 |
|
 |
| |
SALFORD COUNCIL HOUSING TRANSFER VOTE NEARS WITH RENT HIKES ON THE AGENDA
|
|
Star date: 29th October 2014 `SOCIAL RENT' OR `AFFORDABLE RENT' IF SALIX WINS TRANSFER VOTE? As tenants are urged to vote `Yes' or `No' to the privatisation of 8,500 Council homes in Salford by next Monday, November 3rd, there's still question marks over the future ethos of Salix Homes, the company that intends to take over the properties. A clue is given in the Business Plan which will see 120 properties that are currently `social rent' tenancies on the Beechfarm Estate in Swinton replaced by 106 `affordable rent' properties. `Affordable rent' is way more expensive than `social rent'. Full details here...
|
|
Last year, Salford Council produced a Tenancy Strategy report which set out its "guiding principles that should inform the policies of all registered providers with housing stock in Salford". One of these `principles' was that `social rent' - where "rents are usually significantly lower than market levels" - is preferable to the way more expensive `affordable rent', which is "offered by registered providers of social housing at up to 80% of the rent that would be charged if the property were let in the open market". The Council even added that it would block attempts to introduce `affordable rents' where it has "provided land at a value to support delivery or capital to assist the provision of social rent properties...these will not be converted to affordable rent". Presumably, all the land and houses that Salford Council would hand over to Salix Homes, if the ballot to privatise the houses goes in its favour next week, would be covered by this. Except that the very first section of Salford Council's Business Case, submitted to the ConDem Government, bigs up Salix's first project should it be successful – the ridding of 120 `social rent' homes to be replaced by 106 homes for the misleadingly named, more expensive `affordable rent'. Salix is planning to demolish over one quarter of properties on the Beechfarm Estate in Swinton where mining subsidence has meant `high level' damage to 147 of the 502 properties. Of the 147 houses to be bulldozed, 27 are owner occupied and 120 are social rent where residents have "restricted tenancy rights due to the condition of the properties". In place of the 120 `social rent' homes will be 106 of the more expensive `affordable rent' homes, with a further 80 houses for sale on the open market... The Council states in the Business Case... "The estate is extremely popular and Salix Homes do not have any voids on Beechfarm. For the right locations within the estate there is a good target market and property values can be maximised..." Salford people might well be asking `Since when was social housing about maximising property values?' And there's more... "As the estate is situated close to the motorway network and offering good public transport links to the city centre the location should attract young working professionals who are struggling to access the property ladder." Salford people might well be asking `Since when was social housing about attracting young working professionals?' The Council also states in the Business Case that the new homes for sale will be built for `just under £80,000' – but will `seek to achieve' between £90,000 and £110,000 in its prices. Salford people might well be asking `Since when was non-profit social housing about making profits?' Unsurprisingly, included in the risks for the Beechfarm project, "Potential resident opposition". Salford Star spoke to a few people on the estate recently but no-one seemed to know anything about the details of the plans...which will probably only become public knowledge after the ballot closes on November 3rd.
• Salford Star would have liked to have put these questions to both Salix Homes and Salford Council, however Salix is passing all questions over to Salford Council, and Salford Council refuses to respond to any Salford Star questions.
** This is Part 1 of a two part article: See Part 2 – Ideological attack on social housing – where we reveal that around one quarter of Labour councillors in Salford originally voted to oppose the stock transfer. Click here to read
|
|
|
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 07:00:23 on 31 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, I have read what you have typed, however you have contradicted yourself that many times, your comments have now become a humorous parody. You keep attacking the Salford Star's comments, however you have no supportive evidence to back those claims up. Where are these documents you keep referring to. I have a copy of some recently forwarded documents from the Salford Council concerning privatisation, and the statements you are making, are certainly not what is written within these Salford Council Proposals. If I stated that the sky is pink, because David Cameron has put it in a document, do you think anyone would believe me. The only way people would believe such a statement was made by David Cameron, is to see it for themselves. You have failed to present any written factual evidence to The Salford Star. Therefore why on earth should I take your word for anything. You get paid a great deal of taxpayers money, by Local Government, to assist The Salford Council, in the spreading of half truthful facts, to the Salford Council Tenants, in order to wrongly advise them to agree to privatisation, which will lead to higher rents, zero accountability, increased discrimination against vulnerable tenants, eviction, and forceful relocation. The Salford Star however gets paid nothing by the Tax Payers, gets called infactual and biased by you Dr Sharples, and gets a huge headache in the process. You have everything to gain Dr Sharples from the privatisation of Salix Homes, The editor of the Salford Star gains nothing from this decision. I know who I am believing Dr Sharples, and it's certainly not you. As stated many times before. All of your statements are ensuring more and more tenants vote "No" to the privatisation of Salford Council Homes. Once again, well done Dr Sharples". :) Lol :) |
|
|
?
|
Gaynor Heaton wrote
at 22:26:27 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, I Stated quite plainly that the Document I was quoting from is called "YOUR HOME YOUR SAY" Use the Following Link http://www.psconsultants.org.uk/salford/project.aspx
No Figures or Financial details are included in the aforementioned Document, BUT, it plainly states that Salford Council "does not expect to have the money to invest in Repairs and Improvements". THE FOLLOWING IS COPIED & PASTED FROM THE DOCUMENT. The Independent Tenant Adviser (ITA) PS Consultants has been appointed as The Independent Tenant Adviser (ITA) for council tenants and leaseholders in the Salix Homes managed areas of Salford by tenant representatives on The Your Home Your Say Customer Panel. As the Independant Tenant Adviser or ITA, our role is to explain to tenants:
what housing transfer will mean, how housing transfer might affect you and your family,
the things you need to think about, and
how the council will carry out the consultation with tenants once the government says it can do so.
We will give you information and advice on housing transfer independently from both the council as the current landlord (owner of your home) and Salix Homes as the proposed future or transfer landlord
Why is the council proposing Housing Transfer?
On 1 April 2012 the government introduced a new national system of financing council housing, called Self Financing and a debt cap restriction which limits the amount of money that all councils who own council housing are allowed to borrow each year.
This means that over the next 30 years, Salford City Council does not expect to have the money it will need to continue to:
Invest in repairing and maintaining council homes for rent when this work needs to be carried out to avoid repair work being delayed and becoming more costly to carry out because the repair problem gets worse.
Improve and maintain its homes at the government's minimum Decent Homes Standard and to maintain the housing service at its current standard of quality and performance.
Meet the growing aspirations of tenants for better standards of housing service delivery and quality of home and neighbourhood, and for more opportunities for customer involvement to shape what their landlord does. |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 17:28:17 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| Please read what I actually said. I pointed out that the no one has ever said the Council will not have any money to do repairs and improvements. The Offer Document says quite clearly that the Council will not have the money needed to improve ALL of the homes' (p.7). I also pointed out that the Council will indeed have £42m to spend on repairs and improvements over the next 5 years (not no money over that period). |
|
|
?
|
Gaynor Heaton wrote
at 16:19:35 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| I have read many Articles in the Salford Star over many Years and they are ALWAYS Factual. The Salford Star Published Articles about the Transfer from Salford Council Homes to City West Housing trust in 2008. They were correct on every point they made. Salford Council deliberately mislead the Tenants on many issues. I have kept all of the Documents so it is not an allegation it is easily and totally provable. Salford Council should get an award for their 'Specialist Subject' of telling the truth in HALF TRUTHS that end up NOTHING LIKE THE TRUTH.
Dr Sharples criticised me in an earlier Post because I mentioned that Salford Council have stated that they will not be able to Repair or Improve Properties if the vote is No. He was adamant that this had never been stated. THAT IS VERY STRANGE!
The Following is from their own Document called "YOUR HOME YOUR SAY":-
"Over the next 30 years, Salford City Council does not expect to have the money it will need to continue to:
Invest in repairing and maintaining council homes for rent when this work needs to be carried out to avoid repair work being delayed and becoming more costly to carry out because the repair problem gets worse.
Improve and maintain its homes at the government's minimum Decent Homes Standard and to maintain the housing service at its current standard of quality and performance.
So, Dr Sharples I was CORRECT. Perhaps you should read you OWN Documents. Alternatively Read THE SALFORD STAR, and stop believing you own NON-Independent Propaganda.
Whoever is the Landlord, Repairs and Improvements HAVE to be Done. The above Salford Council Statements were (As I said) made to unduly influence a YES Vote. That is UNLAWFUL.
|
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 16:19:31 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| Well its clear that somebody has to 'tell you how to do journalism' since as was said of the Bourbon Monarchy, you have clearly learned nothing and forgotten nothing. You present stories entirely in a way that supports whatever political argument you are making without any sense that there may be another side to the argument.There is nothing wrong with holding or expressing strong political views. There is everything wrong with calling this 'journalism'. Recognise it for what it is i.e. polemic |
|
|
?
|
Salford Star wrote
at 13:33:50 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| See Dr Sharples (wrote) comment below...Firstly, do not patronise us, telling us how to do journalism while ignoring the other media which has totally blanked the stock transfer vote, bar repeating the propaganda of Salix/Salford Council. Our articles are based on official documents, strategies, reports and data. Interpretation? Yes. How else, when those producing these official documents, strategies, reports and data won't open themselves to scrutiny by being interviewed? We do hope you don't twist your `independent' advice to tenants like you twist your comments on here... |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 13:33:32 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| Sorry, I think I missed out the e.mail ident on my last post (which is listed as 'Wrote' on 30/10/14) |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 13:23:49 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| 1. The Salford Star is part of long tradition of British popular journalism, holding what it sees as those in authority to account, that goes back in the UK to at least the 18thC.But the legitimacy and effectiveness or otherwise of that journalism has always been determined by its ability to separate fact from opinion or prejudice. Your approach in relation to both the Council and Salix Homes is to present every topic on which you have an interest through the prism of your own politics- which you confuse with presenting the facts. 2. How tenants vote is entirely a matter for them.At no point have we suggested which way they should vote. What we have done is to challenge what we see as information that is not correct or not complete.. We have done this internally with both Salix and the Council in commenting on the material they distribute to tenants before it is distributed.We can't do that with Defend Council Housing or the Salford Star, except via web site such as this, because you never subject what you propose to say to any form of advice, scrutiny, or comment from those who might not agree with you, before you publish. We understand that stock transfer generates strong views and emotions.But that isn't a justification for passing off opinions or interpretations as anything other than what they are. When you do that you move from journalism to polemic and those whom you accuse of not being willing to talk to you have every justification for doing so. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 13:23:19 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, for goodness sake please stop your barrage of statements, statistics and rants. Have you nothing better to do than pester the Salford Star readers. I am sick of you calling everyone infactual. I am sick of your nonsensical statistical waffle, which is pointless. You repeatedly contradict yourself. I'm sick of you trying to coheres tenants into voting "yes", to the privatisation of Salix Homes. You wrote a statement on the 17th of October, Salford Star Story, stating you were going to stop commenting, and allow the tenants to judge the facts for themselves. Obviously you are incapable of doing this. A man or woman, who tries to control their environment and the people around them, thus blocking the right to free will and speech is referred to as a "Dictator". This was a statement made by Churchill when referring to "Adolf Hitler". What you are doing is no more or less than what Churchill said about "Adolf Hitler". You are unable to let anyone other than yourself get the last word. You have to put down others, to enhance your infactual statistics. You blind and confuse tenants with promises, that you know Salix Homes won't keep too. You intimidate vulnerable adults when they ask you to simplify what you have said. (Mr Concerned). And you accuse the Salford Star of being biased, however the Salford Star seems to be publishing your comments, for everyone to read. What you state about the Salford Star is incredibly ridiculous. So if you do not like the Salford Star, why are you commenting? As I stated many times before, if you want all of us to believe you, then convince the Salford Council to allow a Public Debate, where we can all present our evidence, and allow the tenants to come to their own conclusions. In other words "Put Up", or "Shut Up". |
|
|
?
|
Steve wrote
at 07:59:57 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| Mr Sharples. The Star is merely reporting on the evidence it has on this issue. You are stating what you believe to be true without presenting any evidence. If you have evidence that supports what you say then you should be offering it to the public via Salford Star as it is the only media engaged thoroughly in this debate. Maybe then we can start seeing some transparency on this issue. However, you only need to read through the last eight years of articles on here to see that whatever great benefits Salford Council says it has planned for the public it very rarely happens or even turns out to be true. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 06:18:39 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| P.s. I'm aware that I may be going off topic, but if your disabled, and a "Salix Homes tenant", you may want to read this "Salford Star" article before you vote on the "Privatisation Of Salix Homes". The story concerns how Salix Homes discriminates against those who are disabled, and leaves them in properties that are totally unsuitable. The story is supported by Councillor Dennett and The Salford Star, however Dr. Steve Sharples states that he is doubtfull that anything featured within this story is factual. Why don't you decide. Here is the link to the article in question. http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=2457 |
|
|
?
|
Salford Star wrote
at 06:17:37 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| See Dr Sharples comment below...Do not twist facts please...You write "really do wonder why Salix or the Council won't talk to you, it might be good to reflect on your modus operandi in relation to this issue (and many others)"...Our `modus operandi', like all press, is to ask questions of Salix and the Council - which they refuse to answer and then call use `biased' or whatever. How's that a way to run a democratic local government/housing association? Don't tell us to `reflect' on how we do things! The only debate in Salford surrounding the ballot has been on this website - perhaps you would like it if everyone shut their gobs and just voted `Yes'. Time will tell if you are correct on your Poets Estate assumptions - but, in the absence of any official sourced information, all we have to go on are leaked documents - and this one does not mention anything about replacing the 120 social rent properties `like for like', especially given that most of these tenants are on `restrictive tenancies'. Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating - by which time you and your `independent' consultants will have gone from Salford, fat cheque in hand. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 05:55:14 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| The Salford Star can huff and puff as much as it wishes in its replies to my posts but the fact is that not only did you get the nature of the document you claim to have quoted from wrong, but your central claim is wrong too.The Business Case was required to be constructed around the Government's categories which call for a statement of the 'additional market homes' that would be built in the event of transfer.'Additional' here means just that, 186 homes on top of (i.e. 'as well as') what it refers to as the 120 properties that would be demolished and replaced.It does not commit itself to replacing a specific figure of 120 council(social rent)homes like for like because it can't know some 4 or 5 years ahead exactly how many existing tenants would actually want to return to the site.It may be all of them.It may be a much smaller number depending on what other properties Salix or other social landlords could offer over the next 4 or 5 years, or indeed whether some existing tenants might be in position to buy those new homes or rent the 'affordable' rent properties (and those higher rented properties built by councils in Greater Manchester over the last few years have not had demand problems).But the overarching idea you are trying to create that the Business Case means that market rent properties would displace or replace social rent ones is simply false. And incidentally, if you really do wonder why Salix or the Council won't talk to you, it might be good to reflect on your modus operandi in relation to this issue (and many others).But we as ITA's, on the other hand, are always happy to have a chat,and we don't hold grudges even when you say nasty things about us. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 21:44:50 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| I see Dr Sharples is calling "The Salford Star" infactual yet again.
Did I not inform you Dr Sharples that you are certainly not an Independent Adviser. You get payed via local government, and instructed by The Salford Council, to relay to the council tenants, complex facts and information, that is, to some extent factual, but at the same time does not constituted the full truth. Yet again Dr Sharples you are using complex facts and figures, which as you stated on the Salford Star Story, on the 17th of October 2014, you could not simplify for those with Learning Disabilities. (Mr. Concerned). However the Salford Star has managed to simplify the facts and figures, in such a way, those with a neurological or Neuro developmental disorders, can still understand them. Maybe you could learn a thing or two from the Salford Star. As Mrs Gaynor Heaton stated, "when City West took over Salford Council housing", "there was an increase in rent that was not consistent with inflation". Another key point is, is that if Salix Homes fail to run their private business/association "Efficiently and Professionally", they will be taken over by another Housing Association, who will have no obligation to fulfil the promises previously made to council tenants, by Salix Homes. If we combine what Dr Sharples stated on the 17th of October, Salford Star article, he states that "Salix Homes may", "like other Housing Associations", "interpret the housing legislation differently". In conclusion, although Dr Sharples statistics/legislation are not entirely inaccurate, they are open to interpretation. I have also noticed, that even the comments that agree with Dr Sharples statements, are also dismissed as infactual, by Dr Sharples. Once again Dr Sharples, I find myself repeating over and over again the same statement. "Dr Sharples agrees to the ripping down of "No Posters", by "Salix Homes employees", "thus stopping the right of a Democratic Vote", "and also breaches the current Human Rights Laws", "concerning "The right to free speech". "He "intimidates", "in writing", "against those who have learning disabilities", "belittles those who disagree with his statistics", and generally shows "no compassion or humility to those who have been discriminated against and/or abused by Salix Homes employees". "He also states that everyone is being infactual", but never really writes how he came to those decisions", and frequently tells everyone "they are misleading Salford Council Tenants". However those against the Privatisation of Salix Homes, have never ripped down "Yes To Privatisation Posters", and only back up their opinions with hard facts. So why on earth is Dr Sharples commenting on the Salford Star. If you read his comments on previous Salford Star news stories, he clearly does not speak the full truth, and contradicts himself repeatedly. I have voted "No", because I feel that the Privatisation Of Council Stock, is not in the best interests of Salford council tenants. That does not mean my decision is the right one, but it's the right decision for me. Neither I, nor Dr Sharples has the right to tell you how to vote. Vote for what you feel is right. Do note vote because Dr Sharples tells you your wrong. Let's make Salford a democracy once again. |
|
|
?
|
Salford Star wrote
at 20:42:25 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| See Dr Sharples comment below... perhaps we obtained a fake copy of the Business Case, doctored by the Council, but it doesn't state what you quote at all - it states: "It is anticipated that the new replacement homes will include a range of 1,2, 3 and 4 bed properties, constructed over a 5-year period as part of a phased demolition and replacement programme of the properties in the High category non-sustainable homes as well as a phased introduction of market sale properties..." etc. Meanwhile, the thing about the 300 was a direct question put to you, not an acceptance of the truth of that figure. And finally it's good that you at least recognise the move to `affordable' rather than `social rent' properties. PS If you're so close to this transfer business perhaps you could get a categorical quote from Salix or the Council stating that they are going to replace 120 social rent homes with 120 social rent homes, plus 186 affordable and market homes. Do this and we'll take you seriously. |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 20:25:31 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| 1. I think you need to read the document you managed to obtain more carefully (although I don't know which version you have seen).Under the heading the 'Strategic Case' there is a sub heading called 'Additional Market Homes'.In that subsection it says this 'The proposals for re-development are based on local needs and demand and it is anticipated that the new replacement homes will include a range of 1,2,3, and 4 bed properties. These homes will be constructed over a four year period following a phased demolition and replacement programme of 120 non-sustainable homes as well as the introduction of market sale properties'. Now I know things may have got mis-laid in your recent office move (and congratulations on that by the way) but surely it can't have included the ability to recognise the words'additional,'replacement',and the phrase'as well as'? In terms of the question you pose about numbers, the original piece accused the Business Case of reducing the social rent numbers affected by subsidence to zero(since you erroneously claimed these were going to be 'replaced' by market rent properties).You now seem to be complaining that the net result of re-development could be to build over 300 new homes.Which must therefore mean that you accept that the social rent properties will be replaced, since the total could only reach 300 or so if it did include the 120 social rent homes!. The eventual total may involve 300 homes, but it will depend on how many existing tenants and owners wish to go through the re-development programme (not all will I suspect).2. New homes built by all registered providers (councils and housing associations alike)under the regime introduced by the Coalition, and funded by the Affordable Housing Programme(AHP) are, whether we like it or not, required to charge affordable rents. Salix would charge affordable rents for those properties it built that are additional to the replacement social rent homes, even though they could be funded outside the AHP,because its Business Plan (not the Business Case please note)is predicated on that assumption. In doing this it is simply doing the same as councils and housing associations across England who can only afford to fund new build social housing on those terms - and which, therefore, is why the term 'affordable' is in the Business Case. |
|
|
?
|
Salford Star wrote
at 16:20:50 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| See Dr Sharples’ comments below... sorry to spoil your pro-transfer comment with some facts but here are some anyway... 1. The document nowhere states that the replacement of 147 bulldozed properties with 106 `affordable rent’ and 80 market sale homes are `additional’ to 120 re-built social rent houses that are being demolished. What it does say is that the 186 homes are a `re-provision’, and that the 147 homes “are assumed to be demolished under the HRA retention case, so the full 186 new homes are ‘additional’...`additional’ in inverted comas. Otherwise they would be building over 300 houses. Could you show us where it states this? 2. We know all about social rents and we know about affordable rents... as you state, `existing homes’ will still be let at social rent, but these are new homes at the more expensive `affordable rent’. Why would the document state `affordable rent’ if it didn’t mean it? 3. Yep, we hold our hands up and got the wrong name of the document and will change it. Now can you hold your hands up and say that there ain’t going to be over 300 houses replacing 147 on the Estate? For an `independent advisor’ you are totally not independent in our eyes. You’re just doing the dirty work for Salford Council and Salix who won’t speak to us. |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 16:20:06 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| I am sorry to offer some facts to spoil the Star's latest anti-transfer story, but here are some anyway.1.The document from which you seem to be quoting is not the Salix Homes Business Plan, as you claim, but the Council's Business Case to Government for permission to proceed to ballot. They are different documents. 2. The word you have carefully not used in your article is 'additional'. The Business Case talks about potentially 106 'additional market homes' (plus 80 for market sale)not as replacements for existing council (social rent) homes but in addition to replacing those homes.As the document clearly states 'so the full new 186 homes are additional'.3.Salix as a registered provider would be subject to exactly the same Government guidelines on rent as the Council in the event the homes don't transfer. In either case existing social rents may not increase (from April 2015) by more than CPI + 1% per year for the next 10 years.The term 'affordable rents' was originally coined by the Government in the context of both council and housing associations bidding in to its Affordable Housing Programme for funds to build new homes - but all existing homes are subject to those guidelines, with or without transfer, and will remain let at social rents. |
|
|
?
|
Anthony Dowd wrote
at 12:33:41 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| YET AGAIN tenants will be the losers if they vote yes to the giveaway by the council to salix.
As can be seen PROFITABILITY is the main objective NOT tenants.
AND, information is being withheld until AFTER the ballot.
What about the Freedom Of Information requests that are outstanding?
Such a shame that ian stewart and his 13 mini-mayors treat Salford residents with such contempt.
VOTE NO - STAY SAFE |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 12:33:23 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| Utterly disgusting what this council housing transfer entails. I have been writing about concerns on the Salford Star Story dated the 17th of October 2014. A Dr Sharples who works as a PS consultant for the Salford Council ITA group called everyone who commented infactual and stated that there would be no rent increases if the transfer goes ahead. However a Mrs Gaynor Heaton, who is a City West tenant, confirmed that there would be rent increases, and the transfer would lead to more evictions. This has been the case when council homes were taken over by City West. Yet again Dr Sharples who is supposed to be an Independant Adviser, called Mrs Heaton infactual and implied she was exaggerating. Surely there is enough evidence out there to support that The Privitisation Of Salford Council Housing, is a very bad idea. |
|
|
?
|
stef sistar wrote
at 09:25:07 on 29 October 2014 |
|
|
| I feel for this community - they are going to be robbed of all their security (legal, emotional, physical and phycological). Why does SSC want secure tenants out and bank rolled, high risk HA in? They say 'not for profit' but many HA make large 'surpluses'. They dont necessarily build more social housing stock with surplus either. Stock transfer tenants from all over the UK are now fighting rent increases - I was told by one of them "Its easier to fight transfer than it is to fight rent increases". Check out Salford Defend Council Housing Face Book page for more horror stories faced by tenants already transfered public homes into private interests. |
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
.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)
