9:22am Wednesday 9th June 2010 in Where I Live By Oliver Evans
COUNCIL chiefs are spending almost £40,000 on a magazine branded ‘propaganda’ urging tenants to back a housing sell off.
Figures obtained by The Bucks Free Press show £37,675 will be spent on five issues of ‘Housing Transfer Matters’ by Wycombe District Council.
The glossy magazine is being delivered to about 7,000 tenants’ homes ahead of an October vote to sell off the homes.
Opponents of the sell off say the information provided is one-sided and does not present arguments against.
Yet a council chief said the magazine was vetted by outside bodies – and there were no negatives.
Three issues have been delivered so far, costing £7,535. Two more will be produced, bringing the total cost to £37,675.
It has come out of a £995,000 council pot being spent on the vote, which is proposing to sell the homes to a ‘tenant led’ housing association.
Paul Burnham, spokesman for the Defend Council Housing campaign, branded the magazine ‘propaganda’.
He said: “We want a level playing field of debate. Huge amounts of resources are being poured into just one point of view.”
The council says it cannot spend enough on homes as it has to hand half of its rent cash back to the Government. A housing association would keep all cash, it says.
But Mr Burnham said he was concerned about tenancy rights and ‘the fact that private funding will mean private interests dominate’ – and these were not featured.
The latest issue includes an article on a five year rent increase ‘guarantee’ and ‘frequently asked questions’ including the question: ‘transfer just sounds too good to be true?’ The March issue includes an interview with the chairman of a similar organisation in Watford who said moving away from the town’s council had led to a ‘real improvement’.
But the association, Watford Community Housing Trust, was only rated as good as the district council in March by the national Audit Commission spending watchdog, a rating of ‘fair’.
Yet Cllr Chris Watson said: “It is our job to ensure they are properly informed of all the options. It is factual information.”
The magazine says content is checked by the Homes and Communities Agency, ‘specialist lawyers’, the Tenant Services Authority and its independent tenants’ advisor, Solon, which is being paid by WDC.
Cllr Watson said of criticism of the magazine: “We are hard put to find any negatives. The biggest negative is probably a psychological one.”
A vote to transfer the homes to a regular housing association was defeated in 2000.
The £995,000 will be repaid only in the event of a yes vote from the new housing association, to be called Red Kite Community Housing.
Its board would include six tenants, one leaseholder, three council nominees and five independents.
Cllr Watson said he expected the council to get less than £10m if the homes are sold.
Click the links below to read the magazine and see more stories about the plan.
Comments(11)
michael healy
says...
11:30am Wed 9 Jun 10
sparky49
says...
11:37am Wed 9 Jun 10
katodeza
says...
2:48pm Wed 9 Jun 10
Catflap
says...
4:02pm Wed 9 Jun 10
tomcat
says...
7:37pm Wed 9 Jun 10
Voyeur
says...
6:22am Thu 10 Jun 10
jackyboy
says...
2:19pm Fri 11 Jun 10
sparky49
says...
11:01am Sat 12 Jun 10
jackyboy wrote:Jackyboy You are so lucky to have been able to buy your own property. It is small minded people like your self who are no better than the so called bad tenants. Oh how you wish you lived in SL7 without Social/Council tenants as neighbours, me thinks you are looking for utopia. It is a shame people like you stigmatise Social tenants in this way, the majority of us tenants look after our houses and gardens, if I am going to live here for 3 score and 10 then I want my house to be nice. An apology is due to the very many tenants who are not as you describe.
I am not living in social housing, but in an area with a mixture of council owned houses and houses that have been sold. I just hope that if the housing stock is sold off the housing associations will be harder on their tenants when it comes to anti-social behaviour and the way the properties are looked after. I have lived near a family for quite a few years that have caused endless misery and disturbance to their neighbours, including abuse and threats made to many of us.Many neighbours of this family have complained to the council/police, but no real action taken, to our frustration and dismay.
Now another of my neighbours have sold up and gone, due to the lifestyle and behaviour of a family that moved in to a council owned house that had been tenanted by a lady who loved her garden - now it looks like a rubbish dump, and totally uncared for, and the tenant and her visitors have screaming rows, have damaged cars and generally driven their neighbours out, from a home that they loved.
I just feel that these tenants are so lucky to have been given social housing, so why can't they behave in a more neighbourly way and take care of the properties and gardens with some pride and consideration for others? I know this letter may sound rather harsh, but it only comes after a long period of upsetting bahaviour, I would move if I could afford to!
sparky49
says...
11:09am Sat 12 Jun 10
jackyboy
says...
1:27pm Mon 14 Jun 10
Search for Jobs
Search Now »
Find the right person for you
Search Now »
Search for Homes
Search Now »
Search for Cars
Search Now »
Agniesca says...
10:04am Wed 9 Jun 10