Rent consultation was a waste of cash
‘Ring in the new year with a new attitude’ I said to myself.
Well . . . it was a very generous rum and cola! But anyway – here goes . . . Well done to So . . . . . . .
(You can do this Bob – Ed) Well done to South Ayrshir . . . . (That’s it Bob! Keep going! – Ed) Well done to South Ayrshire Council for choosing the LOWEST of their three options for council house rent increases.
(Large rums all round! – Ed)
Yes – I’d have preferred if their three proposed rent rises – a) 1.5% b) 1.75% and c) 2.0% had included an additional option d) . . . no increase at all! But hey – in the midst of a global pandemic, with one of our countrymen tragically dying on average every 30 minutes, record unemployment, record economic uncertainty, hospitals full, High Streets empty and our national borders closed . . . I suppose a rent freeze for a year just wasn’t appropriate.
Anyway, I guess that rum and cola must be wearing off . . . because SAC’s own report on rent setting makes very sobering reading.
One word that’s proudly peppered throughout the entire document is “consultation”.
So, let’s have a peek at the numbers.
What percentage of council house leaseholders responded to SAC’s request for voting preferences?
Maybe 80 per cent? At least 60 per cent? Come on - surely anything less than 50 per cent would make the whole “consultation” virtually meaningless?
Well . . .the correct answer is . . . 4.7 per cent!
It’s almost beyond risible.
Will SAC name the person responsible for a £25,000+ “consultation” that resulted in an absurd 4.7% response?
A few weeks ago, councillor Phil Saxton wrote an Olympic-sized letter to the editor in defence of SAC’s housing department.
Phil, this time, just an initial and surname will do fine, thanks!
And the next time SAC wants to canvas the opinion of 367 council house tenants – give me a call.
I’ll buy a clipboard, spend a Saturday morning in Tesco’s car park . . . and do it for half the price!
(I knew this conciliatory thing wouldn’t last! – Ed)
Er . . sorry boss . . but I’m not quite finished yet. Let’s have a wee peek at the numbers who were actually ‘consulted’. According to its November ‘Newsletter’ – SAC is the proud owner of 8155 council houses.
But according to this week’s report – only 7783 houses were . . er . . “consulted”.
That leaves a gap of 372 properties . . . which, unbelievably, is ten MORE than actually responded!
We can only assume that the 372 are untenanted or uninhabitable – and include the 150 now lying empty at the Riverside “High Flats”.
With a housing waiting list approaching 4000, why has SAC got homes – for almost ten per cent of them – not in use?
And at an average rent of £70 weekly – these seemingly invisible houses are losing the council tax payer £26,000 a week – that’s £1.3 million a year!
And what does £1.3 million look like? Well, it would cover the cost of that 1.5% rent increase - for the next six years!
So yes, a big well done to SAC. In a survey that nobody bothered about – the few that did bother voted for the lowest possible rent increase.
Just fancy that! My final word in this momentous moment in SAC housing history goes to councillor Brian McGinley – who got all in a Twitter this week about Mrs Thatcher’s sale of council houses.
“It was a disgraceful policy. Good solid houses lost to future generations,” he twatted.
Surely – this can’t be the same Brian McGinley, the vehement supporter of bulldozing 234 “good, solid houses” - aka the Riverside Place ‘High Flats’ – and losing them to future generations?
It surely is!