quite recently; every piece of plasterboard in the place had to be replaced, every piece of sanitary ware, every door, and all pipework - someone got busy with a drill), people who turn up homeless at one in the morning (no, not blaming them - just illustrating the variability and unpredictability of demand) and a statutory duty to house people which HAs don't have. Also limited powers to extract rent arrears from toerags (the "won't pays", rather than the "can't pays").
HAs are helping people to get good quality rented accommodation where they can't get on the Council list, and to buy where they want to buy without having to fight it out with the buy-to-let brigade and people on much higher incomes. They're definitely a force for good (imho) - and doing a different job to the Council.
Thanks for the quick lesson j4bberw0ck, I am beginning to see a little light at the end of the tunnel.
HAs are helping people to get good quality rented accommodation where they can't get on the Council list, and to buy where they want to buy without having to fight it out with the buy-to-let brigade and people on much higher incomes. They're definitely a force for good (imho) - and doing a different job to the Council.Ok, understood. However, I believe that the current controversy concerns the "transfer" of all council housing to housing associations. This is surely a huge change of role for housing associations and quite different from the one you describe. Is such a transfer a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion? What are the pros and cons?
The transfer has already taken place in Glasgow but a similar transfer was rejected in a recent ballot of council-house tenants in Edinburgh.
As you see, I really do know next-to-nothing about this business. I'm aware that there's been a recent divergence in social-housing policy and practice between Scotland's two largest cities but that's about all I know, and I'm in no position to hold an informed opinion. :o
Despite what people often claim on this forum, I believe that some opinions are essentially worthless, and my opinion on HAs still sits firmly in that category. But I hope to become further enlightened...
Bill Fernie
25-Oct-06, 16:05
Due to the size my answer is split into three parts
This is Part One
Affordable Homes Are One Solution To The Housing Problem
Pussycat makes an accusation without providing any evidence other than a link to the Hast 2006 web site where so much biased and wrong information is to be found that I think that anyone reading it needs to be very switched on to the complicated problems that are today’s housing reality. It is not easy for anyone who does not have good grasp of the housing situation and the wide variety of opportunities available for housing. I will not address all of what is on the Hast 2006 web site but confine myself to the Affordable Homes Fraud accusation and its mangling of the arguments in the Stock Transfer Case.
First - A few statements to make it easy to see where I am coming from.
I do support the Housing Stock Transfer proposals as the best option for tenants in coming years. The reasons are well outlined in the material that has been issued to tenants and is available on the council web site.
I have been the area chair of Housing and Social work committee for Caithness since May 2003.
I have been an unpaid director and was involved in the setting up of the Highland Housing and Community Care Trust for the past 6 years. It is an independent body - a registered charity whose aims were to acquire the funds and build homes for the elderly and disabled in the Highlands. We achieved our goals and spent about £3.5 million on homes for these categories of people. In the process we worked in partnership with several of the Housing Associations in Highland who also acted as our managing agents for our properties. We built new houses at several locations and brought into being these homes that might not have been added to the Highland housing stock if we had not acted. We have recently transferred ownership of the houses we built to the Housing Associations and we now have small surplus of funds after all of the work of the past six years. We have been involved in other work in the area of housing and our most recent venture has been to look at setting up a Rent Deposit Guarantee Scheme for private landlords to enable homeless people to get into tenancy that would otherwise be denied to them in Highland. I like several of my fellow councillors are involved in not just council housing but in looking at other ways of trying to ensure housing is available to everyone in the community. We are not entering into these things blindly.
I currently live in a house with joint mortgage with my wife but used to live when we first got married initially in a privately rented one bedroom flat in Edinburgh and then in a three bedroom council flat at Wester Hailes also in Edinburgh. We subsequently moved to Glasgow and bought three-bedroom semi with a mortgage and then moved again to Wick and bought another house again with a mortgage. I do therefore have experience on a personal basis of renting and home ownership. Also I was brought up in one of the slum areas of Edinburgh and my parents were on the council waiting list for 10 years ( I was 10 years old when we finally moved) only achieving their first council house when my second sister was born as the points finally took them to higher place on the list and we moved to a three bedroom council house on the outskirts of Edinburgh finally leaving behind the mice, bugs and damp walls of the old tenement of private landlord. I truly wish that we never return to those days again for anyone. I do look at the current position with all of that in mind.
I do not see the fat cat people of the Housing Associations referred to by HAST 2006 web site. I see a number of dedicated people working hard in Highland Housing Associations to bring forward solutions to the housing problems of their individual areas and yet were prepared to join with Highland Housing and Community Care Trust to help offer their expertise in ensuring that it could be successful in bringing forward a number of housing projects - all of which were completed and =have tenants who might otherwise have struggled to find homes suitable for their varied needs – some with disabilities or families with multiple problems e.g. children with disabilities.
To me this is not about political dogma - it is about finding practical solutions to one of the major problems that can face individuals and families and how to help the people of the Highlands prosper and live comfortable lives in a secure environment.
The majority of Caithness councillors are in favour of a YES vote on the transfer.
The fact that the Highland councillors agreed to take parting the programme moving towards a Stock Transfer vote to be placed before tenant has already released funds from the Scottish Executive at the rate of £10million per annum and the affect of that release is already showing up. The Highlands is seeing an increasing number of new hosing projects being started by the Housing Associations as the funds move forward. The Highland council has not built houses for several years and cannot under the conditions pertaining in the past few years. It has worked through the Housing Associations to bring forward new housing and continues to do so. Although there are other factors at work undoubtedly the current and rising increase in the numbers of new house starts is in part due to that process. It is re-invigorating the economy of the Highlands. It is also a problem in that there is now so much building work going on that prices are rising and cost are going up. This is all well and good but we need to be able to ensure that this growth is not choked off and be in position to ensure that more needed investment in new homes will continue. I would rather deal with the problem of the boom caused by building more houses and more shops and offices etc than that of unemployment through lack of investment.
The way forward is partly the Housing Stock Transfer. If more evidence is needed and no doubt HAST 2006 and the Solidarity/SSP who heavily support it will dispute this a minute or two looking at what they say might be useful –
Let me take few points from HAST 2006 web site-
Housing Transfer is privatisation.
Housing associations are not private landlords. Highland Housing Association is a not for profit organisation governed by a voluntary committee, none of whom are paid. The Association will have an open membership policy and by law is run for the benefit of all tenants. By law any surplus must be used to benefit tenants e.g. by improving their homes or housing services. The Association aims to become registered as a charity.
The Scottish Executive will write-off debt or provide extra money to the
Council if tenants vote ‘No’.
The Scottish Executive has clearly and consistently stated that transfer is the only route through which the UK Treasury will write off the Council’s housing debt.
The table below has been provided by Communities Scotland and compares what was
included within the overall proposed transfer package for Edinburgh City, with what has resulted from their No vote in December 2005. Much of the information has been assembled from the City Council’s Statutory Stage 1 Notice, issued to all tenants prior to transfer, and following liaison with colleagues in the Communities Scotland Area Team, who were involved with the transfer.
Housing Transfer has not been successful in other areas.
An anti-transfer newsletter also alleges that evidence from Glasgow and areas where housing transfer has already gone through show a catalogue of failings. This is completely untrue. In March 2006 Audit Scotland published a report on Council Housing Transfers, which examined:
• the housing transfer policy and its impact on councils, central government and tenants;
• how well the council housing transfer policy is being implemented; and
• whether transfers have provided good value for money.
The key findings of the report are that new landlords are delivering higher investment, rent increases are being restricted to within the guaranteed limits, and that tenants consider the service is better. In addition the Audit report found that transfers have promoted greater tenant control, though there is still more to be achieved.
A copy of the Audit Scotland report is available on Audit Scotland’s website:
www.audit-scotland.gov.uk
See Specifically http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/index/05pf17ag.asp
I and my fellow councillors have attended a substantial number of meetings in the past 18 months where reports and feedback from officials have been made regarding the move towards the Stock Transfer vote.
My main and guiding principles have been
“What is best for the tenants of Highland?”
”How can the council ensure that more houses can be provided in the future? This taking into account a population made up of an increasingly elderly population, more couples living apart and hopefully more people moving into the Highlands as one of the best places to live and work.
Housing is also about communities and sustainability. Councils have not always been best at providing the solutions. You only need to look at the multi story blocks in many of our larger towns and cities with many of these having now been demolished and many more destined to go. Hopefully we have learned lessons and are now coming up with new solutions.
Bill Fernie
25-Oct-06, 16:08
I have problem with the Hast 2006 web site in that many of the statements are unsubstantiated with neither evidence or references as to where the facts they refer to can be found. Often they appear to be aimed at making political points to backup the dogma that public ownership is best. Several references are made to privatisation and yet that is not what is being proposed under Stock Transfer. Housing Associations are not for profit organisations. That is not to say they do not make a profit in accounting terms but the difference is that the profits are reinvested in new properties and/or repairs of existing housing stock.
Personally I might have been more inclined to say I was in favour of the council retaining control over the housing stock if a different set of circumstances was on offer. The government is making an offer to councils that put the Stock Transfer proposal to their tenants. Should I put at risk the prospect of more houses and stable rents for the next few years on a dogma that public ownership is better for the tenants? Yes if the government was offering to write of the debt for the council I would probably say that was good option. The fact is it is not on offer.
I am a practical person and look at the facts of what is on offer and not what I would like to happen. I do not feel that I can recommend a No vote and have people risk having to pay higher rents under the council and not have access to range of benefits. The HAST 2006 campaign seems to want tenants to take a political gamble and that by rejection they can force the government to change it mind. Not only is that wrong it also completely fails to explain how the debt could be written off for the council. It is not as simple as just paying off the council debt as some would suggest. It is a complicated issue that going down the simplistic route would increase the public sector borrowing requirement - something that the chancellor will not allow. As I say this is very complex issue but not something the council can do anything about.
Moving On To Affordable Homes Fraud.
Pussycat refers to “ A very interesting piece on the government’s ‘Homestake’ at the Hast 2006 web site. It is interesting that it has many glaring inaccuracies and comparisons that start with assumptions that do not stand up in the real world. The item compares the amounts to be paid under Homestake with renting a house but it fails to make any points about the benefits of owning a home. The item tried to make it seem that ownership is somehow a burden. There is also no reference to anyone saving in advance for a deposit to reduce that burden. Most people who have bought homes in the past have saved for a deposit and do not take a100% mortgage. It also fails to point out that many folk start off in small house or flat and only later once they have built up equity in their existing property do they move on to a larger house.
The HAST 2006 web page has completely wrong information on the position in Caithness. The HAST 2006 page says – “Inverness is the location of most Homestake properties. Caithness & Sutherland are neglected completely.”
This is completely wrong and the facts are -
Pentland Housing Association in Caithness was the first to launch Homestake via a scheme completion (Edinburgh Homestake's though the first were Rent off the Shelf schemes) at Naver house where they offered 6 properties for Homestake. Prices for the properties at Naver House were between £55000 for a 1 bed flat and £67000 for a 2 bed flat.
Pentland Housing have also made 14 units available at Harrow Hill, Wick for shared ownership in a scheme of 28 units.
Next year Pentland Housing will next year have 8 Homestake units in a scheme of 24 units at Mansons Lane, Thurso and a further 4 Homestake units in a scheme of 13 at Springpark Farm, Laurie Terrace, Thurso.
In order to purchase at the 60% tranche level single applicants would require incomes of between £11000 and £13000 respectively, both less then the average Highlands wage quoted by HAST2006.
Further to these schemes above Pentland Housing also have a further 160 units in the pipeline with the emphasis on providing affordable rented accommodation.
There is also the option of Rural Home Ownership Grants to help people become owner-occupiers either via self-build or purchasing off the shelf.
For more information on this option see -
http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/cs_006245.hcsp
The point is that Pentland Housing along with other Housing Associations are offering diverse affordable tenure options for a diverse market. The days of the simplistic one size fits all approach to housing in the public sector have long since gone. The build as many houses as possible approach was a solution in the past to a post war situation and we have spent many of the past years and administrations trying to deal with that legacy that no doubt was necessary at the time but is hardly a credible model for helping individuals and families acquire a decent home in a safe environment and as part of a vibrant and prosperous community.
For those of you who would like to read more on the facts rather than the rhetoric here are a few places where reports etc can be found
Communities Scotland
Strategic Housing Investment Framework
http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/cs_012537.hcsp
Shared Ownership
This is changing rapidly as more folk decide to go with this option. The position at 2005 can be seen at -
http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9877EE20-9402-4569-B7D0-C6D92E5C31D6/0/sharedownershiphousing.pdf
Audit Scotland – On Council House Stock Transfers
http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/index/05pf17ag.asp
The transfer of council housing ownership is bringing benefits for tenants, says this report. It finds that management of transfers is improving but better, clearer measures are needed to assess impact and value for money. The report says the hand over of more than 100,000 council homes to new landlords since 1998 has brought more investment in properties - doubling it in Glasgow - and promoted tenant control. It is facilitating increased repairs and maintenance and the building of new homes, and is keeping rent increases down.
The Highland Council section on Housing Stock Transfer can be found at -
Community Ownership and Housing Transfer
http://www.highland.gov.uk/livinghere/housing/communityownershipprogramme/communityownershipandstocktransfer/community-ownership-housingtransfer.htm
There are links to many of the documents, reports and updates being provided to councillors and all available to anyone who is interested to read them.
· A Guide To Housing Options At Highland Council
http://www.highland.gov.uk/livinghere/housing/findinghousing/aguidetohousingoptions
This has sections on Shared Ownership at
http://www.highland.gov.uk/livinghere/housing/findinghousing/aguidetohousingoptions/homeownership.htm
· Homestake
· Rural Home Ownership Grants
· Highland Small Communities Housing Trust
· Grants for Owner Occupation
· Low Cost Home Ownership Contacts
· Buying or Building a House
· Self Build
· Buying Sheltered or Retirement Housing
September 2006
Views and Experiences of Right to Buy Amongst Tenants and Purchasers
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/09/15085602/3
More
30 May 2006
MSP hails record investment for new affordable homes in Highland
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/affordablehomeshighland
14 November 2005
Skye's the limit for affordable homes
http://www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/11/11121045
Bill Fernie
25-Oct-06, 16:12
What else is being done to help the Highland Housing situation?
The Highland Housing Alliance
http://www.highlandhousingalliance.com
It has been acknowledge by many bodies including the council that at least 5000 new affordable homes are needed in the Highlands. All of the housing associations in Highland - Albyn, Cairn, Lochaber, Lochalsh and Skye, and Pentland have had difficulties in obtaining serviced land. Highland Housing Alliance was established in 2005 by Albyn Housing Society Ltd, Cairn, Lochalsh and Skye, Lochaber and Pentland Housing Associations as well as the Highland Small Communities Housing Trust, the Highland Housing and Community Care Trust and Highland Council
to exploit investment opportunities to increase the supply of suitable land. The new body will purchase land and sell it on to house builders using the income to purchase further sites.
To give some idea of the housing problems in Highland I am reproducing the housing section from the Audit Scotland Report -
The Audit of Best Value and Community Planning
http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/publications/pdf/2006/06pf01ac.rtf
Housing Services
1. Statutory Performance Indicators, and the council’s own performance information, show there is an overall improvement in the performance of the Housing Service in recent years. There is a continued improvement in the levels of rent lost through voids, with the figure for 2004/05 down to 1.8 per cent from 2.3 per cent in 2002/03, with a target of 1.35 per cent by March 2006. The time taken to relet houses fell from 74 days in 2002/03 to 67 days in 2004/05. The service has set a target that by March 2006, 95 per cent of housing allocations will be processed within 28 days. The signs are that good progress is now being made towards this. The average time to complete a council house sale has also improved, down from 30 weeks in 2003/04 to 28 weeks in 2004/05.
2. However, there are also some less positive trends. The performance of response repair services is not improving, and although customer satisfaction with completed repairs meets the council’s target of 98 per cent, the proportion of repairs completed at the first visit is below the target of 93 per cent, at 89 per cent.
3. The number of households assessed as homeless increased to 1,723 in 2004/05 from 1,613 in 2003/04, and the average time taken to deal with homeless households was 12.7 weeks in 2004/05, up from 11 weeks in 2003/04. Of particular concern is that 14.5 per cent of households represented themselves as homeless or potentially homeless during 2004/05, compared with 8.7 per cent during 2003/04.
4. The Housing Service faces a number of major challenges including a considerable pressure on affordable and appropriate housing, a rapid increase in the number of homelessness presentations and high levels of fuel poverty. Over six per cent of homes across the council area are second or holiday homes, while council stock has reduced under right to buy legislation by approximately 600 houses per year for the past ten years. Identifying land appropriate for development is restricted by issues such as access to utilities and only 2,000 affordable homes have been built during the last decade.
5. The total council housing stock in 2003/04 was 15,459, with 10,342 applicants on the waiting list. The council sees this as a major social issue and constraint on economic growth and is undertaking a range of work to try to address this. Through these efforts it is anticipated that there will be a substantially higher level of new affordable housing built over the next five years than in the previous five.
6. Because of the pressures on its housing stock, the council is heavily reliant on temporary bed and breakfast accommodation. It recognises this is an undesirable, expensive and often inappropriate solution for people in housing need.
7. The council is planning to transfer its housing stock to a new provider through the Community Ownership Programme (COP) sometime in the next two years. This depends on a tenants’ ballot, due to take place in the autumn of 2006. The council has met the standard of consultation with tenants required by the COP.
8. evidence that some area based staff are resistant to change, and that first line managers do not drive continuous improvement at the area level. Professional staff feel de-skilled by new methods of working, for example in relation to the schools PPP programme, where major design projects have been outsourced to private developers. This means that PAS officers are unable to apply and develop their own skills on what are perceived to be more prestigious and high profile projects.
9. In spite of staff dissatisfaction, some change and improvement is evident within the service. For example, architectural technicians have retrained as project managers recognising the increasing importance of this area of the service’s activity; PAS currently monitors 400 contracts per year using corporate contract monitoring standards. Changes in workload volume have meant the service has been able to reduce its level of fees income from 21 per cent to 12.5 per cent, more in keeping with the industry standard and more cost effective to the council.
Bill Fernie again
As can be seen from the information above the housing situation is serious and the lack of building the past 10 years and no prospect of the council entering into any form of building due to the right to buy and lack of capital etc means that other solutions are urgently required. The governments offer to write off the council housing debt may not be what everyone wants to see but it is the only game in town right now. Should the council look this gift horse in the mouth? At the end of the day it will not be the council but the tenants when the vote comes shortly. A No vote will mean fewer houses will be built as the new Housing Association will not be able to do anything and the council will still require to use incoming rents to service the outstanding debts on existing houses. A Yes vote will mean the New Housing Association is not encumbered by a huge financial millstone and can get on with making house improvements way beyond what the council can offer under present circumstances and perhaps of more immediate interest is able to guarantee the rent levels for the next five years – something Highland council cannot do.
This is NOT privatisation and tenants are heavily represented on the management committee - See http://www.highlandhousingassociation.org.uk/management-committee.html
I personally would have put myself forward to be on the new Highland Housing Association but housing chairmen (I am chairman of the Caithness Housing and Social Work committee) were specifically barred from doing so. Councillor Katrina MacNab was selected from Caithness and with her back ground in Citizen’s Advice and currently as manager of the Pulteneytown People’s Project in addition to representing the Pulteneytown ward in Wick is in a very good position to know what would assist the many low income families in Caithness. In addition Caithness has another representative – Andi Wakeman formerly the director of Pentland Housing Association based in Thurso. These local representatives are well able to put forward the views of tenants and are fully supportive of the Stock Transfer proposal.
Finally if the above is far too much to take in just read the latest Tenant produced by the team on the topic of Stock Transfer - it might be easier to take in and has lots of easy to understand information -
http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/80A11D5C-6A93-4786-A8BA-1477A3289BD7/0/tenantupdateoctober06.pdf
Hopefully there is some useful information and /or links to information that might be helpful -
Sorry if I do not have time to enter this debate again as many other things are pressing and I have meetings tonight and for the rest of the week.
j4bberw0ck
25-Oct-06, 23:03
Wow.
OK. I'm impressed. Knowledge and a dose of passion are a powerful combination.
Cheers!
J
frank ward
26-Oct-06, 10:03
Jabberwock tells us that 'full market value' is different to the Valuers opinion of full market value. If there is any difference, I suspect it will be little.
He then asks:
"Housing Associations have to raise the capital to build the houses, which they do like you and me - they get a mortgage (effectively). Theyt borrow large amounts, though, and can set one lender against another to get the lowest interest rates. Tell me, how much taxpayer's money goes into subsidy?"
Well I can tell you mister Wock - an average of £50,000 per home is provided by the taxpayer for building 'affordable-homes-for-sale' in the Highlands, plus the value of land subsidy on which the home is built.
This money is grant aid, not loan, and represents a straight gift to the housing association. Very little, if any, commercial mortgage needs to be raised to top up this grant, especially if apartments are built instead of houses.
Staggering? Yes. Reasonable? I think not, given the pressing need for rented housing.
I agree with Pussycat ,its good to see that some people have the brains to see it for what it is ..WELL DONE ...I think all the people that back the Associations must be reading from the story of THE KINGS CLOTHES....You can't FOOL all the people all the time ...They will see right throught it in the end .....
j4bberw0ck
26-Oct-06, 14:17
Jabberwock tells us that 'full market value' is different to the Valuers opinion of full market value. If there is any difference, I suspect it will be little.
Sometimes, it can be little - when the housing market isn't in a bubble as it is now. The point you're missing is the premium that people will pay to buy a house; for instance, I'm sure if you look at houses for sale in Caithness (and I haven't) you'll find many are on the market for "Offers Over £nnnnnn". The figure given for "offers over" is what the seller's agent believes is a reasonable price for that property. The owner, though, hopes / expects to get significantly more. So you have three values floating about:
1. the value the seller's agent assigns to it,
2. the value it actually sells for
3. the value the Valuer places on it AS SECURITY when the purchaser goes for a mortgage.
There can be a huge difference between value 2 and value 3 - and lenders will not lend any more than a percentage of value 3. That means, pussycat, that the buyer has to have cash to make up the difference. In the current market, it can be almost any amount, but £10k is commonplace depending on the number of people chasing the house.
With the HA homes, the Valuer assigns a "reasonable market value" based on what a similar private sector house would be worth without the "offers over" premium. The HA then sell the house for that value - or more usually they sell a quarter share, or half share, for the corresponding fraction of the value. So people able to buy a HA home only have to have cash enough for legal fees and say a 5% deposit. And that, my feline friend, is the difference.
He then asks:
"Housing Associations have to raise the capital to build the houses, which they do like you and me - they get a mortgage (effectively). Theyt borrow large amounts, though, and can set one lender against another to get the lowest interest rates. Tell me, how much taxpayer's money goes into subsidy?"
Well I can tell you mister Wock - an average of £50,000 per home is provided by the taxpayer for building 'affordable-homes-for-sale' in the Highlands, plus the value of land subsidy on which the home is built.
Why thank you. You can tell me the moon's made of cream cheese if you like - and I'll ask you the same question. What's your source of information? HAs borrow huge sums from banks and other lenders - in the case of Orkney HA they've several times negotiated facilities of around £4 mio from Royal Bank of Scotland. How much does it cost to build a 2 bed semi or a 1 bed apartment? I'm quite prepared to believe that any government, local government or QUANGO enterprise is horrendously inefficient - it goes with the turf, really - and I'd be happy to hear more from you on "taxpayer subsidy".
I'm also always happy to learn and to apologise when I'm wrong.
given the pressing need for rented housing.
I don't doubt there's a need for rented housing but I'd still like to know who on earth you think you are to deny people - especially first time buyers to whom the Scottish offers system is monumentally cruel - the chance of buying a home!
I agree with Pussycat ,its good to see that some people have the brains to see it for what it is ..WELL DONE ...I think all the people that back the Associations must be reading from the story of THE KINGS CLOTHES....You can't FOOL all the people all the time ...They will see right throught it in the end .....
Dozy, you're making a very simple but very telling error; suggesting that people who agree with you have the brains, and implying that people who disagree with you, don't. I strongly suspect that unfortunately, "dozy" applies to you as an adjective as well as a noun. On the other hand, if you have some information to contribute to this, then go for it.....
cuddlepop
26-Oct-06, 14:27
I think what angers people is that they dont feel they have a choice when it comes to council stock transfer.If you dont say yes then the debt doesn't get written off and everyone suffers.Its that blackmailing feeling where getting as council house tennents that is hard to take.
I dont know eneogh about what pussycat is implying to comment on the apparent under handness of this proposal but what i do no is that housing has and alwas will be a problem unless radical steps are taken.
There isn't a hope on Skye for first time buyers to get on the property ladder.Whether or not this would work is debatable but like everything else Scottish Executive decides, they will make it work regardless:~(
frank ward
26-Oct-06, 16:29
It seems to me that jabberwock has either not read the 'Homestake' article or is simply refusing to accept ANY of the serious issues it raises.
This stubborn ignorance is coupled with an unpleasant tendency to denounce those he disagrees with as stupid.
According to the article - and confirmed by the director of Cairn housing when the P&J put these points to him - only 4 homestake flats (in Dingwall) could be afforded by a worker on the local average wage. the director said only those earning in excess of £18,000 should consider a homestake application.
Not a big wage, but a lot bigger than that of the 'low-paid' worker that Homestake claims it exists for.
Jabberwock demands to know the source of the '£50,000 per house' subsidy claim I made. The source is two-fold - The Scottish Executive and the Highland Council. Do your own research if you think otherwise.
Supporters of privatisation complain about the lack of affordable houses to buy and think this will cure the problem. It will not. It will make matters worse, because 'affordable' sales only benefit the first buyer (if at all) and the same money could build a rented home that would serve generations. The more affordable rented houses there are, the more downward pressure there is on private rents and house prices.
It seems to me that the HAST article is generrally accurate, and a welcome breath of fresh air through the stagnant crap fed to us daily about the wonderful new 'affordable' homes that few of us can actually afford.
http://www.hast2006.org.uk/hsfraud.htm
peter macdonald
26-Oct-06, 16:52
There are other ways of giving young locals a chance to get on the property ladder
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/71736.html
I know about the situation in Skye where holiday homers and retired immigrants to the island have made it all but impossible for the young folk to get on the property ladder a situation repeated in pockets all along the west coast where property prices bear no resemblance to income
We need to cater for our young folk if not more depopulation .less schools ..less post offices etc
I understand what jabberwock is saying and i understand also where pussycat is coming from.
A friend just tried to buy a house in fochabers -
1. the value the seller's agent assigns to it,- the house was for sale at offers over £100 000,
2. the value it actually sells for - My friend offered £119 000 and it sold for £135 000.
3. the value the Valuer places on it AS SECURITY when the purchaser goes for a mortgage.- The valuer valued it at £95 000 so they could borrow A percentage of the £95 000 any more would have had to be cash.
The housing association would have offered it for sale at something around the 95 to 100 000 mark without a premium. One of the biggest benefits to first time buyers on a low income is that these properties are fixed price - not slap on another third in cash. This is an absolute boon to thosepeople on lower incomes who want and are able to buy.
However pussycat makes the point that there is a need for rented property for those who cannot or dont want to buy. She is absolutely right. There needs to be an investment in social housing for rent. If the housing association is to take over the council stock there should be some commitment to building homes to rent. Places where people can be housed and can stay and settle and make a home for themselves and their families with security of tenure. Private renting is all well and good but a six month short assured tenancy gives no one the security they need to settle and make a home. It simply leaves you with an issue you cant think about and no way into the Council house or Housing association Property that offers you a more permanent prospect because you are already housed. Its a viscious circle. I cant see anywhere in what I have read about housing stock transfers a commitment to build new property for rent. Its almost as thought there is an underlying suggestion that those people who need to rent a home are second class in some way, failing in some area of their lives which means they cant aspire to the pinnacle of home ownership and thats just wrong.
frank ward
26-Oct-06, 17:22
Squidge, thanks for your sensible contribution.
But according to Homestake [leaflets I picked up] a property is offered for sale at 'full market price'. It is first offered to those on the waiting list, but if no-one can afford it it is put on the open market !
An estate agent has told me that the new flats by Inverness bus station are a target for buy-to-let investors.
I looked into the homestake thing too and i cant see how buy to let investors could buy the flats if they are allocated for homestake. The people have to be on the housing list and be in housing need and have a mortgage offer. People buying to let wont be on the housing list or be in housing need. I think that if they dont get buyers from the housing list then they should offer them to rent to people on the housing list rather than sell them on the open market. That would make much more sense if you ask me
Bill Fernie
26-Oct-06, 17:33
As I am being accused of some bias by Frank Ward now Solidarity ex SSP I am publishing his email to me today.
I have to say I think that it is a bit of cheek being accused of not publishing everything on the topic that comes my way. do they publish all sides in this debate. I think I made the link to the HAst 2006 web site where everyting they think is there to see and read. Anyhow here is an attack on me published to er redress the balance.....
News Editor
Caithness.org
HOUSING STOCK TRANSFER
Bill,
what a tiresome and desperate piece you have penned in defence of council house privatisation.
I am sorry to note that your 'News' on Caithness.org continues to carry multiple pro-transfer items whilst continuing to censor all all other items
against transfer. This includes your risible repetition of the 'news' that 77 residents in Lewisham who voted yes. At the same time your website simply ignored the No votes in Stirling and Renfrew. It seems a few cockneys are more newsworthy than thousands of Scots.
I note that you have ignored ALL of the press releases issued by HAST and other organisations opposed to transfer.
Whilst this may be expected in view of your political support for HST (or rather your unwillingness to fight for an alternative), such censorship serves
you and your website badly - if you do indeed have any pretentions at all to be an unbiased 'news' site.
Instead have also published your own personal misinterpretations of the HAST2006 website, mostly tracts lifted directly from the Council's own webnsite.
As you are well aware, the statistics published on the HAST2006 website are official, from the Council or the Scottish Executive. This is clearly stated on the HAST2006 website yet you still published the false accusations against HAST by Borders HA and shamefully refused to print the HAST rebuttal - The official Executive statistics say that Borders rents went up 5.5% last year, not 3.5% as claimed by the post-transfer housing association.
You are also wrong to suggest that anti-transfer groups are opposed to the notion of housing associations. Many housing associations play useful and important roles. It is the record of large associations that troubles me.
Like the Highland Council's Chief Executive who banned the public display of all information that indicated there was any opposition to HST, you too appear to have decided that only one side of the argument is to be heard.
Highland Councillors have shown themselves to be spineless in fighting the threats and blackmail spilling from 11 Downing Street downwards, as you admit, but hopefully Highland council tenants will show more backbone.
Frank Ward
Solidarity, Sutherland
Brilliant Bill
Classic Frank
:lol:
j4bberw0ck
26-Oct-06, 19:46
This stubborn ignorance is coupled with an unpleasant tendency to denounce those he disagrees with as stupid.
Not at all, chuck. That was dozy, not me :D . I enjoy a good debate (or argument, if you will) and unlike many around here and on other forums, you won't find me slow to apologise if I find I'm wrong.
frank ward
27-Oct-06, 00:24
Squidge says "The people have to be on the housing list and be in housing need and have a mortgage offer."
Squidge you may be right or wrong, but I'll check it out. I'll get back to you later on this.
From my own reading of the Homestake scheme, this is NOT the case. As I said earlier, if there is nobody on the waiting list who can afford the asking price, the owners do not hang about - the property goes on the market.
My estate agent friend was also dismissive of the Homestake "racket" as she called it.
Here is what i found
The type of people that Homestake will prioritise will vary locally but may include, for example: people who cannot afford to purchase on the open market but have an identifiable need to stay in the local area; local families unable to purchase a home; people living in or applying for local authority or RSL property. In a small number of locations where owner occupiers are affected by demolition plans, Homestake will be available to help them buy a replacement house in the same area. and also
Homestake is aimed at low income households, so your income will be assessed to see whether or not you qualify. We call this a .means test.. Because housing costs vary so much from area to area there are no national criteria for this test. You will need to demonstrate that you cannot buy a house suitable for your needs without help from Homestake. The RSL will turn you down if you could afford to buy a home without help. If you currently own your home or part-own a property, you will have to demonstrate that you are in housing need. You will have to sell your interest in that home at the same time as buying a home through Homestake.
The RSL will also want to satisfy itself that your income is sufficient to be able to afford to become a home owner.
I actually think Homestake is a good thing in a lot of ways. However it isnt a the SOLUTION to social housing problems. It is an option - thats all
http://www.homeadvantage-edinburgh.co.uk/homestake/pdfs/Information_Booklet.pdf - this is where the infomration came from - i knwo that you have to have a mortgage offer too because my friend applied for one and they wouldnt accept her application without it - she had to go over to invergordon with it.
cuddlepop
27-Oct-06, 11:17
Well said Squidge.Do you actyally live in a place called Governess or is that what you do?Because you seem to install Governess on Debates:eek:
;)
Now that would be telling
frank ward
27-Oct-06, 13:26
I didn't want to get involved in this thread but as Bill Fernie has published my letter to him I feel I must respond.
I should say that the question of housing stock transfer is a separate [but not unrelated] issue to that of Homestake or other houses-for-sale schemes.
Regarding my comments about his non-publication of dissident opinions, Bill says " it is a bit of cheek being accused of not publishing everything on the topic that comes my way. "
Well Bill I didn't say that, all I said was that your coverage of the HST issue has been woefully one-sided and the fact that you have published NONE of the anti-transfer press notices, going back months, is something you should be ashamed of.
Caithness.org sometimes reads drearily like a page of Highland Council Press Releases.
If you wish to continue this matter I suggest it be privately or on a new thread and leave this thread to the discussion on the Homestake fraud.
Frank
Gogglebox
03-Nov-06, 10:14
Worth reading what Bill wrote earlier n this thread before we all get swamped with the anti rhetoric from the SSP bloke
There seems to be an awful lot of stuff coming from HAST but a lot of it was said to be lies and scare mongering
Its a pity we werent left to make this decision without the discredited SSP inflicting their unprogressive outdated and outlandish rubbish on us
We arent stupid we can read and make balanced views without HAST swamping us with there one sided stuff
Whether you are for or against this move or have not yet decided read both sides of the arguement not just this anti stuff thats swamping the boards
THis decision is vital to all council tennant and should not be used as the latest pet gripe from political parties - -this is our homes and lives they are playing political games with.
SCOTTISH BORDERS HOUSING ASSOCIATION
Corrects Wrong Information In Highland Against Stock Transfer Web Site
Scottish Borders Housing Association (SBHA) was the recipient landlord of the first whole-stock Local Authority housing transfer to take place in Scotland under the “New Housing Partnerships” initiative. SBHA received 6,218 properties across the Borders area, on 3rd March 2003.
Despite suffering a major flash flood in its third largest estate just 3 months after the transfer, in which 83 properties were made uninhabitable, SBHA has thrived and is doing well, providing innovative and good quality services to its Tenants and involving them at all levels of decision-making and consultation. Consequently, the Association feels it is essential in the interests of fairness and accuracy that the totally false statements in the HAST 2006 website are clarified.......SBHA would be happy to demonstrate to Tenants in the upcoming housing transfers across Scotland a wide range of evidence to show that stock transfer is most definitely a positive move for Tenants.
frank ward
03-Nov-06, 15:50
First of all, as the researcher who wrote the piece on Homestake on the HAST website
http://www.hast2006.org.uk/hsfraud.htm
may I apologise for the error in stating that Homestake had not reached Caithness. This error was because at the time [August 2006] there were NO Homestake properties on offer north of Dingly Dell.
When I phoned the Alliance office they said they knew of no Homestake schemes in the North, I mistakenly assumed that there had been none in the past.
That said, Bill, the arguments and statistics - exposing Homestake for the fraud it is - remain true. As I said at the time, only 4 flats could be afforded by a person on the average Highland Wage.
Homestake is using up vast public funds that should be providing homes for rent, not sale. These homes are then used in statistics by the authorities to claim that 'affordable' homes are being provided for low-paid workers, when clearly they are not.
frank ward
03-Nov-06, 16:13
Bill and Gogglebox say that the HAST website contains false statistics. May I assure all readers that the statistics being questioned are in fact taken straight from the latest official lists supplied by Communities Scotland.
After the humbug issued by SBHA and published without checking by Bill, I advised Caithness.Org of these and the source but of course Bill didn't publish them, just as he has published NONE of HASTS press releases.
I wrote to Scottish Borders in September for clarification of their rent increases since teransfer. They did not reply.
Communities Scotland confirmed that their statistics are correct. Last year, Scottish Borders increased rents by 5.5%. So there.
These are the facts.
Until they are proved wrong they shall remain in the public domain.
Gogglebox
04-Nov-06, 15:20
As a council tennant I want to read balanced pros and cons not 'Titanic' type disasterous scenarios or ludicrously idyllic scenarios
The ramifications of this vote will be felt by tennants for years to come whether its a YES or NO.
There will not be a perfect solution to the ongoing problems of council housing we have to decide if the offered solution is better than the status quo which we have to live with now and which isnt great.
The bit that puzzles me about yours and HAST/SSP/Solidarity stance is what happens if the vote is NO and we do not transfer
Where is the options, your site is full of what you would like to happen and what might happen but it is not guaranteed and as far as i can see not based on any foundation of substance or reality that voting NO will open the door to the lavish panacea that you,the HAST/SSP/Solidarity party are predicting.
Atleast what we are being offered at the moment is a tangible offer with a relatively strong chance of our homes being improved
Can we trust anything that has the backing of Mr Tommy "Pants On Fire" Sheridan or the coven that runs the SSP
I was undecided until recently but having looked at your HAST site, read up more on your old party SSP, your new party Solidarity, and yourself i hope your No transfer campaign gets no more support than the last time you stood as a candidate for MSP in this region 3.92%
I also was swayed by your comment on my reputation that my previous posting on this thread was a personal attack. It wasnt it was purely about this issue that is important to myself and other Highland tenants, you are insignificant to that.
If i recall claiming personal attack was always the old socialist and primary school playground tactic when an arguement had no substance create a smokescreen
However on a personal note Frank are you a Highland Council tenant yourself?
The chairman of HAST, Donnie Kerr has a go at the councillors for not being council tenants in his letter http://www.caithness.org/community/housing/index.htm
Thanks for helping me decide YES to Housing Stock transfer
Gogglebox
06-Nov-06, 00:21
However on a personal note Frank are you a Highland Council tenant yourself?
The chairman of HAST, Donnie Kerr has a go at the councillors for not being council tenants in his letter http://www.caithness.org/community/housing/index.htm
[/QUOTE]
Hey Frank seeing you come onto back the HAST campaign im surprised you havent answerd my question yet ? Please put me out my misery
Gogglebox
06-Nov-06, 00:27
I didn't want to get involved in this thread but as Bill Fernie has published my letter to him I feel I must respond.
Frank
Are you sure you werent involved in this post at the beginning!!!
DO you share a saucer of milk with the thread originator??
I suspect from all previous posts that Frank and the Pussycat see each other in the mirror in the morning when they are brushing their teeth !!!
Apologies if im wrong!!! but i suspect not!!
Gogglebox
08-Nov-06, 02:03
Are you sure you werent involved in this post at the beginning!!!
DO you share a saucer of milk with the thread originator??
I suspect from all previous posts that Frank and the Pussycat see each other in the mirror in the morning when they are brushing their teeth !!!
Apologies if im wrong!!! but i suspect not!!
No denial?? No Comment??
I would say the cats gone to London to visit the queen but socialists dont do Queens!!
I wish folk would stop the cat calling and stick to the thread .
Affordable housing .
Question:how many affordable homes could have been built with the money from all the failed housing transfers.
I tried reading most of these threads but I found it hard going all the political stuff. I'm in a council house but if I got half the chance I would buy it because it's in such a good location and to me it feels more like private.
The only thing that annhoys me is that I can't make the alterations I wants out of my pockets. I would like to put on a glasshouse ad new kitchen. My friend had a council house once and she put in new fireplace and knocked a wall down and even tho it made the place a lot more family friendly she moved out and in with her boyfriend and got charged nearly £3000 for what she had done. It was a shame cause she had done it all to building regualtions and had good workmen on the job. My house was last renovated exactly 18 years ago according to my neighbour, her son was born at the time. By the way, for all you people against incomers, my english neighbour moved in 4 weeks after me and got a new kitchen but I never got one.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.