| |
ARE SALIX HOMES AND SALFORD COUNCIL INTERFERING IN HOUSING STOCK TRANSFER BALLOT?
|
|
Star date: 17th October 2014 SALIX REMOVING `NO' LEAFLETS...COUNCIL SENDING OUT LETTERS TO TENANTS...NO PUBLIC DEBATE... IS THIS A FAIR BALLOT? In the run up to this month's ballot where tenants can vote `Yes' or `No' to the transfer of Salford Council houses to Salix Homes, a £1million campaign was launched in an effort to get people to agree to the privatisation. Now the ballot has started, Salix, in its own words, "must not try to persuade tenants to vote in any particular direction". However, people are angry that Salix has removed `No' campaign literature from its properties, while Salford Council has sent out letters to all tenants `correcting' information put out by those opposed to the privatisation. Is this ballot fair? Full details here...
|
.jpg)
click image to enlarge
|
An email sent to staff on behalf of Salix Homes Chief Executive, Sue Sutton, and seen by the Salford Star, clearly states that, until 3rd November when the voting on the transfer of Salford Council homes ends, staff are to refrain from trying to manipulate tenants to vote in favour of the privatisation. "During this time" she writes "we are limited in what we can say about the transfer and must not try to persuade tenants to vote in any particular direction." This despite Salix and Salford Council spending £1million on preparing the ground for the transfer to go ahead before the ballot, with associated glossy propaganda materials and staff touring estates urging a `Yes' vote to the privatisation of 8,500 publicly owned homes (see here). The Salford Star has no direct evidence of Salix staff trying to manipulate the vote since the ballot started, but certainly one tenant from Greyfriar Court has put a formal complaint into the company after Salix staff removed literature urging people to `Vote No'. "Over the past few weeks, officers have been removing Stock Transfer related notices from Greyfriar Court, I have raised this with department supervisors but the removals have continued" he wrote to Salix "Can you therefore advise why your staff feel the need to remove these items and who has instructed them to do so?" The reply from Salix was the lame excuse that "we have undertaken a review of all the common areas in our high rise accommodation, in relation to the information that is displayed both on walls and in the lift areas. As a result of that review I can confirm that all posters/notices and scheme specific information notices have been removed from walls and lifts in our high rise blocks...." ...To which the tenant responded: "The information and reasons being provided seemed rather fictional... It is however very disappointing that you have taken this stance when the detailed items caused no damage and the placing of notices has continued for months but has only attracted attention when they related to the 'Stock Transfer'... I would also add that my involvement with the issuing and displaying of these notices is solely due to the continued deteriorating standards and that from the start none of this would have been necessary if a good standard of service was provided..." Meanwhile, Salford Council has had no such qualms about its stance. On its official website giving details on how to vote, it has a `News' panel featuring quotes from Councillor Gena Merrett, Assistant Mayor for Housing and Environment, and Barbara Harper, chair of the Salix Homes Customer Senate, virtually begging for a `Yes' vote. Meanwhile, as well as putting a hopelessly biased film about the transfer on its site (see previous Salford Star article – click here), disgracefully, Salford Council, via Councillor Merrett, has even sent a letter out to every single Salix tenant contentiously `correcting' information contained in leaflets opposing the transfer given out by Salford Defend Council Housing. "They shouldn't have done that" says Tom Nolan, who, as a Salix tenant at Canon Hussey Court, is voting `No'. "I'm not furious about it, I expected something on this level from them" he explains, recalling how people were being phoned up at 8pm at night by Salix staff trying to manipulate a `Yes' vote. Needless to say, he doesn't believe the ballot process has been fair... "Salix has never once responded to people's request for an open debate" he says "They should have hired a hall or something and got tenants together to debate it, because lots of people might be manipulated by the glossy campaign and all the expense. Salford Defend Council Housing doesn't have the finance to fight them on that level. We did ask for a debate but they refused when we said we wanted the `No' people involved too." The so-called `Independent Panel' hasn't impressed Tom either..."I've had some in depth conversations with them and they only put the positives about the transfer...even the negatives they make positive!" he laughs. Salix Homes tenants have faced a barrage of propaganda and manipulation urging them to vote `Yes'. Set against this is the Salford Defend Council Housing campaign which is due to issue another leaflet before the ballot ends on 3rd November. It's catapults against financial giants. And the question has to be asked – Is this a fair contest?
* The Salford Star asked Salix Homes for a comment on interfering with the ballot. Salix didn't respond but passed the request to Salford City Council which didn't respond either. • See previous Salford Star articles... * £3.24million cost of ballot and transfer set up - click here * Salford Democracy at the Heart of No Vote for Salix Stock Transfer - click here
|
|
|
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 21:16:40 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| P.s the Safest way to vote is not by email, text ect. The safest way to vote, is by basic recorded delivery. It will be signed for and their is a tracking number. It will cost no more than £1.10. This is the only way you can be sure your vote has been sent and counted. I have sent my vote via post (recorded delivery). If you can afford this, I would recommend voting using this type of postal service. It's safe, secure, and certainly more efficient than an email, text, or phone call. "Good luck everyone". |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 21:16:17 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| I see Dr Sharples is still trying to get the last word, even though he stated four comments ago, that he was going to give me the last word. I also see he has used a variation of what I said in my previous comments, to reinvent my statement as his own. However for once I agree with him. All Council tenants should make their own judgements and come to their own conclusions. What is good for one tenant, may not be good for another. We are all people with the right to our own opinions. The only thing I would say to all council tenants is "Please Vote" it is the only way to ensure you get what you want, and need from a social housing provider. |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 12:32:51 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| Tenants can make their own judgements on all the posts set out below.The ballot closes on November 3rd. What is important now is that people exercise their right to vote. Whilst you may still have time to send off your postal ballot the safest way to ensure your vote is registered is to vote by text, phone, or on-line. You will need to quote your unique code which is on the front of the ballot paper. The telephone, text and on-line contact details are on the reverse of the ballot paper |
|
|
?
|
Gaynor Heaton wrote
at 06:45:03 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear "Wrote" you diatribe in answer to my Factual statements has massively brightened my day with it's sheer stupidity. I have Asperger's Syndrome a form of Autism and can only be Factual. I haven't made any "allegations" against City West Housing Trust, I have merely stated the FACTS. How City West treat me is as they treat everybody and so is NOT a matter only for Myself and City West to resolve. Once anybody had failed to pay the Under-Occupancy-Charge (Bedroom Tax) for only four weeks, letters were sent threatening Eviction. For most people affected by the Under-Occupancy-Charge it is eight weeks of non payment before it amounts to One actual Weeks Rent. These Statements are FACT. Regarding Tenure, there are a number of differences between Secure and Assured tenancies, including rules regarding Eviction. The City West Tenancy Agreement for tenants, issued after the transfer from Salford Council to City West, actually calls it a Periodic Assured Tenancy. I refused to sign City West's Tenancy agreement, since I understand Contract Law, and the Salford Council Tenancy agreement I have had for 15 years is a legally binding Contract, which cannot therefore be altered without my agreement. And you insane rant about Improvements actually confirms what I said. (Though I should perhaps have worded it more succinctly) You have confirmed that the Salford Council Document proposing the transfer to Salix clearly states that little more than half the amount of money will be spent on improvements if the vote is NO and that a lot less Properties will be improved if the Vote is NO. So, you ARE confirming that for a very large number of tenants NO IMPROVEMENTS will be done. Hence, the Document has (In my Opinion) been specifically designed to blackmail people into Voting YES with the proposal to improve more properties. But the amount that Salford Council are stating they will spend if the Vote is NO is only an artificial figure, as they could spend much more if they stopped wasting it on absurd projects including unlawfully giving money to the Rugby Stadium. And don't insult my intelligence by implying that they are from different Budgets, as it is the Council that sets the budgets. As to the Standards that should be Aspired to, Salix fail miserably. As I mentioned in response to another Article on the Salford Star. I personally viewed numbers 8 & 10 Alexander Gardens 3 months ago and was deeply concerned at the appalling state of both of them. Neither came even close to the “Decent Homes Standard”. It is completely inappropriate and unacceptable that the single glazed wooden windows in both these properties were not only rotten, but were insecure and had thick mould growing on them. Neither of the two Kitchens complied with the “Decent Homes Standard” either on Size or Layout, and with regards to the Electrical Sockets, there was an inadequate Number and they were Untested and clearly exceptionally old. I have also seen an alarming number of Documents from Salix which show a total disregard for the Law regarding disabled people and an intolerable disregard for Data-Protection. Some of these Documents have been sent to me personally regarding people I have tried to support against the inappropriate actions of Salix. So, please do not state it is only an allegation, it is FACT. |
|
|
?
|
Sharon Hooley wrote
at 16:05:21 on 28 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Steve Sharples, I would love to be able to live in world that you seem to be living. And it would most certainly be a far happier and less stressful one too. Since becoming disabled nearly 6 yrs ago now, my life has changed dramatically. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It's at this time in life when you've worked all your life and then lost your job due to the decreasing health, physical and mental problems that you would think that people in a 'Proffesional' career would act acordingly. Now please bare in mind that though I am going through a lot of stress due to the housing problems pressently, I am not in anyway deeming ALL Salix staff as bullys or inhuman. BUT.....there are FACTS AND EVIDENCE that the problems and situations that Mr Tahir Chakotai has put to you. These so called 'ALLEGED' cases have been proven facts which by calling them false means you are calling all those going through absolute hell as liers. I'm disgusted at the way vulnerable adults are being treated and if Salix homes get in it WILL be worse. There is no way that SALIX at present are ready to take over. They need to look at certain attitudes that exist within their establishment and probably re train those with basic humain attitudes and how to act accordingly. One person comes to mind, which is yourself Dr Steve Sharples, and you need to learn that quoting legislations is not going to clear problems.....answering questions does. That is how you simplify things to people who find it hard to understand. If I wanted to know the housing legislations I'd read it myself. The FACTS still remain Dr Steve Sharples, that the cases mentioned are no figment of our imaginations. As a Doctor, of whatever it is, you should be aware that commenting on something you are not prepared to look into then call it infactual is not very professional now is it. I sugest that to clear up all this nonsence is for you to do your job and answer the questions that have been put forward. We are all waiting....... |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 04:29:47 on 28 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear "Wrote", or Should I say, Dear Dr Sharples, I would have recommended that you stay clear of Mrs Gaynor Heaton. This time you have picked on the wrong person. Mrs Gaynor Heaton is one of the best Tenant Advocates there is in Salford. She has won more battles against the Salford Council than anyone I have every know. It is unlikely that she is not being factual. In fact, Mrs Gaynor Heaton is the most literal person, probably on this planet. In her comment, she has not used fancy legislation, but has kept her facts simple and precise. She is correct when she states that she was threatened with eviction, after being in one week of rent arrears. I have seen this document. Salix Homes did state that if they did not privatise council housing in Salford, they would find it harder to bring homes to a Decent Homes Standard. I think this is what Gaynor meant to say. The rent did rise when City West took over Council Housing, and there certainly has been an increase in evictions. I have also seen documents that support Mrs Gaynor Heaton's statements. Mrs Gaynor Heaton also mentions that City West have breached the current Data Protection Protocols/Guidelines by the forwarding of tenants information to a credit agency, without their knowledge or express permission. I have also seen the documents that support Mrs Gaynor Heaton's statement. So you can imagine "wrote" or should I say, "the ever egotistical Dr Sharples", that once again you are waffling statistics, which in this case are not factual what so ever and certainly are not relevant to the privatisation of the Salix Homes debate. Once again you are trying to bully and intimidate a member of the general public who is deemed vulnerable by society. What a lovely guy you are. "Not". What have I told you about intimidating people on the Salford Star. You really are a "Dictator". The only person acting superior is you. Mrs Gaynor Heaton has every right to express her opinions without fear of your cantankerous opinionated views that truly are a pile of useless statistics, which you admit in a previous article, you are unable to simplify. You obviously have not given me the last word, and your obviously incapable of keeping to your promises. After intimidating a vulnerable adult called Mr. Concerned, you have now went on to intimidate yet another disabled person, who has defended 100's of vulnerable adults, with little credit or thanks. You also wrote an intimidating statement concerning Mr. Concerned using an alias, however you have done the exactly the same thing. In the morning I will be contacting a solicitor as I believe your nonsensical outbursts and inappropriate behaviour is now a legal matter. I will also be investigating who your manager is, and reporting you to them, with a copy of your inappropriate and infactual comments from the Salford Star. So what we learnt is that those who are paid to support the privatisation of Salix Homes, actually ban "The right to free speech", "bombard you with nonsensical data and statistics", intimidate those who are vulnerable or call them liars", and "humiliate and belittle those who are disabled, and leave comments on the Salford Star". Is there now any doubt why we should now vote "no" to the privatisation of Salix Homes. Please carry on writing Dr. Sharples. The more you write, the more council tenants will vote "no" to the proposed plans to privatise Salix Homes. Carry on the good work Dr. Sharples. :) Lol :) |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 20:30:07 on 27 October 2014 |
|
|
| Gaynor Heaton's allegations against City West in respect of her rent account are a matter for her and them to resolve. In terms of the other arguments she makes 1.Both secure and assured non-shorthold tenancies give security of tenure. The truth is that evictions by housing associations for rent arrears actually fell from 9194 in 2005/6 to 6,591 in 2012/13. That figure represents 0.003% of all housing association tenancies. 2. No one has ever claimed that 'repairs and improvements won't be done'in the event transfer does not happen. That claim is entirely fabricated. Page 16 of the Offer Document clearly compares the number of improvements that can be dome with or without transfer.It shows,for example, that without transfer the council could improve 1875 bathrooms in the first 5 years compared to 3850 with transfer.In none of the 8 improvement categories is it claimed that the council would do no improvements, and Page 14 shows that in the event of retention the Council could spend £42m on improvements over the first 5 years (compared to £75m with Salix Homes). 3. The Decent Homes Standard was designed to a minimum housing quality standard not a standard of aspiration. it is significantly lower in what it requires than its equivalents in Scotland and Wales. Should Salford tenants be content with lower standards than their compatriots in Glasgow or Cardiff? 4. Rents for housing associations and councils are required by the Government(from April 1st 2015) to rise by no more than CPI + 1% - so rents will not rise quicker in the event of transfer. That is also a fabrication. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 20:28:50 on 27 October 2014 |
|
|
| Promises, Promises Dr. Sharples. You promised me the last word three comments ago. And still you keep trying to get the last word. Your not exactly a man of your word, are you? I am not superior, nor have I claimed to be. The only difference between me and you Dr. Sharples, is I like to back up my statements with hard facts. You just quote government legislation, which in your words, could be interpreted differently, if Salix Homes was privatised. Sorry if you feel that I am more superior than you are. I was not trying to be superior, I was trying to be factual and transparent concerning the risks of privatising Salford Council Housing. And for someone who is not allowed to comment on private council matters, you seem to be doing a fabulous job of doing the exact reverse, by stating to members of the public, that I am not factual. You also support the ripping down of "no posters" in council tower blocks. As stated before, this is not an act of democracy, but by blocking the right to free speech, your words have proved that the Salford Council/Salix Homes are indeed a bunch of "Dictators". In future may I recommend you stay away from the Salford Star and it's comments. The Salford Star is a news publication dedicated to represent the voice of the people. It should certainly not be used for council based propaganda. I really do hope my words have not fallen on deaf ears, and the Salford Council tenants vote "no" to the proposed privatisation of Salix Homes. |
|
|
?
|
Gaynor Heaton wrote
at 17:12:19 on 27 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dr Sharples is certainly very biased in his statements, and much of what he states can easily be proved erroneous. PLEASE VOTE NO to this transfer. If there is a YES Vote you will no longer be Secure Tenants only Assured Tenants. Evictions will be much sooner if you are in arrears. Rents will also go up to higher levels. Please do not be persuaded to vote YES because of under-hand and false statements that Repairs and Improvements won't be done if the vote is NO. ALL Landlords have to do repairs and bring properties up to a Decent Standard. You will have more grounds to get work done while the properties are under the Council than with a Housing Association. 14,000 Salford Council Homes were transferred to "City West Housing Trust" in 2008 and this included my own Property. I have been threatened with Legal Action and possible eviction for being less than ONE WEEK behind with my Rent, due to the absurd Under-Occupancy-Charge (Bedroom Tax) At all times City West were kept informed of my appeal, regarding the above, which I eventually won. But Dr Sharples statement that "Tenancy matter, are, rightly, confidential to the landlord (or managing agent)and the tenant" is laughable. City West Housing Trust has recently decided to pass on and share all Tenancy information including financial to Experian Credit Reference Agency. I am sure this is is a breach of the Data-Protection Act, but it would be easier to address the issue if the landlord was still the Council. VOTE NO! |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 17:12:13 on 27 October 2014 |
|
|
| Since Mr Chakotai clearly regard himself as superior to me in knowledge,judgement,and intellect I can't see that I can offer him anything useful in the way of further advice and information, and therefore it is sensible for me not to respond to any more of his posts. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 10:07:34 on 27 October 2014 |
|
|
| P.s. I happen to know who Mr. Concerned is, and he too is a vulnerable adult, who just wanted to know what privatisation is all about. He did not wish to insult you Dr. Sharples, but you have taken great delight in humiliating him. What kind of "professional man" insults a mentally a physical disabled person. This person obviously chooses to use an alias, because he worried about the consequences of making such a statement on the Salford Star. And you are incorrect about what you have stated. I am a qualified Electrical Design Engineer. I have two degree's. Many times I have had to describe detailed and complicated electrical systems to members of the general public. I do have the ability to simplify complex installations or procedures, as I did this for many years at BNFL. So when you say that you cannot simplify the legislation for those who have Learning Disabilities, your really saying you do not have the ability to simplify the facts. You have failed to answer my questions concerning discrimination, abuse, data protection breaches, interpretation of Housing Association Policies, and have failed to keep to your promise of allowing me to have the last word. Very very interesting Dr. Sharples. What an advertisement for trust. "Not". I am sure that when you comment, within the near future, on The Salford Star, no one will be reading or believing a word you say. Any professional man who belittles a member of the Learning Disabled community deserves to be ignored. I can state, that Mr. Concerned will now be voting "No" to the privatisation of Salix Homes. Well done Dr Steve Sharples. Another dissatisfied Salix Homes customer. Only a few more thousand to go. Carry on the good work. x x x x |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 10:07:29 on 27 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, I am not full of allegations. I brought up the discrimination case because it is supported by the Salford Star, and Councillor Dennett. Are you trying to say that these people are liars? You don't want to answer my questions because you are trying to mislead Salford Council Tenants. It's already been established that I am factual, if not a little literal. You are evasive. You don't want to comment on what I have said, or asked, because you know what I am saying is factual. There has been many Data Protection Breaches by Salix Homes. Salix Homes employees did discriminate against disabled people, stopping them from moving to appropriate properties. Salix Homes will not fulfil its promises to Salford Council Tenants once they are privatised. Salix Homes promised to have all their Salford Council Housing brought up to the Decent Homes standard by 2011, 2012, and 2013. They have failed to do this. What makes you think they will keep any of their promises once they are privatised? You are totally out of order Dr Sharples. Some of us like to use fact to make a case, unlike some professional bodies. Once again Dr Sharples, I am a Tenants Advocate. I have mental and physical disabilities. I help other vulnerable adults, when my health permits, not because of who their landlord is, but because I believe that vulnerable adults have the right to be free of inappropriate abuse, by their landlord. I do not get paid for this voluntary work, and rarely get thanked. You however get paid to ensure every Salford Council Tenant votes "yes" to Privitisation. And your quite happy to call the rest of us liars, if we disagree with what you say. I am not sure what you are a Doctor of, but I find your comments immature, unreliable, unsubstantiated, egotistical, and in some cases, mildly abusive. You are working for the opposition. You have already stated in many of your comments that the Salford Star is infactual. So why on earth do you post comments on the Salford Star? "Are you insane". I'd do however need to thank you Dr Sharples. Our comments have helped another 10 "Yes" tenants to now vote "No" to the Privitisation of Salix Homes. As stated before, the more you write, the more you convince people to vote "No". I also see that you are not a man of your word. I thought I was having the last word, according to your most recent comment. Even this agreement you cannot keep to. So why on earth should council tenants listen to you, when you cannot keep to your word? In future Dr Sharples, if you cannot comment on individual cases, don't comment at all, as you are either ignorant to all the facts, or you are making an attempt to mislead The Salford Council Tenants. As stated before, if I am a liar, then let's have a Public Debate concerning the Privatisation of Salix Homes, where individual tenants can present their evidence. If you are unable to arrange this, then stop calling tenants liars, as this is now becoming an act of liable. In other words Dr Sharples, "Put up", or "shut up". Kindest Regards, Independant Advocate, Mr. T.J. Chakotai |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 06:40:27 on 27 October 2014 |
|
|
| Our job as ITA is to give the best advice and information we can on the issue of the proposed stock transfer.It is not to comment on allegations about how Salix may or may not have dealt with individuals on disability or any other landlord/tenant issues.That is a matter between a tenant and Salix.We are not in a position to make an objective judgement of,or statements about matters on which we have no information,and over which we have no jurisdiction. Tenancy matter, are, rightly, confidential to the landlord (or managing agent)and the tenant. In posting on this site I have simply tried to point out that an allegation (of whatever nature) made by a tenant is simply that, an allegation, until the other side of the case is known,and an objective judgement can be made. But that is for others (e.g Salix, the Council, or a Court)to do.I realise that this is difficult to accept for those who can see no truth other than what they themselves believe and assert, but it is the case. I have also made no comment on this site to the effect that anyone's views on what someone using the pseudonym Mr Concerned calls 'privatisation, are 'wrong' and I invite him to show me where I have. What I have done is to set out my understanding of how grounds for possession actually work. I am sorry he seems to find this a statement of 'complicated rules' - but sticking to the facts often is. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 16:15:17 on 26 October 2014 |
|
|
| P.s. If anyone is unsure about the privatisation of Salix Homes, and do not know which way to vote, please copy and paste this link to your URL address box. This is the story Dr Sharples does not want you to see. http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=2457 |
|
|
?
|
Mr Concerned wrote
at 16:15:05 on 26 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Steve Sharples, can you please answer the following questions.
1. Why have you not answered TJ's questions concerning the discrimination of vulnerable adults, by Salix Homes employees?
2. What is TJ referring too when he says that Salix Homes are breaching Data Protection by the passing of a tenants information to an unknown third party?
3. T.J. states that there is no guarantee that Salix Homes will stick to any housing promises once privatised. How do you know TJ is wrong?
I find this privatisation a little confusing.
You say TJ is wrong, but you have not stated why.
I am sick of reading all these comments.
Please stop feeding us with complicated rules.
We just want to know the facts in a simple format, with some guarantees from Salix Homes.
From,
Mr Confused.
|
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 16:14:38 on 26 October 2014 |
|
|
| Thank you Dr Sharples, but by typing "you will give me the last word", is indeed a contradiction as you have had the last word. You could say that your staying in character. I see you have still not commented on the story, that the Salford Star wrote on the 15th of October, concerning the inappropriate way, Salix Homes employees, discriminate against the vulnerable, and leave them in properties that are totally unsuitable, which has been supported by Councillor Dennett. I also see Dr Sharples that you have not commented about the lack of Data Protection, and how Salix Homes employees are passing tenants information to a third party, without their consent or knowledge. (Contact Sue Sutton, CEO of Salix Homes, to confirm this information is factual). Surely it is important to convince Salford Council Tenants that everything the Salford Star types, and everything I am saying is rubbish, so they vote "Yes". I am aware your job depends upon it. It is very strange that you agree "No Posters" should be torn down, because you believe that everything that is being said is infactual. However you yourself have mislead the general public by not answering the questions put to you by council tenants. Instead you just waffle on and on about random housing legislation, which you agree, may be misinterpreted if Salix Homes gets privatised. (see your comment about Housing Associations). I will end by saying, if you wish to say I am infactual, why don't we set up a "Public Meeting", where the council tenants are present, and I can present my evidence and you can present yours. I will make sure that the national press gets involved. I'm sure the tenants of Salix Homes will be shocked when they hear how their landlord treats vulnerable adults. "I Dare You". If your not willing to have this enquiry then please stop calling me infactual, as this is something you have no evidence of. In other words "Put up, or shut up" Dr Sharples". |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 14:30:03 on 26 October 2014 |
|
|
| I am very happy to let Mr Chakotai have the last word(s) |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 06:01:32 on 26 October 2014 |
|
|
| Once again Dr Sharples, you have written something that may now be interpreted as an act of liable. This will be my last statement, so listen hard Dr Sharples. Let's start at the beginning of your comments. You start off by stating all the of the legislation surrounding the Privitisation of Salix Homes. Which I can say is factual. I then refer to an article, 15th of October, 2014, which was written about me, concerning how Salix Homes breached the Equality Act, by discriminating using age banding, instead of using the new housing guidelines/legislation. I then invited you to comment. You refused to do so. I then stated that even though your information is valid concerning the Privitisation of council housing, it is unlikely that Salix Homes will follow current housing legislation once it has been privatised. I then inform you that there are many vulnerable adults that are being discriminated against by Salix Homes. I then refer to my article once again, 15th of October, 2014. A Mrs Hooley then comments in this article to say she too lives within a Salix Property, however Salix Homes has failed to relocate her to an appropriate property, even though she is permantly in a wheel chair. You are asked to comment on this, however you refused Dr Sharples to comment concerning this matter. You then Dr Sharples waffle on about current Housing Association Policies. Again I state that although Salix Homes, once privatised, should adopt the current housing policies, it is unlikely that they will follow them. Again I refer to the news story printed by the Salford Star concerning the discrimination of vulnerable adults by Salix Homes employees. Again you fail to leave any comment concerning this. However Dr Sharples, you then persist in more waffle concerning possession of tenants properties, and state that I am not being factual. I then give you two cases I am currently working on. And now you have said these are made up cases. In conclusion Dr Sharples, you have failed to comment on the confirmed inappropriate behaviour of Salix Homes employees. One could say you were being evasive. You have failed to provide any explanation, via comments on the Salford Star, concerning the discrimination of vulnerable tenants, by Salix Homes employees. You have failed to answer any of my questions, and have persisted in waffling about current housing legislation, which has not informed council tenants of their rights, but has simply confused them even further. Then Dr Sharples, you drop yourself right in it. You state that although Housing Associations should stick to current housing legislation, they might be interpreting that legislation differently. I totally agree Dr Sharples. Therefore what I stated at the beginning, was indeed factual. I stated that "although your information was correct about current housing legislation", "I doubt Salix Homes would follow it when privatised". This could happen because Salix Homes would interpret the current housing legislation differently. Therefore if what you state about Housing Associations is true, then we can conclude that Salix Homes may also not stick to current housing legislation, and therefore all of your waffle, has been a waste of everybody's time. I would also like to state to Salix Tenants/members of the public, that I am a Tenants Advocate. When my health permits, I assist vulnerable tenants/adults which I do not get paid for. What I do for vulnerable adults has nothing to do with who their landlord is, and what my personal views are. My advocating skills are used to ensure every single vulnerable adult is defended against inappropriate abuse. However Dr. Sharples who claims he is an independent adviser for the Privitisation of Salix Homes, gets paid to ensure that Salix Homes tenants vote "Yes". Dr Sharples has spent his time telling everyone that is against Privitisation, that he is right, and everyone else is wrong. By his own actions, he could be defined as an "Independant Dictator". I would urge all the Salford Council tenants to investigate all the "Facts" concerning "Privitisation", good and bad, before deciding to vote. Dr Sharples is indeed stating the right housing legislation, however as he also stated, "this may be open to interpretation", therefore you may be risking your tenancy by voting "yes". However that vote is up to the Salford Council tenants, not me, and certainly not Dr Sharples. |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 18:23:58 on 25 October 2014 |
|
|
| What Mr Chakotai has not grasped is that anecdotal evidence claimed by him, and without any objective assessment of that evidence including the landlord's view of the matter, is not fact.T hose may be the facts of the case (although it seems to me to be unlikely) but that remains to be properly established. And at no point have I claimed that Ground 8 involves a period of '8 to 10 weeks' as even a brief glance at my posts below will show. The period for Ground 8 involves 8 weeks (or two months ,Mr Chakotai has invented the reference to 10 weeks for his own purposes. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 11:11:33 on 25 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, I am happy to explain theses two attempted evictions with yourself. The first one concerned a pensioner, who had been in hospital for approx three weeks. Her daughter had explained to St. Vincent's that her mother was in hospital, and she would pay the three weeks she owed, when her mother returned home. Within two days of that conversation a pensioner was threatened with eviction. Three weeks Dr Sharples, certainly not eight to ten weeks as you previously stated. The second case is obviously ongoing. A gentleman had been layed off from work due to the firm declaring itself bankrupt . This man was told that it would take up to six weeks for his housing benefit application to be processed. However Countour Housing felt it appropriate to start legal proceedings to gain possession. That is 6 weeks not 8 to 10 weeks, as you stated. Both of these tenants, who are with Housing Associations were threatened with eviction, even though neither had ever been in rent arrears before. Therefore once again Dr Sharples you have embarrassed yourself, by not only stating that I was not factual, but by also stating wrongly, the tenancy protocols used by Housing Associations. So thank you Dr Sharples, the more you type, the more Salix Homes tenants are made aware of the fact, that your information concerning Housing Associations, is currently not up to date. As stated previously, I certainly do not believe that you should be handing out advice to Salix Homes tenants concerning Privitisation, when you yourself, are not aware of all the facts. I would also appreciate if you did not state in writing that I am not factual. After a recent story printed by the Salford Star, (15th Of October), concerning Salix Homes and Discrimination, I think you will find that I am very factual, if not a little literal, and certainly do not mislead members of the public. I also noticed that you did not comment on this story. I wonder why that was? In future can you please ensure all your comments are factual, and do not mislead members of the public/Salix Homes Tenants. |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 14:43:56 on 24 October 2014 |
|
|
| I am happy to let people judge how much My Chakotai and I respectively know about grounds for possession. The fact is that in a conventional housing association tenancy (i.e. one not granted in the context of stock transfer, where an assured non-shorthold tenancy with preserved rights is created) there are normally three grounds for possession.Ground 8, which may have been the ground cited in a previous post about Contour allegedly moving to evict after a 'few weeks' of rent arrears only applies where rent is in arrears of at least 8 weeks. Ground 10 is equivalent to Ground 1 in the council secure tenancy. These grounds allow both council and housing association landlords to seek possession where rent lawfully due from the tenant was not paid. Whether either type of landlord moves for possession at an early or late stage under these grounds will depend upon a range of factors which will often include the past history of that rent account, whether the tenant has responded to contact from the landlord to discuss arrears, and so on. Without knowing the facts of any individual case , and anecdote reported purely from the point of view of the tenant as relayed by Mr Chakotai is not fact, it is impossible to make any judgement about how any landlord or managing agent has behaved. Ground 11 applies only to what I have called conventional housing associations, and allows them to seek possession where tenants are 'persistently behind' with rent lawfully due. How this is interpreted by a housing association will also depend on the type of factors in the tenant's rent account cited above. Mr Chakotai is entitled to place his own construction on the cases he refers to, but without any objective examination of those cases which places them in the context of how a tenant's rent account has generally been conducted, he is not entitled to use these assertions and anecdotes to place the interpretation he does on how Salix would proceed were transfer to happen. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 04:10:12 on 24 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, I am guessing that you are ignorant to how fellow housing associations deal with rent arrears. I am currently helping a tenant who is in rent arrears with St. Vincent's. This person was three weeks in rent arrears before St. Vincent's threatened court action, which would lead to his/her's eviction. Last month I helped a tenant who was in 5 weeks of rent arrears with Contour Housing. Coutour Housing were a week away from taking this individual to court, in order to seek possession. The list goes on. The majority of Housing Associations will threaten eviction after three weeks of rent arrears, and will start possession proceedings after being just 5 weeks in rent arrears. Therefore we can presume Dr Sharples that if Salix Homes is privatised, they will be adopting the same rent arrears/possession policies. Once again proving that the privatising of Salix Homes, will lead to more evictions of tenants on low incomes. I would say this is another reason Dr Sharples, why Salford Council tenants, should vote "No" to the Privitisation of Salix Homes. What is scary Dr Sharples, is that I seem to know more about Housing Associations and their tenancy policies, that you do. So the question that needs to be asked is "Should you be giving advise to Salford Council Tenants concerning the Privatisation Of Council Stock", "when you don't really know much about Private Housing Associations and their current Tenancy Management protocols"? |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 13:18:24 on 23 October 2014 |
|
|
| It is impossible to comment in an informed way about anecdotal claims about how any housing association are alleged to have treated a specific tenant in relation to rent arrears. But can I point out that if, for example, Contour took action under ground 8 of the grounds for possession that can only have been done once 2 months (not a 'few weeks) has elapsed following the non-payment of rent.In any case , and in the event of transfer,Salix has given a legal undertaking in the Offer Document not to use ground 8 (or ground 11) as a basis for eviction both for existing and future tenants. Steve Sharples PS Consultants Salford ITA |
|
|
?
|
Sarah wrote
at 05:23:41 on 22 October 2014 |
|
|
| I am a Salix Homes tenant of over years and I will be voting NO.
Someone I know in Contour Housing got an eviction notice served after a few weeks of missing their new rent charges. I recently got one too with Salix whilst waiting for housing benefit claim to go through, even though HB told me to wait AT LEAST 6 weeks before checking my claim. This didn't stop the threats and the worry coming.
I had a lot of false noise complaints by a drugged up paranoid neighbour a few years back- if it was a housing association back then, I'd be homeless now.
Don't be fooled by the propaganda, YOU WILL lose your rights if this transfer goes ahead! (Although I doubt the outcome will be anything but "yes" even if we all voted no...COWBOYS, THE LOT OF THEM!!) |
|
|
?
|
Prisoner Irlam wrote
at 05:22:39 on 22 October 2014 |
|
|
| John H what you may have forgotten it is that Labour Party that started the transfer of council housing to housing trusts years before the recession , labour is awash with Business people that don't give a toss about us working class apart from the Lowry paintings those types Drool over laughing at how us working class used to live ! That's the crying shame of it! |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 11:14:10 on 21 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear John H. I don't think anyone is cooking up any conspiracy about Salix Homes. They do discriminate against the disabled. See Salford Star Story, 15th of October, 2014. http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=2457 Since New Prospect changed to Salix Homes, vulnerable adults have been ignored, bullied, and intimidated. Therefore, in my opinion, and the opinion of many other vulnerable adults, Salix Homes has never tried their best at anything. This is not a conspiracy against Salix Homes, as there are facts to back this accusation up. I am getting sick to death of people defending a company that abused their tenants, and breaches their rights "To Free Speech". This has to stop. There needs to be some accountability. Once Salix Homes becomes privatised there will be no accountability whatsoever. How many more disabled and vulnerable tenants have to be bullied before someone takes notice? The most recent of Salix Homes inappropriate behaviour happened when a tenants personal information, concerning a possible attempted murder/assault, was sent to me, which constitutes a Data Protection breach. Salix Homes answer was to threaten me with legal action because I reported this breach to the ICO who governs Data Protection, and to the Salford Mayor. The same Data Protection Breach happened to me in 2007, where Salix Employees, passed a malicious email, concerning me, to members of the public. Because of Salix Homes inappropriate actions, I was beaten 8 times over ten days. I am a mentally and physically disabled person. This should not have happened to any tenant, and has had a huge negative impact on my life. Although Salix Homes stated they were responsible for this inappropriate act, they refuse to take legal action against the Salix Homes employees who were involved. So John H, I am not into making up conspiracies against Salix Homes. I prefer to use the hard facts. Salix Homes, and it's staff use the most disgusting and intimidating behaviour towards its more vulnerable tenants. They discriminate against vulnerable adults and stop them from moving to more appropriate properties, thus worsening their physical disabilities. They refuse to give their tenants a voice, thus acting as a "group of dictators". For this reason I believe that Salford Council tenants should vote "No" to the Privatisation of Salix Homes. Not because I am into conspiracies, but because it's the right thing to do. |
|
|
?
|
John H wrote
at 07:30:46 on 21 October 2014 |
|
|
| Why do so many people on here find conspiracy where there isn't one? Perhaps rather than Salix and the council trying to shaft us, they have just tried to do their best without much money. Perhaps they are as frustrated with the limitations imposed on them from above and just have to work within the system . The country is skint - where do people think Salix is going to magi c the money up from. Mr Cameron is not going to help us out if we vote no. I've done my own research and by and large housing association seem to do a not bad job. Tried to find out about these big rent rises - can't find em. I rather take my chances with Salix as an association and with money - rather than the council which is shutting things left right and centre. The cuts are just going to get worse. This is our get out of jail. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 07:30:36 on 21 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Bob Hamer, nobody disputes that there are problems within our Con-Dem government which has lead to the decision to privatise Salford Council Housing. I for one know that Privatisation unfortunately is inevitable. However I for one, do not want a bunch of people, who discriminate against the vulnerable and elderly, privately managing my property. So in my case, I more concerned about who is currently managing my property, and the fact they wish to privatise themselves. I think this bitter pill would have been easier to swallow, if the Salford Council had chose another Housing Association/ALMO other than Salix Homes, to take over Salford Council Housing. And the views/opinions expressed and written about by the Salford Star, amount to more than one or two tenant opinions. Most of us are against the privatisation of Salix Homes. This is a view expressed by the many, not the few. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 07:29:48 on 21 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, I totally disagree with your comment. My father is an invester and shareholder of The Peel Group. Although I never agree with him, I have picked up everything I need to know about current fire regulations in apartment/tower blocks concerning posters and pictures. I am the son of a major developer and you are blatantly misleading Salix Homes tenants. 1. Canon Hussey Court still has posters to vote "No" on the tenants notice boards. 2. Salix Homes has it's vote "Yes" posters on the tenants notice board. Therefore Mr. Sharples, are you suggesting that there is one set of rules for one tower block and another set of rules for neighbouring tower blocks? If that is the case then both you, and Salix Homes are discriminating against Salix Homes tenants. The fire regulations state distances and measurements concerning the hanging of posters and pictures within communal entrances of tower blocks. Other than fire regulations, there is no legal writ to state that tenants cannot hang posters on their own notice boards. Therefore what you have quoted is an internal policy of Salix Homes, and does not therefore constute a breach of housing policy, or a legal breach. In conclusion, if you are not enforcing a housing or legal guidelines/protocol, then both you and Salix Homes are in breach of "the right to free speech", which by the way, forms part of your Human Rights. A breach in Human Rights is deemed a Criminal Act. You may want to think about this before you pull down any further "No To Privitisation" posters. People have the right to view their opinions in an appropriate manner. Posters on a tenants notice board is a good way to express points of view from either party concerned in the Privitisation of Salix Homes. This is not fly postering.To disallow this act of free speech, using some flimsy, non legal fly poster internal policy, is completely inappropriate. Therefore your statement Dr Sharples gives me another reason to vote "No" to the Privitisation Of Salix Homes. I do not want my property run by a group of "Dictators" whom block my right to free speech, I want Salford Council Housing to be managed by responsible and mature adults, who care for the vulnerable and elderly, and do not discriminate against the weak and frail. |
|
|
?
|
Salford City Zen wrote
at 18:57:50 on 20 October 2014 |
|
|
| Thank you Dr Sharples (ITA for Salford City Council), for your comments. For the last 3 years Salix and their contractors have happily displayed numerous notices, on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, on the communal walls and in the lifts of High-rises (Newbank, Riverbank, Whitefriar, Blackfriar and Greyfriar)- regarding Pet Controls, Decent Homes Work, Health and Safety, monthly Lift Maintenance, even the Xmas Lottery for their Staff. As soon as the 1st 'NO VOTE' poster went up in my block it was removed. A resident replaced them, and they were removed again, replaced again and removed again. When Salix were challenged about Staff removing the posters, assurances were given that it was not Salix Staff. Emails now clearly show that Staff had been instructed to remove them - and only now, the other notices (Decent Homes, Health and Safety etc) are being removed! Please try to reinterpret these facts as a 'tolerant attitude' (from Salix) for the rest of us - as we are clearly not educated enough to hold INDEPENDENT opinions on the actions of Management and Staff in Salix Homes. |
|
|
?
|
Bob Hamer wrote
at 18:57:26 on 20 October 2014 |
|
|
| I have been reading your comment over the last few days concerning the Salix takeover. All I have seen is personal opinionation by people who are much more interested in the sound,(or look),of there own words rather than a clear unbiased estimation of what the takeover actualy will mean to local residents.
So...Here is my tuppenceworth in understandable terms.
IF YOU VOTE NO to the takeover.
Salix homes currently manage properties on behalf of the local Salford Labour Council. The local council has borrowed so much money over the last few years it can no longer afford to maintain the properties in question and cannot afford to repay the loans so cannot borrow any more money. The money it has had has been spent on rediculous schemes like new parks that no one visits, landscaping no one looks at, road signs no one sees and demolition work that didn't need to be done. It would be easier to just throw the responsibility of the properties on someone else, hense Salix.
But the fact is...Local government HAS to provide an acceptable level of housing for it's constituents no matter what it's current financial position is, as laid down by government guidelines. If Downing Street has to step in to resolve any crisis then it will. It has to. So..
IF YOU VOTE NO nothing much will change. You will NOT find yourself living in a derelict ruin with rats on your doorstep. Worst case senario is a bankrupt council being replaced by someone with brains. Thats your job next Local Election.
IF YOU VOTE YES to the takeover.
Salix homes currently manage and maintain Salford properties. JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB LATELY, does not mean they will continue when they become the property owners. Salix, just like the council did, intend to borrow millions of pounds to pay for the management and improvement of said properties. And just like the council, THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY IT BACK! Your rent payment will NOT cover the cost of the renovations, long term repair and management AND cover the cost of loan repayments! Salix are so willing to tell us how much they are going to spend to improve our housing, THEY DO NOT TELL US HOW THEY ARE GOING TO PAY THE MONEY BACK!
So...Over the short term we can expect home improvements and maintenance just like they promised. But as the money dwindles so will their enthusiasm. After 4 years we can expect rent rises that do NOT stay in line with the Housing Benefit allowance. People on benefits,(that accounts for 90 per cent in my street), will have to make a partial payment out of their unemployment or sickness allowance. Internal repair jobs will have to be charged for and no longer be free. External repairs will have huge waiting times. THIS HAS HAPPENED TO OTHER PRIVATISED COUNCIL OWNED AREAS so we should take note of similar takeovers in other parts of the country.
Having said all this, perhaps its better to get a cash injection now and worry about the long term effects later...
What do you think?..... |
|
|
?
|
Bob Hamer wrote
at 18:56:28 on 20 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Mr Steve Sharples..
Do you live in a Salford council flat?
If the answer is no, I cannot find any relevence to your comments nor any logical reason anyone else would. I suggest you take your soap box and stick it up your oh so educated bottom. |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 11:49:22 on 20 October 2014 |
|
|
| The information provided by Salford Council in respect of the proposed transfer has gone through a process of review and check by legal advisors, the Homes and Communities Agency,and the ITA, prior to its being issued. During the ballot period the Council is entitled, as the Government Guidelines published in 2013 make clear, to challenge what it judges to be false or mis-information. None of the material published by Defend Council Housing or those who generally share its views goes through any process of external check or review. The 'no' campaigners are free to make any claims they wish, however inaccurate and mis-leading,and to pass these claims off as 'fact'. The Council has no responsibility to allow such mis-information to be fly posted on walls by DCH or any one else in the form of posters.Our understanding,however, is that in the interests of allowing contrary views to be expressed in the properties it owns it has not removed 'no' posters from official notice boards, even though it is perfectly entitled to do so. It is ironic that those who tolerate no views about transfer other than their own, both DCH and individuals who support their views, try claim the moral high ground on the distribution of information |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 09:28:16 on 20 October 2014 |
|
|
| Nicely said Bill Pearson. You should definitely write a book. Best wishes from Tahir Chakotai. (Salford Independent Tenants Advocate).
|
|
|
?
|
John H wrote
at 09:27:47 on 20 October 2014 |
|
|
| Can we have a bit of balance here. Talk about agendas - this article is totally one sided. I think the crtitical line is "no direct evidence" so you then quote people who are clearly politically opposed to it. The whole piece seems to be based on the views of one or two people. In an ideal world I prefer to have my home owned and managed by the council, however, it is not ideal. The country is in a right mess, no money to put into the houses so we need to find a way to pay for them in years to come. We can't really blame Salford council or Salix for allthe world's problems even though some people on here want to. The people I have met from Salix just seem to want to do a good job for tenants. They don't want to pull a fast one, get one over on tenants or whatever else people on here want to think. Perhaps going with Salix is the better option if we still get money for our homes. Im still waiting to hear a strong case for voting no. |
|
|
?
|
bill pearson wrote
at 19:12:40 on 19 October 2014 |
|
|
| I was involved in the Rossendale stock transfer as a member of Bacup & Stacksteads TMO. We were promised that we and the other tenant organisations would continue as normal after transfer, some hope. After 13 tears plus we are still fighting for reinstatement.
The whole transfer was a sham, we went looking for a partner, found a good one then were conned out of selecting them so the CEO could get what she wanted complete control without any tenant involvement.
I could and maybe will write a book about the the whole nasty mess and name some of the co conspirators involved. As I have said before on this subject the tenants should go for a Co-op or something similar
Bill (david) Pearson Ex Ordsall & Pendleton resident |
|
|
?
|
rotten to the core wrote
at 19:12:29 on 19 October 2014 |
|
|
| If you look at the letter from the council the first point is still correct, Salix promised decent homes by 2013 and failed. The council say it must give accurate information and it has not changed the first point, so what you saying Merrett (si** c*w) the first point is true. |
|
|
?
|
Lewis Wilde wrote
at 13:53:24 on 19 October 2014 |
|
|
| The transfer of housing stock has been a long term plan by a Labour Council and nobody's kidding anybody here.
Democratic? U wish. More like the usual subtle political coersion, whether that be at Local Authority level or at the Local Tenant level. No suprise at all.
It will be a Yes vote of course because you wont stop a 15 year steam train.
As council Executives are inept at balancing the books or bringing any value to the Tax payer of Salford, Im in favour of handing it over to professionals myself, eventually. £75m is not a lot considering the number of homes which need refurb and im concerned that this value is not higher. I have worked for Social Housing Providers and I think we need better Private-sector professionals to manage our Housing Stock and Assets - not ex-council managers and executives looking after their positions and pensions.
As I see it, there will always be the lost and wasted money, whether that be private-sector 'fees' or PFI Contractors who
sometimes do a rubbish job, but there is nothing like the Public-sector mentality to spend our money without a care, and then write it off if required. 'Innovation Forum' comes to mind...
The idea of competition is valuable for the Tenants and Tax payers.
If management from SCC are brought to and stay at SALIX, then it will offer little value to anyone, other than an inevitable under-selling of what is
valuable to all of us. If we're going to do this, then we might as well do it properly I say. For the fees, we could buy investment skills from the City of London and management from a UK Blue-chip company. Just an idea. |
|
|
?
|
tom nolan wrote
at 16:43:32 on 18 October 2014 |
|
|
| for me it is not about the dismal way I and many others have been treated by Salix over the years but the end of council homes in Salford. There will be no umbrella for homeless people, your future grand children will no have council homes to turn to, and Salix being then private I can imagine looking at your financial background before letting out a property. If you are on benefits you can eventually get a council home, will Salix look at you if you are a risk on benefits and now with universal credit starting and tenants being responsible for paying there own rent I think maybe they will look at people in work 1st.+ if 100s of tenants on uv spend there rent on essential's like food for the kids electric etc or even drink drugs and rock and roll that will cause a massive shortfall in income for Salix so how will they make up that short fall. They can only put up rent and other charges to make up the difference to pay back the interest on the millions they are supposed to be borrowing. |
|
|
?
|
Salford City Zen wrote
at 06:21:00 on 18 October 2014 |
|
|
| The panel is made up of a FEW Salix Tenants, who do not necessarily represent the views of all tenants. Who elected these tenants to represent us? Were they hand picked by Salix? Other tenants who requested to be on the panel were ignored! AND HALF OF THE PANEL HAD TO STEP DOWN AS THEY WERE IN THE PFI AREA, AND NOT AFFECTED BY THE RESULT! |
|
|
?
|
DSALFORD wrote
at 06:20:55 on 18 October 2014 |
|
|
| I feel every tenant needs to ask themselves one specific question when making their voting choice
'Am I 100% Happy with the Standards currently provided by Salix Homes'
if not then VOTE NO and force the council to review the options.
It really should be noted that all this money being spent to persuade people to support the transfer would have been saved if the Service Standards were Good - I'm sure we would have welcomed and supported a professional organisation - unfortunately the standards continue to deteriorate, and the essential needs of tenants and residents continue to be ignored. |
|
|
?
|
Peter Tully Snr wrote
at 06:20:36 on 18 October 2014 |
|
|
| Salix are dirty rotten apples and should be composted with the horse manure that spouts from their mouths.
Vote NO to any selling off of your tenancy agreement. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 22:37:11 on 17 October 2014 |
|
|
| Once again I read a story which puts "Salix Homes" in a bad light. I am a mentally and physically disabled adult. The Salford Star printed a story on Wednesday concerning Salix Homes and how they discriminated and left me to rot in a property that is completely unsuitable for someone with my disabilities. Mr. Tom Nolan is right. Everything Salix Homes does is unfair, biased, and unprofessional. It's time Salford Council tenants woke up to the recent batch of Salix Homes propeganda, and "Vote No" to the privatisation, before it's too late. I am sure there are many reasons to "Vote No" to privatisation of council housing, but what is important is remember why we should not vote "Yes". Thanks to the Salford Star, council tenants now know that Salix Homes employees discriminate against the disabled, and mislead those who are vulnerable. They take innocent tenants to court, and threaten those who fight back against the inappropriate of Salix Homes staff. The refurbishment to their council blocks is comical to say the least, and they allow people to live in properties, for long periods of time, that fall way below the Decent Homes Standard. Is this truly what Salford Council Tenants want or need? |
|
|
?
|
Dipsticks wrote
at 22:36:25 on 17 October 2014 |
|
|
| The panel consist of SALIX tenenats ..so what's the problem they are working hard for the tenants.. Was this Vote YES.. You need to remember councillor Warmingsham former lead member for housing and on that caninat agreed to sell the homes off..sad state of affairs |
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
