 |
|
 |
| |
SALFORD VOTE NO TO STOCK TRANSFER LAUNCHES CAMPAIGN
|
|
Star date: 8th October 2014 SAY `NO' TO SALIX HOMES TRANSFER BEGINS CAMPAIGN With ballot forms currently being sent to Salix Homes tenants to vote on the transfer of council housing stock, the VOTE NO campaign has launched its own leaflets and materials in an effort to persuade people against accepting the privatisation of social housing in Salford. Full details here...
|
.jpg)
click image to enlarge
|
Every tenant of Salix Homes is currently being issued with a ballot paper asking them to vote `Yes' or `No' to the transfer of the Council's housing stock. In the months running up to the ballot, Salix Homes and Salford Council have been running massive, expensive propaganda campaigns urging people to vote `Yes' (see here) However as the ballot was launched, the `Vote No' campaign began its own efforts to persuade people that the privatisation of social housing is not in their interests. The Vote No campaign argues... 1) That Salix has promised much in the past-and not delivered... 2006 - "Everything will be planned to make sure that Salix homes meets the
Governments Decent Homes Standard by 2013 at the latest"
2010 - "We should be able to make all homes decent by 2015"
2012 - "We are confident of making all homes decent by 2016" 2) That if the transfer goes ahead people's tenancy will change - and the legal rights against eviction if they run into money problems will be weaker. 3) That if Salix becomes independent it will need to pay VAT - £130million - and that will come out of people's rent. 4) That Salix will need to borrow from the banks at higher rates than the Council - inevitably leading to higher rents and service charges. 5) That Salix is looking at ending security of tenure – or `homes for life' - and introducing income related tenancies. Which means that if a tenant's income goes up they could be made to leave their home. The ballot closes on November 3rd and over the next few days the Salford Star will be looking in detail at the transfer. In the meantime, see the Say No To The Salix Transfer Facebook group – click here
And also see the Defend Council Housing website – click here • The Salford Star has asked both Salix Homes and Salford Council for an interview about the ballot and about various claims being made. Salix passed the request to Salford Council and Salford Council hasn't responded. See also previous related Salford Star articles - click here and click here and click here
|
|
|
|
wrote
at 13:16:25 on 14 October 2014 |
|
|
| Is this where all the council housing gone?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/yacht-cannes-selling-homes-local-government-officials-mipim |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 11:28:31 on 14 October 2014 |
|
|
| It is difficult to see how Mr O'Neill reaches his conclusion when ,as a result of the calculation of Tenanted Market Value the Council's housing debt of around £65m is written off in the event of transfer. If the transfer does not happen then tenant's rents will have to pay off that sum - money that tenants would surely prefer to be spent on services Steve Sharples PS Consultants Salford ITA |
|
|
?
|
Joe Oenill wrote
at 06:33:09 on 14 October 2014 |
|
|
| Yes we know the ODPM was abolished but the example offers in reality what happens, the point the value of the homes is low at point of sale, again the people loose. The companies get a great deal and the average guy on the street is shafted |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 06:33:01 on 14 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, I find your comments in section 3 to be close to an act of liable. Please be careful what you quote about members of the general public. I have never hidden my views concerning Salix Homes, however for once, my comments are not conflicted by my own personal opinions, but by the opinions of the vulnerable tenants that have been, in the past, victimised and discriminated against by employees of Salix Homes. I would be happy to hand you a copy of every case I have dealt with and won for vulnerable tenants who were victimised and bullied by Salix Homes employees. And my comments are precise and clear for anyone above the age of eight years. Either you are making an attempt to destroy my credibility or you are ignorant to the behaviour of Salix Homes employees. Either way your comments are inappropriate and certainly show your lack of professionalism and understanding. I was not professionally attacking you, but explaining why some people do not want Salix Homes privatised. If you are offended by the facts, then please don't comment on the Salford Star. There are many comments from other concerned parties whom also relay their concerns about accountability once Salix Homes is privatised. You may also be interested to know, that a Salix Homes employee sent me some information by mistake yesterday, which the GMP are investigating as a serious Data Protection Breach by Salix Homes employees. It implies that the GMP have not done their job, thus leaving an adult in a property, which according to this email, could be endangering their life. I am awaiting a call from an inspector employed by the GMP, and have requested the professional assistance of the Salford Star via email, concerning this matter. I am aware of the severity of this email as I have already received three phone calls, from the GMP, concerning this very email. Needless to say, I now have some information, via email, that a member of the general public should not have. This email clearly shows that Salix Homes do not follow the current Data Protection/Legislation. I have now got a Salix Homes tenants email address, phone number, mail address, loads of direct numbers for the GMP, that should not have been disclosed to the general public, private email addresses of GMP officers, a ASB officer's personal mobile number, and some disturbing information about a decision that was made against a tenant who was assaulted, and may have been subjected to an attempt on their life, and are awaiting a decision concerning a Management Move. So yet again, I have to say " that I believe you are stating the correct housing and government legislation", "but I don't believe Salix Homes will follow it if they are privatised". Again this is a matter of "Ethics" not "Politics". |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 19:36:56 on 13 October 2014 |
|
|
| I am not entirely sure what point Mr O'Neill is making but I think he is trying to be helpful, although can I point that the 'Office of the Deputy Prime Minister' (ODPM) was abolished back in 2010.The current guidance on stock transfer is published by the Department Of Communities and Local Government. Tenanted Market Value for council home that are transferred to a housing association has been around since the first transfer in 1988. It is not a freehold valuation but essentially look at the total income an association will receive ( mainly from rents) over 30 years and subtracts from that total the costs of managing and maintaining them as social housing over that period. The residual figure can often result in a very low valuation per property or even a negative figure. But this method of valuation is the one insisted upon by governments since 1989. Neither the Council nor Salix are free to value the properties any other way. Steve Sharples PS Consultants Salford ITA |
|
|
?
|
joe oneill wrote
at 07:48:03 on 12 October 2014 |
|
|
| This gives you some idea on how they work out the value The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) specifies that the valuation of the stock for purchase by --------- should be based upon a “market value subject to tenancy” – tenanted market value or TMV. The calculation takes the values of the rental income streams over 30 years, deducts management and repairs expenditure and adjusts this to a net present value using a discount factor. The valuation reflects the fact that the new landlord acquires the property with sitting tenants, must bring it into a good state of repair and must continue to hold it as affordable social housing. 2 At ballot, the tenanted market value was estimated to be £15.8m for 6113 properties (£2,565 per unit)s No its not in Salford but it should offer some clue in to how the formula works, |
|
|
?
|
joe Oneill wrote
at 06:38:39 on 12 October 2014 |
|
|
| The agreements made are for a 30 year period. The agreements are cost neutral buy then rent but the building would after 30 years be the property of salix or whoever gets the units and of course the values set in no way match the value of the homes. |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 06:38:20 on 12 October 2014 |
|
|
| 1. Stephen, much as I might like to claim to be anyone's 'representative on earth' I am afraid that distinction has,sadly,passed me by(although I remain optimistic).So in reply to your question about the purchase price I suggest you consult the copy of the Business Case which you have clearly acquired and I am sure all will be revealed. 2 Mr Brough is wrong to claim that 'the City will receive the full market value of the properties'. The price Salix would pay to the Council would go4 back to the Government to set against the £65m or so debt write-off that the transfer would trigger. As I have previously pointed out that value is determined by a formula that calculates Tenanted Market Value not 'market value'. A Tenanted Market Valuation is always much lower then a hypothetical market value since it reflects that costs of managing, maintaining, and improving homes as social housing at least over the 30 year lifetime of the Business Plan 3. In all Mr Chakotai's comments it is difficult to separate out the substantive points he wants to make from his own very considerable antipathy to Salix. But on the question of whether the Council and Salix are bound to follow government guidelines and legislation, as a simple matter of law they are. This accounts for the very careful way they have gone about the process, and the nature of their communications with tenants - in marked contrast to their critics who are free to say whatever they wish however inaccurate, without any objective check.4. City West were one of the bidders to become the potential landlord ,but their bid was not judged to be as strong as that of Salix Steve Sharples PS Consultants Salford ITA |
|
|
?
|
Bernard Brough wrote
at 09:52:18 on 11 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dr Sharples, so the City will receive the full market value of all the properties? The main point is that privatisation has served nobody but the companies who make monumental profits off the back of ordinary people. As those who rent social housing tend to be at the lower end of the income scale yet again it will be the poorest being hit hardest by a political dogma that professes "private good public bad". The fact remains that these privatisations affect every person living in the City of Salford. As such every voter in the City should have the right to vote. |
|
|
?
|
Does labour care wrote
at 07:13:26 on 11 October 2014 |
|
|
| Why is city west not buying them, they seem more professional than Salix, the work salix are doing on the the council houses in my area is boardering on the incompetent, I know someone that they have put a frosted glass window in their kitchen now they carn't look at there back garden, absolut cowboys and they think his is exceptable. I'd also like to ask, how many labour councillors are making money out of this privatisation. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 07:13:09 on 11 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Mr Steve Sharples. Yet again, you are informing the general public and Salix tenants of what the government legislation states concerning the privatisation of council housing. Your stating what The Salford Council and Salix Homes should do, however what they will actually do will be completely different. Once again I feel myself being repetitive. Salix Homes has discriminated, bullied, violated the rights of many disabled/vulnerable adults whom reside within Salix Homes housing. The Equality and Human Rights, of these disabled/vulnerable Salix Homes tenants, has been breached 100's of times by Salix Homes employees. So I agree with what you state in principle, but I can assure you that The Salford Council and Salix Homes will not be adhering to any government legislation or guidelines. Therefore what you have quoted is just mere words. The Salford council and Salix Homes do not adhere to government legislation nor are they accountable for their actions. In conclusion, your statements are based on The Salford Council and Salix Homes sticking to the rules. In conclusion I will state what I have said dozens of times. "Do Salford Council/Salix Homes tenants want to allow Salix Homes to privatise and manage Salford Council Homes, when they are not capable of showing any compassion or humility towards those who have been deemed vulnerable by society"? It's a matter of "ethics, not politics" Dr. Steve Sharples. |
|
|
?
|
Salford Star wrote
at 19:28:12 on 10 October 2014 |
|
|
| See Steve Sharples' comment below.. Dare we ask how much the Council will get for the houses and what will happen to that money? Again, this is something we would like to ask the Council and Salix but neither will speak to us, so you will have to be their representative on earth... |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 19:24:29 on 10 October 2014 |
|
|
| Mr Brough's claim that Salford Council is'giving away council property' is not supported by the facts. If the homes are transferred Salix will need to pay for the homes. The price is determined by a formula set by the Government(the Council has no choice here) called 'Tenanted Market Value'. Moreover, a transfer would also wipe out the Council's housing debt(of around £65m).If transfer does not happen the Council will still have that debt and the capital (£65m) will have to be repaid along with interest (all of which would have to be paid for from council tenant rents). On the second point,should 'every voter get a choice', there are two points here ;first, the Government only permits council tenants to vote in the ballot ( not 'every voter') : second, the Housing Revenue Account (the council housing budget) has been a stand alone account since the 1988 Housing Act.There is no cross subsidy from the General Fund which all council tax payers pay in to, so the transfer of council homes is a matter for those whose rents pay for it i.e. council tenants Steve Sharples PS Consultants Salford ITA |
|
|
?
|
Bernard Brough wrote
at 10:59:42 on 10 October 2014 |
|
|
| It's all very simple really. Privatisation has been a disaster. Gas, electricity, water, transport we, the customers, are hammered with ever increasing prices. This next privatisation will mean higher rents and even lower standards of housing. Do not be taken in people, those with vested interests will tell you anything to keep the gravy train they ride on track. Furthermore as this is a case of the Council giving away council property shouldn't every voter have a say in what happens? |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 10:59:32 on 10 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr. Steve Sharples, you seem to miss the point completely each time. Once again may I reilliterate what I said in my previous comments. A minority of Salford Council tenants are not against privatisation, but are against having Salix Homes employees taking over their housing. There have been 1000's of complaints against Salix Homes, made by Tenants because of incompetence or inappropriate behaviour of their employees. This is a question you have still not answered in your comments. You just keep on waffling over and over again. As Trevor's said, "tenants want their landlord to be accountable for their actions". As I have already commented, I have defended vulnerable tenants against the inappropriate legal action, that Salix Homes took out against them. Salix Homes employees do no know the meaning of accountability and never will. They repeatedly abuse those who have been deemed vulnerable by society. This has to stop. It is for this reason I urge Salford Council Tenants to say "No" to the privatisation of Salix Homes. |
|
|
?
|
Prisoner Irlam wrote
at 07:44:15 on 10 October 2014 |
|
|
| Labour used to have principals , new labour are all gums and no teeth , they used to bang on anti privitisation sentiments , consecutive governments have failed to address the social housing hot potatoe , only time will judge!!!! |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 07:43:47 on 10 October 2014 |
|
|
| Trevor Jones raises an interesting point about accountability after stock transfer. It is an issue that has often been raised during transfer proposals, but the assumption that council ownership is intrinsically more democratic than housing association neglects some important points. First ; as legally incorporated organisations housing associations can have a legal structure in which its tenants are both members of the organisation itself , and members of the Board of the organisation. This is never the case with Councils, where only councillors are members of the organisation , and only councillors (or elected Mayors) may take decisions. In the case of the proposed transfer to Salix, the commitment is that Salix will become a mutual organisation. In a mutual organisation the ownership is vested in its members who will overwhelmingly be tenants (not a relatively small number of elected councillors). So tenants have the chance to play a very significant role in shaping the work of their landlord, as its owners, which council ownership does not grant. Second, many housing associations have charitable status, as would Salix. As Charities they have to account to the Charities Commission for operating within their charitable objectives. Council's don't have to operate in that way.So whilst Trevor Jones raises a perfectly valid point it should be acknowledged that 'accountability' can be achieved with other forms of ownership , although in different ways. |
|
|
?
|
Salford Star wrote
at 19:51:26 on 09 October 2014 |
|
|
| See Trevor's comment below - could not agree more - we've got an article on this very shortly. Cheers |
|
|
?
|
Trevor Jones wrote
at 19:50:08 on 09 October 2014 |
|
|
| For some people the arguments from the yes and no campaigns mean nothing. What some want is accountability, if the council own the housing stock then you can vote out your representative (aka your local Cllr) and or shame them in the local media. If Salix go it alone then they would be a law upon themselves with a few token Cllr mates on a non elected board sitting there raking in an allowance. Don't belive it? Just look at City west. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 11:10:51 on 09 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Steve Sharples. You have every right to have a different point of view and express your opinions. However you have no right to attack the Salford Star, stating that they are misleading the general public by printing articles that are not factual. Maybe you should have read my comment. You will see that some tenants agree with privatising Salford Council Housing, but do not want Salix Homes to be that private organisation. Salix Homes employees, are not capable of being professional nor efficient, thus leaving vulnerable adults in accommodation that is totally unsuitable. Salix Homes employees attack the disabled if they try to fight for their rights, and send them to court, using half baked evidence. Salix Homes is not the right organisation to take over Salford Council Housing. That is why I am voting no to the privatisation of Salix Homes. And before you call me a liar, I have all the evidence I need to back up these claims. So in future Steve Sharples, read all of the facts before expressing any more of your opinions. Yours Sincerely, Tahir Chakotai (Tenants Advocate) |
|
|
?
|
Salford Star wrote
at 10:08:25 on 09 October 2014 |
|
|
| See Steve Sharples' comment below...If you read the article it states that the points are arguments from the `No' campaign - not facts from the Salford Star. We do check our facts before making them public. It would help, of course, if Salix Homes or Salford Council would allow us to interview them about some of the claims from the `No' campaign. Unfortunately neither will speak to us, so as far as we're concerned they can both forever hold their piece (pun intended). |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 10:02:14 on 09 October 2014 |
|
|
| Whilst much of what the 'Salford Star'claims to be facts about the proposed transfer are often not the facts at all ,it is wholly to your credit that you will allow comments that challenge those statements a free expression on this web site. This is in marked contrast to Defend Council Housing(DCH) whose intolerance of any views other than their own, as anyone who has tried to utter a dissenting view at any of their meeting will testify,is very great.
But you share some common claims which need to be challenged :
1. The changes to security of tenure for council tenants has been a policy of the Coalition Government, not individual social landlords. Some landlords, including councils, have taken advantage of those changes to introduce 'fixed term tenancies'. Salford Council has not. And Salix has given a binding commitment in the Offer Document to give both existing and future tenants an assured non-shorthold tenancy which protects the principle of security of tenure, and which omits grounds for possession on rent arrears from those tenancies which many housing associations still possess. So tenant rights after transfer, should it happen, will not be weaker.
2. Housing Associations are indeed liable for VAT.But your figure of £130m (which I assume you have taken from the Councils' Business Case document) even if correct is for the 30 year lifetime of the Plan. It is also a gross figure i.e it takes no account of the VAT a housing association may claim back on the VAT that it has to pay in that 30 years. You also conveniently ignore the total net benefits that the Business Case sets out over the same 30 year period.
3. You assert,without evidence, that Salix will have to borrow from banks at higher rates than the Council. But what you don't say is that the Council's housing debt of some £65m is (and this is not common amongst councils) entirely private debt i.e. borrowed from banks. As part of its bid to the Council to become the preferred potential landlord , Salix had to present detailed evidence from banks that they would lend at rates for borrowing that would allow Salix to deliver all its promises ,and keep rents within the Government guidelines -which it did.
May I also point out that any information put out by the Council on transfer has to be checked and approved before it is released by legal advisers, and the Homes and Communities Agency. Claims made by DCH and the 'Salford Star' are checked by nobody except themselves. so you are free to say what you like, and make any claims that you like. In that case, you have a responsibility to check your facts. As I have acknowledged, the 'Salford Star' at least offers space to those who disagree with you to correct misinformation. But DCH never does - and tenants will draw their own conclusions as to why.
Steve Sharples PS Consultants Salford ITA |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 16:14:54 on 08 October 2014 |
|
|
| I believe that it would not be in the best interest of Salford Council tenants to vote "Yes" to this privatisation of Salix Homes. I am a currently a "Tenants Advocate", and a Salix Homes Tenant. If I put my personal opinions to one side, I still feel, in my opinion, that Salix Homes are the worst housing management company I have ever come across. I have worked as a Electrical Surveyor for two councils/ALMO's in the UK. I have watched and observed so much inappropriate behaviour recently, by Salix Homes employees. While defending a vulnerable adult in court, I was threatened with eviction, to stop me defending my client. There was no justification for their actions, and I have not received an apology. While defending some disabled tenants in 2007, I was subjected to a malicious email that was sent out to members of the public, by Salix Homes employees, which resulted in 8 physical assaults, over a period of 10 days. Salix Homes have never apologised, and until recently, never acknowledged responsibility. In 2011 I fought to have disabled tenants decanted while refurbishment work was undertaken at Canon Hussey Court. Salix Homes harrased me by initiating an Implied Licesnse Order, which stated that I had been to a Salix Homes office and showed aggression. This License was removed by Mrs Farrah Eshan, solicitor for the Salford Council Legal Team, and Mrs Liz Treacy who is head of the Salford Council Legal Team. Mrs Farrah Eshan apologised for the behaviour of their clients, Salix Homes, and stated, "They had no reason to believe, at the time, the evidence given by the ASB Manager (Anti Social Behaviour Team) of Salix Homes, had been falsified. In 2014 I was defending a vulnerable adult who resides on the Islington Estate. He was under a threat of eviction, because the Salix Homes senators whom resided below him, had stated he had a dangerous animal on the property, and was causing a noise nuisance. When I defended this individual in court, the judge stated "100 Salix Homes employees telling the same story, does not constitute the truth". The vulnerable adult in question agreed to a general undertaking as a good will gesture, and the matter was dismissed. In conclusion, the question that needs to be asked is "Do you really want Salix Homes to take over Salford Council Properties, when they are unable to show an ounce of decency or humility towards those who are deemed vulnerable by society?". |
|
|
?
|
Anthony Dowd wrote
at 16:14:43 on 08 October 2014 |
|
|
| Some of us are STILL waiting for Salford council to answer Freedom Of Information requests into the costs of the transfer.
Surprise, surprise, they LIED with the first response to me, and have not replied to the follow-up. :(
|
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
.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)
