 |
|
 |
| |
THOUSANDS COULD LOSE HOMES IF SALFORD COUNCIL SALIX TRANSFER GOES AHEAD
|
Star date: 4th August 2014
A Salford Star Exclusive
IF TENANTS VOTE `YES' FOR SALIX, SOCIAL HOUSING COULD BECOME GHETTOES FOR THE POOR
In the midst of the cuts, Salford Council is currently spending £1million on consultants and costs associated with the ballot to transfer council houses over to Salix Homes. The £1million includes ten of thousands of pounds for bombarding Salix tenants with propaganda, urging them to vote `Yes'...
…However, what is not mentioned anywhere in the Salix publicity is two little paragraphs hidden away in the company's official Business Case. It's about possibly thousands of tenants losing their homes, as social housing in the city could become ghettoes for the poor...
Full details here… |
|
Social housing in Salford could become ghettoes for the poor if tenants vote `Yes' in the upcoming ballot to transfer Salford City Council housing to Salix Homes.
Salford Council and Salix have been spending £1million on the transfer process, which includes £250,000 on consultants and tens of thousands of pounds on propaganda urging tenants to vote `Yes' in the ballot, which would see 8,800 properties transferred from Council ownership to an independent company.
Tenants have been bombarded with `The Power of Yes' propaganda as well as receiving personal visits from Salix employees in the bid to gain a positive vote in the transfer ballot. Last week, a smiling Salford City Mayor, Ian Stewart, launched the official Offer Document to tenants which will be hand delivered by Salix staff, who have taken to wearing `The Power of Yes' t-shirts.
Neither the Salix propaganda leaflets, nor the Offer Document, make any mention of a few paragraphs contained on page 32 of the 76 page official Business Case, part of the `Formal Application For Stock Transfer' put together by Salford Council and not so easily available to tenants.
On page 32, under the title of the Strategic Case for the transfer, the document quite clearly states that "Salix Homes would have greater freedom, for example, in the range and types of tenancies provided and locations/lettings policy."
It adds that there will be the "development of a new tenancy policy" which will "work to change the view that social housing is a home for life towards being a resource for a particular time".
This will shock many tenants, some of whom have lived in the same home for decades.
The document adds that Salix will "Address circumstances where customers' income has improved and there is no longer a need for social housing".
In other words, if income goes over a certain level people might be asked to move on, leaving social housing just for the extreme poor, almost along the lines of the notorious `projects' in America.
If the transfer goes ahead, tenants will have an `assured tenancy' as opposed to the current `secured tenancy', and while the Offer Document prints the new lease which mentions nothing of income levels and short term leases, it does add that "The tenancy particulars and conditions can be amended, varied, replaced or altered by laws passed in Parliament in the future".
According to the Business Case document, this seems to be part of both local and central government agendas. The document explains, in Salix talk, that "Without a stock transfer Salix Homes…would be limited in how they could maximise mobility and choice for their tenants…"
The Salford Star asked Salix Homes to comment…
1) On page 32 it states that Salix would… "Address circumstances where customers' income has improved and there is no longer a need for social housing" - Does this mean that if tenants' income rises above a certain level they would no longer be entitled to social housing? If so what is the income level and how would this be gauged? Also, why is this not being made clear in your publicity and literature?
2) It also states on page 32 that Salix would... "Work to change the view that social housing is a home for life towards being a resource for a particular time"… Again, what are the parameters for this? Does this mean that only those of a particular income bracket will be allowed social housing? And, again, why is this not being made clear in the Salix literature?
Salix wouldn't comment and, instead passed the questions onto Salford Council.
Salford Council hasn't responded.
* This is the first in a number of articles on the proposed stock transfer. Over the next few weeks the Salford Star will be looking into the Salix case in great detail...See Part 2 - £3.24 million cost of ballot and transfer click here
* See also previous Salford Star article - Salford Council to spend £1million on options for social homes (from April 2013) - click here
|
|
|
|
Steve Sharples wrote
at 13:18:14 on 17 August 2014 |
|
|
| Tahir Chakotai is still wrong about entitlement to compensation in the event of demolition. That right applies equally to council or housing association tenants , in the event of demolition and home loss - it has nothing to do with whether or not the tenancy is a council secure tenancy or an assured tenancy. This is set out, as I said in previous post, in the Home Loss Payments Regulations 2008 . Those regulations, in turn, amend requirements in Section 29 of the 1973 Land Compensation Act which clearly states ( S29 pt 1.d) that that Act applies'to the carrying out of any improvement to the dwelling or od redevelopment of the land by a housing association'. As for someone else called Sharples who works for Salix, we are not related, and I can't in any case see that even if we were my posting a reply to Tahir CHakotai's wholly wrong claims who would constitute 'bad taste.. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 15:55:28 on 11 August 2014 |
|
|
| P.s. I failed to mention that Steve Sharples mentions that only one area is due for redevelopment through demolition. Mr. Steve Sharples has also skewed the facts concerning his statement. I was recently offered a property in Alexander Gardens. I refused it because it was in a very bad state of disrepair. It had rotten windows, asbestos exposed via the floor, and the electrical wiring had not been tested, which is a breach of Salix Homes Void Homes Policy. When both I, and my social worker asked for evidence that the wiring had been tested, we were told it fine, but there is no Periodic Electrical Installation Certificates, which means they did not test the wiring within the property, which is a breach of health and safety, and their own internal policy. So as expected, I refused to move into the property. Why am I telling you this, it's because Salix Homes put on its website that the very property they offered me, had a demolition order placed upon it. So Steve Sharples has indeed twisted the truth, because here is another area that is due for demolition . On top of that, although the tenants of Alexander Gardens are very kind, elderly and vulnerable, Salix Homes has them living in properties that are in a bad state of disrepair. One again it makes you ask the question "Do I trust a housing group who allows the elderly to live in substandard housing conditions" I hope the answer you give is "No". |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 15:54:01 on 11 August 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Steve Sharples, I am certainly not going to state that you are wrong about what you have stated, but may I draw your attention to just one thing, "When has Salix ever done anything by the rules". Secondly, I have fought quite a few housing battles for others, who were Housing Association Tenants, and may I say, "It's a completely different ball game". Housing Associations do relocate tenants when there property is demolished, however they do not pay any costs to the tenant. A Disturbance/Relocation Grant is only subject to a "Council Tenant" and those who have a "Secure Tenancy". If we all go over to private status, then we will have a "Assured Tenancy". Meaning that tenants under the privatisation scheme with Salix Homes, will not receive any monies, if they are forced to move, because of redevelopment. If you doubt the information I have just given you, then could I request your email address and I will send you what I received in 2011 from Mr R. Wilson whom worked for the Salford Council Joint Legal Team. I am also aware that your name is Sharples. I am also aware of another Salix Officer called Sharples whom is a Salix Homes employee. If you are related I find it in very poor taste that you should leave a misleading comment on a Salford Star story. In conclusion, if anyone thinks what I say is incorrect, then take my answers to a Salix Homes meeting, and insist that they put in writing that tenants will be allowed a Relocation/Disturbance Grant and a offer of an appropriate property, if their property is demolished for regeneration purposes. I think you will find they will refuse. |
|
|
?
|
Michelle Riley wrote
at 07:41:25 on 10 August 2014 |
|
|
| There is no point getting excited about home improvements if you are going to be forced to move from your property.
I for one would rather stay secure with the council. If they decided they wanted to turf you at least you'd get £5000 for the trouble.
|
|
|
?
|
Steve Sharples wrote
at 07:41:07 on 10 August 2014 |
|
|
| Tahir Chakotai is entirely wrong about Salix's obligations in the event of any future demolition. In the first place all social landlords (councils and housing associations) are subject to the Home Loss Payments(Prescribed Amount)(England)Regulations which came in to force on September 1st 2008.This stipulates a minimums sum of £4,700 must be paid by the landlord to any tenant subject to home loss. The landlord also has to pay a sum equivalent to the costs of removal to the tenant where possession of the property has been obtained. Second, the only demolition proposals Salix Homes have is in respect of Phase 4 of the Poets Estate (Beechfarm). Here Salix Homes have given a formal assurance in the Offer Document supplement for that area that any tenant who needs to be relocated will have four options, including the choice of moving to a newly refurbished Salix Homes property |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 15:39:27 on 08 August 2014 |
|
|
| The whole Salix Transfer is yet another example of "A Great British Farse". There has been nothing balanced about the way Salix Homes has tried to sway its tenants into voting "Yes". When reading the Limelight Magazine, the only people urging tenants to say yes, was Salix Homes Employees and those who make up the board of Salix Homes senators. To put forward any proposal, you are supposed to understand the pro's and con's. The biggest threat to privatisation of Salix Homes, concerns demolition/redevelopment of your dwelling. As it stands, if the council wish to knock down the property you are living in, you are entitled to a "Relocation Grant" which is roughly £5,100 and an offer of an alternative property. As a private housing association, Salix Homes will no longer have to offer a "Relocation Grant" to its tenants, nor do they have to relocate the tenants. What we need to remember is that Salix Homes, in 2008, made a load of promises that they have still not fulfilled. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of complaints concerning their professional conduct. So the question should be, "do you honestly want to trust an organisation, who has mislead it's tenants, since forming in 2007"? I hope for the sake of all Salix Homes tenants, that your answer is "No". |
|
|
?
|
Pete Tully Snr wrote
at 15:42:19 on 07 August 2014 |
|
|
| Dr. Steve Sharples (PS Consultants, Salford Independent (paid for by the Council) Tenant Advisor)), The following links state the facts about how transfers impact on Tenants. I would like all readers to focus on and read the " Basingstoke: Stock transfer ten years on" link as I know that this is what happens when Greedy landlords steal the assets of Tenants and Council Tax payers. The Impacts of Housing Stock Transfer (Full Report) Joseph Rowntree Foundation 27/02/09: http://tinyurl.com/oldfada Tenants marginalised and powerless Housing Studies Association Conference 15/04/04: http://tinyurl.com/oykyl9u Homelessness and Stock Transfer Shelter Cymru 01/09/05: http://tinyurl.com/qbkunfd Basingstoke: Stock transfer ten years on Basingstoke Council 01/10/05: http://tinyurl.com/o9a8c74 Vote NO to the stock transfer. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 15:30:37 on 07 August 2014 |
|
|
| Carl Bishop seems to be getting very angry about the Salford star standing up for the rights of Salford people.
Presumably Mr Bishop, this is because you and your chums at Salix homes whom are all getting a big pat on the back and a FREE DAYS HOLIDAY with our rent money as a thank you for BADGERING TENANTS TO VOTE YES rather than do your jobs!!!!!
What has this cost us - £50,000 plus ???????
This money would have been better spent saving us from eviction when we can't afford to pay our bedroom tax!!! |
|
|
?
|
Prisoner Irlam wrote
at 03:41:03 on 07 August 2014 |
|
|
| Free up money for other things ? Hahaha rewind the clock back to 1997 "Things can only get better" it was Labour that privatised council services and increase the ££££cost and now they are skintight in a mess of there creation , if Labour were a Unit trust they'd be with the Receivers by now !!!! Goons |
|
|
?
|
William Smid wrote
at 19:24:45 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| To answer Wheeler about where the money has gone! Ask the council but going off what I know and the fact the council owe 60 million plus I’ve got a good idea! |
|
|
?
|
steve sharples wrote
at 19:24:30 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| In response to Mr Tully Sr.
1. We were chosen by tenants in 8 areas (out of 31) in Glasgow to be their ITA. We worked there for 2 years, and our work ended some 3 years before the first (pilot) transfer of homes took place to the Glasgow Housing Association.
2. There is no such thing as the Better Home Standard - the only standard recognised in law is the Decent Homes Standard which applies equally to Councils and Housing Associations.
3. There is no requirement in law for councils to improve homes 'faster' than 'ALMOs and Housing Associations'.
4. In any case, the distinction between Councils and ALMOs in relation any improvement standard is not valid since Councils wholly own their ALMOs.
|
|
|
?
|
Peter Tully Snr wrote
at 15:13:21 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| PS Consultants were involved with the City of Glasgow transfer. Is it not true that the European Commission are investigating Glasgow Housing Association’s failure to openly tender the transfer!
http://blog.tendersdirect.co.uk/2009/10/09/69/
This is one of many cases where ITA's and councils failed in their duties to inform Tenants.
Also Tenants who rejected transfer find that housing is improved to the Better Home Standard much quicker than it would be if it were transferred because councils are required to improve quicker by law than ALMO's or Housing Associations.
Like I always say if you give Tenants (and Tenant Groups)all the information and keep the ITA totally independent and not financed by the council then the process would be fair.
|
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 13:39:25 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| I don't agree with the transfer of the properties, they're public assets and not SCC"s to give away. If you look at these companies all the CEO"s and managers award themselves phenomenal salaries nodded through by ill informed or clueless tenant reps and paid for via rent increases to the tenant. Why is a transfer to Salix the only option? SCC should've invited other "Independent Companies" the right to tender for these properties. Surely Salix tenants deserve a wider choice, not Hobsons Choice? SCC should be careful about outsourcing all their services. In a while people will wake up and realise that SCC and its employees/managers is in fact only a middle man whose services can easily dispensed with |
|
|
?
|
Carl bishop wrote
at 13:39:14 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| The salford star is talking a load of bollocks as usual. You just like to stir up shit but it won't work |
|
|
?
|
Danny wrote
at 13:39:05 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| I have to say that I find some of the comments to this article extremely disconcerting. The focus of the article on two small paragraphs masks the true purpose of transfer, which is more investment in your homes! Would you really vote against that??? The two sections in the business case relate to government policy about the changing nature of tenancies. I think that this only affects new tenants rather than existing ones (but not professing to be an expert). No long term tenants will be thrown out of their homes.
The model which Salix is looking to follow has been successfully implemented in Rochdale a couple of years ago, where unions and some residents groups that were very vocal about voting against transfer. These fears have not come true.
The fear of potential upheaval must be a great to some but stock transfer is becoming the way within social housing. |
|
|
?
|
Steve Sharples wrote
at 13:38:54 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| In response to Salford Star and Peter Tully Sr.I would like to make the following points.
1.In the case of the response from the Star, it is quite wrong to say that 'once Salix had got the ownership of the houses it can do anything it wants with no accountability whatsoever'.
In the first place Salix Homes as a Registered Provider would be regulated by,and accountable to, the Homes and Communities Agency, just as Salford Council is now. Moreover it would be regulated on 7 regulatory standards , not just 4 standards as the Council is now.
Second, the Offer Document clearly says that Salix Homes is committed to exploring a mutual model of ownership and governance in which its tenants are its members. Council ownership and governance structures cannot not do this.
2. Mr Tully Sr has culled a figure from our latest accounts which is what is known as 'shareholder funds'.It is not a figure of net worth. For any company that figure simply reflects what shareholders (and we only have two) choose to leave in a company at any one time. And incidentally, does the Star publish its accounts annually as we do and pay a full whack of Corporation Tax, as we do? But in any case, the issue that tenants have to decide in assessing how independent we are , is not who who we are as a company , but whether or not we present the facts as best we can. We are happy to let them judge whether what we write is fact,or,polemic.
|
|
|
?
|
Bill (dave) Pearson wrote
at 12:34:20 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| It should be made into a cooperative or mutual so all the tenants will be share holders and have a real say in how it is run. Too many tenants have conned into voting for transfer only to find that legally they have no real say in the company. The so called ITAs don't work for the tenants, they work for council who pays their fees. The Nation Housing Federation model rules make no mention of tenants and exclude them by having a no Share Holders clause in the rules which means the landlords have complete control even in the cases of Industrial & Provident Society registered RSLs.
Which should be governed by the members. |
|
|
?
|
Peter Tully Snr wrote
at 12:33:36 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| Just one more thing:
How can a company (P S Consultants and Training Services Ltd), with a net worth of only £4365 after 14 years of trading be a consultant to a project that in it's first stage (stock transfer vote), will cost over 3,000,000?
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/03847368
I SMELL A RAT.
|
|
|
?
|
Peter Tully Snr wrote
at 10:41:42 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| Voting yes for Salix = no safe tenancy!
Voting NO will = Secure tenancy!
I experienced the process that is happening with Salix when I lived in Melton Mowbray about 10 years ago.
Despite the council and arms length company offering the earth the true intentions were hidden in the small print.
The council did not like it when I as a Tenant rep made a big fuss and highlighted to the local media the true intentions of the council. I was not paid by the council but the person who tenants were told was independant (and from Manchester), just told lie after lie!
Because of my intervention and stance the whole process was shelved because of the mistrust in the council.
By the way the Model for Melton Mowbray was the same model as the one Salix are using now.
|
|
|
?
|
Trev wrote
at 07:20:41 on 06 August 2014 |
|
|
| There's one way to sort this out. Use your vote in the next council and mayors elections an vote new people in. A labour council should not be toeing a tory governments line |
|
|
?
|
Salford Star wrote
at 21:43:27 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| See Steve Sharples' comment below...The point is, Mr Sharples, that once Salix has got ownership of the houses it can do anything it wants with no accountability whatsoever. Whereas the Council, which currently owns the stock, can be held to account, in theory at least, by its citizens. Does the document quoted in the article not say, in black and white, that Salix "will work to change the view that social housing is a home for life towards being a resource for a particular time"? Why wouldn't Salix or the Council respond to Salford Star requests for comments on the changes? If someone would have said to us five years ago that there would be a tax on bedrooms we would have laughed our heads off, so anything is possible... How `independent' are you as a consultant when you are getting paid by Salix/Salford Council? At least our articles stimulate debate about the transfer, unlike the blatant propaganda being put out by Salix. Can we suggest that if you are independent you start advising people to check out some of the Salix claims, and the extortionate spending that's gone on during the transfer, particularly on consultants. |
|
|
?
|
Mr A Wheeler wrote
at 21:18:00 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| William Smid / Salford Tenant! Are you soldiers of fortune for Salix? Salford tenant you say " Don't believe me, then speak to our Independent tenant advisors " that's a very Salix sounding statement did that come straight from OUR Salix press office? Smid you think it's all down to the Government do you! Just where has all that rent money paid over the last 30 years that you speak of gone????? Landlords are suppose to use the rent money to maintain homes to a decent standard. Come on work it out..... Average rent payable per week x 52 x 7500 homes x 30 years = How much missing money? |
|
|
?
|
Steve Sharples wrote
at 21:17:24 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| The claims you make about what the Council's Stock Transfer Business Case says on P.32, or about assured tenancies,are not sustained by the facts.
There are three points to make;
1. The passages in the Business Case that you quote selectively from occur in a longer paragraph that talks about a new tenancy policy that will address such things as under occupation, better use of stock where housing is in short supply, and increasing social mobility and improving employment opportunities.
The document is clearly trying to locate the things you complain of in the context of policy changes introduced in the Localism Act 2011. It is not a statement of policy specific to Salix Homes in the context of this proposed transfer, nor is it an agenda for action (and tenants should read the Offer Document for what is actually promised).
2. The point the Business Case tries to make is that if Salix Homes becomes a landlord in its own right (and since the Housing and Regeneration Act it would then be registered as, and known as, a 'Registered Provider') it would have the same freedoms as any other Registered Provider (including every council that still owns council homes). In other words, even if Salix Homes as a Registered Provider were minded to do the sort of things you complain of, and there is no evidence that it would, it would have no greater or lesser powers than all Councils that are currently Registered Providers (including Salford City Council)already have under the Localism Act.
3. The statement in the Offer Document to the effect that Parliament can amend or alter tenancy particulars is simply a statement of fact. But this power is also not specific to assured tenancies. Parliament created the council secure tenancy in 1980, has amended that legislation many times since then, and has the power to do so at any future time.
Steve Sharples
PS Consultants
Salford Independent Tenant Advisor |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 16:55:13 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| One thing is certain.
Salford Clowncil are not acting in the best interests of this city's shafted citizens.
Their Business Buddies Salix , are just another grubby cowboy outfit .
VOTE AGAINST THEM.
VOTE NO . |
|
|
?
|
William Smid wrote
at 16:52:44 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| I’ve read the comments and insults about Salix Homes. I feel pissed off and quite sad about the lack of awareness with regards to Why! What! How! When And Were! Salix Homes is an arm’s length management organisation. The Council contracts Salix Home to manger the 7500 housing stock. Due to the Governments cap on their borrowing the council can-not borrow and invest any money to keep the housing stock to the decent home standard over the next 30 years. Even if it was possible for the Council to borrow any money, its present debt makes it impossible for them to pay any loan back. Salix Home has established itself as the preferred bidder under Government legislation and with the Councils backing. I’LL BE VOTING YES! |
|
|
?
|
Salford Tenant wrote
at 16:52:40 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| I don't normally comment on these types of forums, but I wanted to put an end to this nonsense! I was one of the customer panel members involved in developing the business case and offer document and these claims are taken completely out of context.
None of us will lose our homes if the transfer goes ahead- we have tenancy agreements for an indefinite period now and this will remain the case if homes transfer to Salix. The excerpt quoted simply relates to Salix's duty to make sure there is housing available to people who have the most need, which I don't think any of us could argue with. Don't believe me, then speak to our Independent tenant advisors who have been helping us tenants!
|
|
|
?
|
Rob wrote
at 16:52:33 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| I think this is mostly wrong. As many have pointed out it opens the door to unethical practice. However I do agree on one point. That point being when an income reaches a certain level the entitlement to such cheap rent should be removed. As there is a shortage of affordable housing, a family with say 2 adults earning £30k between them (FOR EXAMPLE) should have the right to basically what is subsidised rent or given the choice to pay a certain percentage extra or move. This should be done on maybe a gradual sliding scale. Say for every 1000 earned over the threshold then an extra £2 per week. |
|
|
?
|
Against the transfer! wrote
at 11:37:09 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| Salix Homes currently manage the only local authority housing left in Salford. If this stock is transferred out then how the the Council full fill its duty to all those individuals and families that are homeless whereby the council has a duty to rehouse them???
This is not just what people stereotype as being homeless people aka dead beats, drugs users etc!! This will be anyone who falls on hard times, loosing their job or their health etc, falls into rent arrears and looses their home!!
Salix Homes wont touch people with a bad reference or a bad tenancy history like all the other housing associations already do!!
God help the vulnerable people of Salford if this stock transfer goes through!
Perhaps the thousands of people on the waiting list for properties should also be included in the vote?
Seems to me that the council wants shut of all services!!!
Theres going to be nowt left!!!! |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 11:37:05 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| As a homeowner I was once invited to sit on a local tenants board with the aim of representing "other parties" This included homeowners and private landlords who lived or owned properties in the immediate vicinity of a social housing estate. In hindsight I believe it was probably engineered as a tokenistic role to demonstrate the "tenure blind" community mantra. I can tell you that I was a very unhappy and pointless experience. Despite trying my utmost to contribute and participate in the process, most the tenant reps made it quite clear that my opinion or views counted for nothing, that as tenants the only opinions that mattered were theirs. I believe that all corporation housing stock should remain in the hands of their respective councils, I would question the right or legality of councils giving away or selling off property which was bought, paid for and collectively owned by all taxpayers, not just tenants. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 11:36:11 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| Does anyone know who this/these potential independent company might be? In whose best interest is it to "transfer stock"? Definitely not the taxpayers of this country that's for sure. Councils are accountable to all taxpayers, not just tenants. Are they not legally obliged to get the best price on the sale of capital assets owned by the public? |
|
|
?
|
William Gallagher wrote
at 06:45:15 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| I opposed the stock transfer and we got stitched up on it here in Bolton don't do it stay with the local authority |
|
|
?
|
janice owens wrote
at 06:45:11 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
|
|
?
|
Greg wrote
at 06:45:07 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| Bob is quite correct.
All Salford Citizens must have a vote on these dangerous proposals.
We do indeed own these properties through our council tax extortion.
VOTE NO PEOPLE.
This insidious clowncil and their rich business chums Salix DO NOT HAVE YOUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART.
Do not be deceived by their BULLSHIT.
VOTE NO . |
|
|
?
|
stephen glynn wrote
at 06:44:48 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| people want to get a grip. this works very well elsewhere. anyone getting a house now is not guarenteed it for life due to the conservative government changes so not transfering the stock wont change any of that. however by doing it would free up council money for other things
|
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 06:44:29 on 05 August 2014 |
|
|
| Anon.
So much for Democracy.
This is Coercion.
So typical of the dirty methods used by Salford Clowncil and their grubby business associates.
Everybody should tell them to EFF OFF . |
|
|
?
|
Anon wrote
at 19:29:06 on 04 August 2014 |
|
|
| Its not just letters we keep getting, they are now visiting us to see if we will vote yes. |
|
|
?
|
Martin wrote
at 19:29:02 on 04 August 2014 |
|
|
| Best just wait till they have the count in (wasted a million) and then just take it to a Judicial review because all people in Salford should be consulted.
Knowing the people of Salford they will believe the bullshit coming for the town hall and Salix |
|
|
?
|
bob wrote
at 19:28:48 on 04 August 2014 |
|
|
| Why are only Salix tenants etting the vote it should be everyone who lives in Salford as this is out property paid for from council tax |
|
|
?
|
Prisoner Irlam wrote
at 19:28:33 on 04 August 2014 |
|
|
| Identical accept no TV advert ref the Congested charge , the working mans housing safety net is open fair game for Speculators investors merchant bankers rocketing rents , dragged out repairs ,evictions etc etc etc we are doomed!!! |
|
|
?
|
Paul Gerrard wrote
at 16:25:35 on 04 August 2014 |
|
|
| Well done to Salford Star for wading through another unreadable document and exposing the truth - council tenants can be moved out if Salix get their hands on your houses. I look forward to more articles in coming weeks - the Salix propaganda machine can't have it all their own way! |
|
|
?
|
Peter Tully Snr wrote
at 16:25:32 on 04 August 2014 |
|
|
| Salix homes should know better! The board who run Salix has Tenant reps and they should be outlining the hidden paragraphs that diminish the rights of Tenants to live under a safe tenancy.
Also why do Salix use people who work for no wage to spread this political propaganda?
I have had personal experience of the way Salix have hounded people to the point of them being so stressed it killed them!
I say to Tenants Vote a BIG NO, and don't be hoodwinked by the vile lies of Salix. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 16:24:20 on 04 August 2014 |
|
|
| Just disgraceful , yet so typical .
Do not agree to this People.
You must realise the Salford Clowncil act only in their own interests , and never yours. |
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
.jpg)
advertisement
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
Hi Paul I hope you are well, please can you tell me how much it would be to have the George Best Mosaic made? Indeed if you are st... [more] |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am Marjorie Goodwin's grandson. I still have that battered tobacco tin. I don't know what happened to the silver one!
... [more] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I parked here with a disability badge and my back tyre was slightly over line as I suffer with coordination and it says if I appea... [more] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 North Johnson Street, Salford.
My Great Grandfather was the son of Household James Rowlands 68. x2. His wife Frances Rowlands... [more] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lived for many years as a kid in Murray st. Hilda who was mum to John would visit my grandmother and would tell us about what john... [more] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Days |
Hours |
Minutes |
Seconds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Help the Salford Star...
all donations welcome
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
