Where I Live RSS Feed


Wycombe council houses sell-off nears crunch vote


A PLAN to sell off more than 6,000 council houses has moved one step closer to a crunch vote on the issue.

Wycombe District Council is set to send out a formal proposal to its tenants, which gives them a month to respond with any comments.

The council wants tenants to vote through selling its 6,200 homes to Red Kite Community Housing – a 'tenant-led' housing association. The vote is expected in November or December.

A similar transfer in 2000 was rejected by most tenants and a 2004 poll found most were against a transfer from the council.

Jennie Ferrigno, a council tenant and chairman of Red Kite’s shadow board, said this proposal is different because it has been driven by tenants, not the council.

The council says the transfer will enable a massive improvement of homes, as it currently has to give about £11million of its rent income to central government.

Red Kite, a non-profit company, would get to keep this cash and would spend it on improving homes, said council housing chief Chris Watson. He has said the council is likely to receive less than £10million from the sale.

The transfer has cross-party support among councillors.

Campaign group Defend Council Housing has criticised the move, saying Red Kite will struggle to meet its promises over improvements and will be accountable to banks rather than the public.

The council stands to lose up to £1million in the event of a no vote (see link below).


Comments(11)

BigTommy says...
2:12pm Thu 2 Sep 10

As long as WDC make enough to be able to build a free stadium for their "friend", the multi-millionaire Steve Hayes.
~
IF the council manage to rake in the money from the sale of council houses AND the stadium gets the go-ahead, what the cost of the stadium rocket to 5, 6 or 7 million.
~
Have the BFP started investigating the connections between Hayes and local Councilors? Of course not!

miccles says...
2:19pm Thu 2 Sep 10

"Red Kite, a non-profit company, would get to keep this cash and would spend it on improving homes, said council housing chief Chris Watson."

Yes i'm sure they will, there is a big catch in this somewhere, or a big Rat lurking around.

Half to 3/4 of tenants get their rents paid for by the social anyway, as long as they get a free roof over their heads i don't think they are bothered.

STICK WITH WHO YOU KNOW.

Voyeur says...
5:16pm Thu 2 Sep 10

So this time it's "tenant led" is it?
.
I am sure the tenants said "We would like to pay more rent through a housing association than we do through the council".
.
I am sure they said"We don't want to be able to complain to our councillors when the housing provision is not up to scratch. We want the council housing to be owned and run by a third party which is less accountable to tenants and taxpayers".
.
What a coincidence, the tenants led view just happens to agree with the Cabinet Member for Housing's view.
.
I think I just saw a pig fly past my window!

The Judge says...
10:27pm Thu 2 Sep 10

THE JUDGE KNOWS THE TRUE FACTS.
THE FACT IS THAT THE LOCAL AUTHORITY (WHO YOU CLAIM COUNCIL TAX BENEFITS FROM) CANNOT RECOVER THIS MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT. A HOUSING ASSOCIATION CAN.
THATS THE SIMPLE FACT.
HOWEVER IF THIS USELESS EXCUSE FOR A LOCAL AUTHORITY HAD NOT LOST MILLIONS IN ICE BANK WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS MESS.
VOTE AGAINST TRANSFER.
LETS KEEP THE COUNCIL STOCK THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNCIL WHO HAVE STATUTORY RULES TO FORCE THEM TO PROVIDE HOMES TO THOSE MOST IN NEED.
JUDGE

The Judge says...
10:36pm Thu 2 Sep 10

The council says the transfer will enable a massive improvement of homes, as it currently has to give about £11million of its rent income to central government.
WHO SAID THIS?
GIVE US A NAME.
THE FACT IS THAT THE COUNCIL CANNOT CLAIM EITHER COUNCIL TAX OR RENT BENEFITS FROM THE GOVERNMENT BUT HAS TO SWALLOW THE BENEFITS - AND PROVIDE AND RENOVATE PROPERTY.
IF THIS IS WRONG THEN SOMEONE SAY SO....GO ON !!!
YOU SEE THE EFFECT OF A YES VOTE WILL BE CONTROL OF HOUSING BY A HOUSING ASSOCIATION WHO ARE NOT GOVERNED BY STRICT LAWS CONTAINED IN THE HOUSING ACT.
.BUT DONT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.....LOOK IT UP..... THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WILL CONTINUE TO OFFER NEW TENANTS A RIGHT TO BUY. A HOUSING ASSOCIATION WILL HIKE UP THE RENTS AND PLACE INCREASED FINANCIAL BURDENS ON NEW TENANTS CONTRARY TO THE ETHOS OF SOCIAL HOUSING.
TELL EM TO GET STUFFED - THE JUDGE TOLD YOU SO.....
JUDGE

J B Blackett says...
12:48pm Fri 3 Sep 10

Laws restricted councils' investment in housing, preventing them subsidising it from local taxes, but more importantly, council tenants were given the "right to buy" in the 1980s Housing Act offering a discount price on their council house. The Right to Buy Scheme allowed tenants to buy their home with a discount of up to 60% of the market price for houses and 70% for flats, depending on the time they had lived there. Councils were prevented from reinvesting the proceeds of these sales in new housing, and the total available stock, particularly of more desirable homes, declined.

The "right-to-buy" was popular with many former Labour voters and, although the Labour government of Tony Blair tightened the rules (reducing the maximum discount in areas of most housing need), it did not end the right-to-buy. Labour did relax the policy forbidding reinvestment of sales proceeds.

Some councils have now transferred their housing stock to not-for-profit housing associations, who are now also the providers of most new public sector housing. Elsewhere, referendums on changing ownership, in Birmingham for example, have been won by opponents of government policy.

The current position is that council housing is a more and more residualised and stigmatised sector, with the term 'council' increasingly used as a pejorative. Whereas in its early years, council housing was an acceptable option for much of the population, it is now increasingly an option only for those reliant on social security.
.
Taken from Wiki

Ewartwhatyoubulldoze says...
2:12pm Fri 3 Sep 10

Thanks JBB. I'm ready for my Specialist Subject questions now.
-
To help me with the GK round, could you look up the term "Scam" and post the wiki definition here too?

J B Blackett says...
2:26pm Fri 3 Sep 10

Don't be so uncharitable and/or cynical.
.
You should learn to trust and hold in high esteem your local scamcillors - as is their due.

Steve Totteridge Hill says...
10:37pm Mon 6 Sep 10

J B Blackett wrote:
Don't be so uncharitable and/or cynical. . You should learn to trust and hold in high esteem your local scamcillors - as is their due.
I think I did a little wee...

Paul_Burnham says...
1:35pm Sat 18 Sep 10

Government guidance on stock transfer (July 2009) states that "there are additional grounds for possession available to the new landlord that may be used against existing tenants, and these should be explained" in Offer Documents.

You lose something, if you vote to give up a secure council tenancy.

But in WDC’s draft Offer Document, we read, “Would Red Kite have more rights to obtain possession of my home? No.”

We think that the consultation is seriously faulty.

Many tenants are turning against the transfer "offer". Wycombe Defend Council Housing has produced a detailed Tenants' Report on the stock transfer proposal. It available from wycombe_dch@hotmail.
co.uk.

We can also be contacted on 07847 714 158.

Paul_Burnham says...
10:28pm Mon 27 Sep 10

Have a look at the ugly but somehow appropriate computer-generated ads that follow these housing news reports: “Evict a Tenant, Claim full rent arrears recover possession use Expert Lawyers, www.hewetts.co.uk”
, etc.


Orchard House sheltered housing in Spring Lane, Bourne End Orchard House sheltered housing in Spring Lane, Bourne End

Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses