| |
VOTE NO TO SALFORD HOUSING STOCK TRANSFER MEETING
|
|
Star date: 8th September 2014 WHY YOU SHOULD SAY `NO' TO TRANSFER OF COUNCIL HOUSING TO SALIX HOMES Public Meeting
Tuesday 9th September 7pm
St George's Community Centre
Cromwell Road Tomorrow night there's another public meeting encouraging tenants to vote `No' in the forthcoming ballot to transfer all Salford Council housing stock to Salix Homes. More details here...
|
|
Tomorrow night, Tuesday 9th September, campaigners will be encouraging Salix tenants to vote `No' in the forthcoming ballot on transferring Council housing to what will be a private company. The whole process is costing £3.24million during some of the worst public spending cuts ever seen in the city (see previous Salford Star article – click here), and will end with tenants having only `assured tenancy' rather than `secure tenancy', which means it will be easier to evict people. Campaigners also that the privatisation to Salix Homes will lead to possible rent rises and increased service charges, with less accountability. The Salford Star has also pointed to the Salix Business plan which indicates that the idea of a Salix home for life will be jettisoned and estates could become ghettoes for the poor (see previous Salford Star article – click here). Once the ballot has been announced, Salford Star will be looking in depth at the Salix plan but in the meantime tomorrow's Public Meeting will give people the chance to listen to why they should vote `No' and ask questions on the transfer.
Public Meeting
Tuesday 9th September 7pm
St George's Community Centre
Cromwell Road M6 6SB
See also the Facebook group Salford Defend Council Housing See update - Hopelessly Biased Salford Council Transfer Film - click here
|
|
|
|
Bernard Brough wrote
at 07:12:55 on 13 September 2014 |
|
|
| If the Council can not afford to bring housing up to standard then who can? Privatisation will lead to higher rents and substandard services. |
|
|
?
|
Yes Vote wrote
at 07:10:51 on 13 September 2014 |
|
|
| To Sandra,
Maybe Councillior Warmingsham should speak up for himself and not for you to do it for him. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 07:10:20 on 13 September 2014 |
|
|
| P.s. Dear Mr. Sharples, under an Assured Tenancy, a tenant can have eviction papers served on them for being in arrears for three weeks. After six weeks a tenant can be evicted. Therefore you obviously do not understand the difference between a Secure Tenancy and an Assured Tenancy. If any tenant is in doubt, I would strongly advise them to seek the services of a qualified solicitor who specialises in housing. The answer I received confirms my information is correct and factual. I would appreciate in future that you cease misleading the readers of the Salford Star. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 07:09:32 on 13 September 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Mr. Sharples, it is you that's wrong. I used to be New Prospect's "Blue Eyes Boy". I was somewhat of a problem solver. I knew most of the middle and upper management. When New Prospect changed to Salix Homes, it was the same staff who was employed by Salix Homes. Reguardless of any small print you might be quoting, if a company is taken over and employes the same staff, then in theory, it's the same company. I would appreciate Mr. Sharples that you ensure your facts are correct before stating someone is incorrect. I am presuming you are a Salix Homes employee as they seem to be the only people stating I am wrong, when in fact, I am usually right. An example of this is the decision of Salix Homes to fit Eco-Pods to its blocks. I stated that the new heating systems were unstable and overly complicated. In fact, I refused to have one fitted in my flat. To date, I am the only tenant not to have heating problems in my block. I was also right when I informed Forrest, who refurbished Canon Hussey Court, that our building did not have the correct amount of wall ties, thus the upper floor walls of Canon Hussey Court were structurally unstable. Salix Homes also called me a liar out that as well. However Forrest were given a copy of the BRE 2001 Survey report by me, and guess what?, there were structual weaknesses on the upper floor walls of Canon Hussey Court, caused by insufficient wall ties, which resulted in a 18 month delay in fitting the outer cladding system to Canon Hussey Court. The list goes on and on and on. So Mr. Sharples, instead of attacking me, and stating I am wrong, maybe you could save the Tax Payers of Salford some money and hire me to do your job, as I seem to be right more than you do. In future Mr. Sharples check you facts. Also if you read a comment written by a Lead Solicitor, Mrs Liz Treacy, it states in her 2012 letter that New Prospect simply changed it name to Salix Homes. There were minor changes to the organisation/company, however the staffing arrangements remain the same. So Mr Sharples, are you stating that a Lead Solicitor for the Joint Legal Services is incorrect or indeed a liar? I would recommend that any future statements to the Salford Star concerning me are factual and informative. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 14:33:49 on 12 September 2014 |
|
|
| Salix may have been a "new" organisation but it was still run, managed and overseen by the same people originally employed by SCC Housing dept. On each takeover the staff were taken on by these "new" organisations, New Prospect, Salix and everything in between with terms, conditions and pensions mirroring the councils. The ongoing privatisation of public housing stock, because that's what it is hardly espouses the socialist ethos so often spouted by the SCC leaders. There is no such thing as a free lunch, as sure as eggs is eggs, profit is the name of this game, jobs will go and service charges will rise. |
|
|
?
|
Steve Sharples wrote
at 21:56:10 on 11 September 2014 |
|
|
| I am afraid that once again Mr Chakotai has got his facts wrong. Salix Homes was an entirely new organisation, not New Prospect with its name changed. There is no provision in law for any social housing organisation (housing association or council) to evict tennants with rent arrears of 6 weeks. Salford council has taken the decision to ask tennants to ballot on transfer to Salix because the national council housing finance system makes it impossible for Salford council to access the level of long term housing investment needed to bring all council homes up to the Decent Homes Standard. Tennants should make their own choice in the ballot, but that choice should be based on facts not mis-information and prejudice passed off as facts. |
|
|
?
|
Sandra wrote
at 18:01:29 on 10 September 2014 |
|
|
| The reason Councillior Warmingsham is against the transfer, maybe because the rules change and people who can afford to rent private will be asked to do so. So Councillior Warmingsham will lose his home. Again self interest on the part of Warmingsham, but he was ok to support all there other crap this council has done to salford and it's people. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 09:32:27 on 10 September 2014 |
|
|
| As usual the Cllrs only come out to play when a decision directly affects them. Its interesting that Clllr Warmisham has even bothered to comment on the transfer, however because he lives in a Salix home I suppose therein lies the rub. I wonder what is different from this stock transfer as opposed to the City West one. That didn't get much opposition from the Cllrs. When will Cllrs start getting back to basics and do the job they are elected to do, represent the interests of local people. I would much prefer Warmisham to concentrate on Langworthy ward issues, not the European Roma he is always tweeting about, why cant he muster up a bleeding heart about the plight of the people of Langworthy instead of swanning off to Strasburg in October on nothing more than a jolly to discuss the European Roma, that's not what the people of Langworthy elected him for. |
|
|
?
|
Yes wrote
at 16:46:01 on 09 September 2014 |
|
|
| Will get NOWT if it stays with the Council..Yes Nothing..and Councillior Warmingsham says No to Salix he's on the bloody council who wants out..how contradicting,Salix has given me the Answers I need to know ..so why don't you NO voters do the same.its no good going on about something your not prepared to know about...this has been driven by committed Salix Tenants as I've found out,so why would they do the dirty on themselves. |
|
|
?
|
Prisoner Irlam wrote
at 22:48:04 on 08 September 2014 |
|
|
| The Day Labour shat on the hard working , no safety net now for the working man , just rapidly rising rents !!!! Labour r in the pockets of the Nuvou Rich ! |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 22:47:53 on 08 September 2014 |
|
|
| I am delighted to hear there are going to be more Public meetings concerning the decision to privatise Salix Homes. I for one will be voting "NO". I cannot believe that staff from Salix Homes have been visiting the Elderly and Vulnerable, on a day to day basis, in order to badger these vulnerable citizens into voting "Yes". The vote is supposed to be private, however there is nothing private about trying to rig the vote by constantly bothering tenants, until they vote "Yes". If you do vote "Yes" you risk loosing your home, or being evicted for being up to six weeks in rent arrears, zero accountability for Salix Homes decisions/actions, and further cuts to tenancy services. Salford Council tenants should also remember that In 2006/2007, when New Prospect changed it's name to Salix Homes, a great deal of promises were made by Salix Homes CEO, Mr. Kevin Scarlett. However Salix Homes failed to bring all of its current housing stock to a Decent Homes Standard, so what makes people think that if they are privatised, Salix Homes will keep its promises now. There are still thousands of tenants living in Salford Council owned properties that are in a serious state of disrepair, despite the promises of Salix Homes. I just hope all of the Salford Council Tenants stick together and vote "No", to stop a housing travesty. Good luck to all those concerned, from Mr. Tahir Chakotai. |
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
