 |
|
 |
| |
SALFORD COUNCIL `INDEPENDENT TENANT ADVISOR’ AND OTHERS TO GAIN £95,000 FROM SALIX TRANSFER `YES’ VOTE
|
|
Star date: 4th November 2014 DID SALFORD COUNCIL STOCK TRANSFER ITA HAVE FINANCIAL INTEREST IN YES VOTE? A Salford Council document released as the stock transfer ballot was closing yesterday reveals that PS Consultants, the `Independent Tenant Advisor' employed by Salford Council to advise Salix tenants on the transfer, lead advisor, PwC, and Anthony Collins Solicitors will gain £95,000 if a `Yes' vote is declared. A report to Salford Council's Cabinet discloses that City Mayor, Ian Stewart, intends to extend the three companies' contracts in the event of tenants agreeing to the transfer of Salford's social housing to Salix Homes. Full details here...
|
.jpg)
|
A document released yesterday, as the ballot was closing for tenants to decide whether they agreed to transfer Salford Council's housing stock to Salix Homes, reveals that three companies involved in the transfer will gain £95,000 from a `Yes' vote. The report to the Council's Cabinet for next week lists options in the event of different outcomes of the ballot... If a `No' vote is declared, contracts with the Independent Tenant Advisor, PS Consultants, the lead advisor, PwC, and the legal advisor, Anthony Collins Solicitors, "will now come to an end". However, in the event of a `Yes' vote Salford City Mayor Ian Stewart intends to extend their contracts. The report states... "In order to progress to the completion of the stock transfer the Council needs the
support of a number of expert consultants. These were initially appointed until the
end of December 2014 in line with an early stock transfer self-imposed deadline. The
contract of PwC as lead advisor, Anthony Collins Solicitors as legal advisor and PS
consultants as ITA will need to be extended to the completion of the transfer process. "The cost of these contract extensions will total £95,000" it adds "Therefore, the original stock transfer budget will need to increase to allow for this increase in costs." The extra money will come from the Council's Housing Revenue Account and the extension will be referred to the Procurement Board for a decision. While Salix Homes and Salford Council have refused to answer any questions on the stock transfer posed by the Salford Star, `Independent Tenants Advisor' Dr Steve Sharples of PS Consultants has been outspoken on the Star website comments section in relation to the transfer ballot process, accusing the Star of presenting `conspiracy theory' articles "light on journalism, long on polemic"... The question must be asked as to whether the three companies knew that their contracts would be extended in the event of a `Yes' vote. The Salford Star asked Dr Sharples of PS Consultants for a comment. So far, he has failed to respond... * The ballot on the transfer of Salford Council housing stock to Salix Homes closed yesterday 3rd November. Update 4th November 1:30pm: Almost 40% of Salford social housing tenants reject privatisation to Salix Homes http://salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=2482 Update 5th November: Dr Sharples has now responded.. “We were asked by Salford Council on October 15th 2014 to ‘maintain an ITA presence’ until March 2015, and to ensure that in so doing we stayed within the unspent portion of our budget. As I pointed out in my last post on your web site (Nov 4th) that figure is around £6,000. In other words, the request for us to remain as ITA was made almost three weeks before it was known that the ballot result was a ‘yes’ . We were also asked to indicate on that date what our work programme would be until March 2015. We have not to date responded to that request for the simple reason that the ITA role will clearly be different in the event of a ‘yes’ or a ‘no vote’. Had the vote been ‘no’ we expected to be asked to be part of the communication process to tenants to explain how the Council and Salix intended to proceed (for example on the delivery of the reduced investment programme over the next 5 years). But our role would have depended upon what Salix and the Council had agreed. Given that it is now a ‘yes’ vote I would expect the focus to be partly on working with the Your Home Your Say Customer Panel on future governance options for Salix (around ideas for a mutual model for example) and partly on general communication with all tenants on the timetable for transfer. The point is, the ‘financial’ interest we are accused of having was not dependent on a ‘yes’ vote. The unspent portion of the budget would have been equally available in the event of a ‘no vote’. So whilst our contract might have been ‘extended’, the clear understanding was that the original budget would not be” See also previous Salford Star articles on the ballot... • Are Salford Council and Salix Homes interfering in housing stock transfer ballot? - click here • £3.24million cost of transfer process – click here
|
|
|
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 16:55:33 on 07 November 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, I can assure you that there is no such guidelines or legislation that states "The Service Charge" is deemed as "Rent". The "Service Charge" doubled when "City West" took over "Council Housing" in 2008. Therefore your statement Dr Sharples is infactual and certainly does not answer my original question. Can you please enquire into the exact details surrounding "Service Charges Within Tower Blocks". If the "Service Charge" doubles, like "City West Properties", this most certainly would lead to a large amount of evictions, through "non payment of rent". Maybe this is something you should have mentioned when "The Salford Council Tenants" were voting. |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 05:08:33 on 07 November 2014 |
|
|
| We been asked to respond to queries about service charges. Our understanding is this: if charges are levied as part of the rent,and are seen as part of the rent 'envelope',then the guidelines on rent increases will apply.The Offer Document also says that 'there will be no service charges to pay for any of the planned improvements'. |
|
|
?
|
G McArthur wrote
at 12:49:42 on 06 November 2014 |
|
|
| The hard facts: With unemployment so high in Salford. The only people who will pay for this massive multi million pound expenditure will be the hard working taxpayer. * Those who are looking to get out of work will pay the price in higher rents. * Those who have worked hard to buy their homes will also pay the price in having to pay the price for the increased expenditure. * When all the money is spent. It is those Tenants and Leaseholders that will pay the ultimate price. Recently I have seen many £100s of millions of pounds been spent and wasted in Salford, Yet this continues. It is all going to end in disaster! Anybody can spend money. Saving it and earning it is the hardest. These left wing socialists seem to never learn or have a clue about the most basic fundamentals.
I can also only suggest a full independent investigation and action is taken in to why so much money and intent was carried out by Salford Council and Salix Homes as to why it was so biased and focused on a Yes vote. Particularly without highlighting the massive costs that will be passed o to the taxpayer. Particularly those hard working tenants and leaseholders in these Salford properties.
The spend and waste brigade are at it again. It's only going to cause misery and destroy people's lives in the end and it will have to be paid back over decades. Good luck to all you Salford tenants and Leaseholders. You are all going yo need it!
Good luck again - you are all going to need it! |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 17:14:52 on 05 November 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, you have mentioned that the rent will not significantly increase, but you, and council tenants have overlooked the "Service Charge" that certainly is not governed by any government legislation. The "Service Charge" of Council High Rise Properties forms part of the rent. Could you please respond to this enquiry, as I feel it has been purposely overlooked. Tahir Chakotai (Independent Tenants Advocate). |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 17:14:45 on 05 November 2014 |
|
|
| Not to sure why Mayor Stewart needs to extend the consultants contract subject to a yes vote. Surely the particular piece of work they were originally contracted for is now complete? Any other work would surely be viewed as a new contract and should be put to tender, shouldn't it? |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 12:02:10 on 05 November 2014 |
|
|
| I have said in a number of posts that from April 2015 the Government rent guidelines for all social housing landlords (housing associations and councils alike) are that rents should rise by up to the CPI measure of inflation (the lower of the two generally used measures of inflation) plus 1%.That measure would have applied in the event of a 'no'vote and the homes staying in council ownership and will apply equally when Salix becomes the landlord from April 2015.So rents will rise above inflation (by 1% per annum) irrespective of who is the landlord - as has been said by us and others throughout the whole process.The Government's intention is that this formula for rent increases will last until at least 2025. |
|
|
?
|
Prisoner Irlam wrote
at 10:22:30 on 05 November 2014 |
|
|
| Dr Sharples will Rents rise above the rate of inflation? |
|
|
?
|
Prisoner Irlam wrote
at 04:44:49 on 05 November 2014 |
|
|
| How Independant are the consultants plse can you answer the question for all Salford residents effected by the transfer of council housing stock . Can you guarantee rent will not rise above the rate of inflation , I am also disgusted at methods used in the due process;( |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 19:15:41 on 04 November 2014 |
|
|
| I have been away from the office for the last 24 hours and so have just seen this article.By mid November when we next invoice the Council for our work,the unspent balance on our contract will be around £6000 i.e it is underspent by that amount on the original indicative work programme.I can't speak for other consultants on how their budgets stand.We were originally scheduled to finish in May, but because the ballot was delayed the programme was extended. We have managed our work programme to stay within what was always an indicative programme for that extended period. It was indicative because neither we nor the Council were sure exactly what elements would be required .We have not agreed a further phase of work with the Council. If the Council wants us do further work, including using up that underspend, we are happy to do so. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 13:06:26 on 04 November 2014 |
|
|
| Well said Anthony Dowd :) |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 13:05:59 on 04 November 2014 |
|
|
| I , and my fellow Independent Tenant Advocates, had a great deal to say about Dr Sharples. Dr Sharples insisted Salix Homes rip the "No To Privatisation Posters" down, in all of its Council Owned tower blocks. This is obviously a breach of the Human Rights Act, as everyone has a right to "Free Speech". Then Dr Sharples justifies his actions using the law about fly postering which is just ludicrous, as Salix Homes kept their posters up within the tower blocks. Dr Sharples then starts to call everyone Infactual and biased, who commented on the Salford Star. Dr Sharples refused to answer any questions put to him, and belittled anyone who questioned his so called facts. Dr Sharples belittled a vulnerable adult (Mr Concerned), when he asked Dr Sharples to simplify his statistics. Dr Sharples was unable to simplify his facts which caused a great deal of stress, and confusion, to the Salix Homes Tenants, that were part of the Learning Disabled and Autistic community, which is an act of discrimination against the disabled, as he failed to make suitable adjustments to communicate with those who have mental disabilities. When challenged by the Salford Star, Dr Sharples refused to answer any of the proposed questions put to him. Dr Sharples then attacks the Salford Star, accusing the editor of being biased. Why have I mentioned this you ask? Because the ITA consultants are supposed to be neutral, and should not be enforcing the views of The Salford Council/Salix Homes. Dr Sharples should have informed the tenants of the risks and the positives of privatisation. However, Dr Sharples only commented on information passed by The Salford Council. To be neutral, one needs to hear both sides of the debate. Dr Sharples refused to do this. So by Dr Sharples own actions, we can presume that he was paid a large sum of money, by The Salford Council, to enforce the views of The Salford Council. Dr Sharples refused to comment about any questions put to him, by the Salford Council Tenants. Therefore Dr Sharples was being paid to bully Council Tenants at the tax payers expense. "fabulous". Of course Dr Sharples and his bunch of "Merry Fat Cats" have abused what should have been a "Democratic Vote". The vote, as I see it, is "Unlawful", as Dr Sharples, Salford Council, and Salix Homes have not followed any "Privatisation Legislation", and have simply bullied and mislead the Council Tenants of Salford, at the tax payers expense. Salford is truly in the grips of a "Dictatorship". |
|
|
?
|
Anthony Dowd wrote
at 12:02:09 on 04 November 2014 |
|
|
| What a shock - NOT :(
No wonder the so-called 'independent' advisors BEING PAID BY THE COUNCIL were in favour of a yes vote.
No vote = end of contract.
yes vote = PAYDAY + extension of their contract.
And, AFTER voting closes, we find ANOTHER £95,000 bill is to be added to the bill. That alone would pay for a lot of repairs.
The entire ballot has been a biased farce. It SHOULD be investigated urgently. |
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
.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)
