Skip to main content

City Housing Liaison Board

I attended last Night's City Housing Liaison Board for half an hour. Last time I attended there was an attempt to exclude me from the meeting which resulted in 22 votes for me to remain and 8 votes for me to be expelled.

Last night, however, noone objected to me being there as an observer. It appears that a number of those members of the board who backed Labour when there was a move to exclude me no longer back the Labour Party.

The tenants and leaseholders are unhappy with the Labour Government reneging on their promise of a level playing field for social housing. They also refused to have a briefing from the Housing Department on the "Our Homes Appraisal".

They rightly take the view that they voted overwhelmingly against Stock Transfer and as a consequence the government should accept that.

They agree with us that wasting £1.6 Million on yet another consultation about Stock Options (The "our Homes Appraisal") is a waste of money that noone needs. They were, however, pleased by us sourcing the finance via the Performance Reward Grant rather than Housing Finance Revenue Account.

Housing Finance for Council Housing is quite complex. There is a separate account called the Housing Finance Revenue Account which handles the revenue and expenditure for Council Housing. This has a complex relationship with government who fund costs thorugh the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy. The subsidy basically pays 95% of the rents of tenants on housing benefit and pays all the interest on housing debt, but then taxes the tenants to the tune of £800 per property per year. The ODPM then provides a Major Repairs Allowance.

This arcane arrangement is the reason why many of the arguments relating to Stock Transfer are financially flawed. The council tenants do not actually pay the interest on the housing debt directly in any event. It is, therefore, irrelevant that any stock transfer would clear the debt.

There have been various schemes for housing. I always think the best way of looking at them is on a per property basis. This makes the figures much more comprehensible.

Castle Vale's Housing Action Trust involved a subsidy from central government of about £67,500 per property. Optima's ERCF which covers Lea Bank (aka Attwood Green) had a subsidy of around £17,000 per property. However, Stock Transfer actually took out about £4,000 per property.

Birmingham's big problem (and probably that of other big authorities) is overpaying for work and incompetent work being done. Financially the Housing Stock was not in such a bad state. The debt is actually relatively small compared to the number of properties (about 70,000 now) as being under £10,000.

The current estimate as to funds required for bringing the state of the homes up to "Decent Homes" standard is actually £165 Million (after rents received etc). This is under £3,000 per property.

The big problem with government is a failure to understand the real issues relating to housing. Policies are driven by ODPM in isolation of the realities and the civil servants are not held to account by the politicians.

Everyone gets tangled up in bureaucratic nonsense when the issue is actually quite straightforward generally. Keeping properties in a good state of repair is not that difficult.

In the mean time, however, we now are in a position where people in low paid work cannot afford to find anywhere to live close to their work. Labour look as if they wish to further undermine this situation in the future. Not a good idea.

I am doing my own bit of testing the costs of work. I have collected the costs of working on The Council House and have found the costs are silly. I am, therefore, going back to the basics and reviewing the invoices to find out what has been going on.


Peter Black said…
"The current estimate as to funds required for bringing the state of the homes up to "Decent Homes" standard is actually £165 Million (after rents received etc). This is under £3,000 per property."

Good grief, the estimate in Swansea is £300m or £21,000 per property. I know that the 'Decent Homes' Standard is not as exacting as Wales' Housing Quality Standard but either your homes are in an extraordinarly good condition or the surveys you are relying on are inadequate. If this is the true state of affairs then I do not know why the previous Administration went for stock transfer in the first place!
john said…
I bet a reasonable sum that they are vastly overestimating the costings. If you send me the 25 yr cash flow estimates for housing I shall have a look at them and see what the real figure is likely to be.

The officers in all authorities have a tendency to egg the pudding in the way in which they wish it to appear. They are giving up doing this in Birmingham.

Our headline figure at one stage was £1.2 Billion. I went into the detailed figures and it came down to about £400 million. With the new administration wanting to go for the 4th option it is now down to £165 Million.

It is always worth getting the cash flows because that allows you to compare like with like.
Peter Black said…
This is a task made more difficult by the fact that Swansea Council is a unitary authority created by a merger of the former City Council plus half of the former Lliw Valley Council in 1995. We have spent the last 10 years seeking to equalise rents and I suggest that getting usable cash flow figure for the time before 1995 would be very difficult.

As I said the Welsh Housing Quality Standard is very different to its English equivalent. It involves up-to-date bathrooms and kitchens for a start. It is therefore significantly more expensive to achieve. The Swansea figures are based on a comprehensive physical survey of a substantial proportion of the housing stock and seem to be fairly sound.
john said…
The forecast cash flow.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…