Discussion
RIGHT PLACE ? if not feel free to move .
Any experts on FOI know how far down the chain this goes. e.g. recently LA messed up annual notification of rent increase and rapidly sent out another one. I've raised questions on how and who's paying over a month ago with no reply. Wondering if FOI request would work .
Any experts on FOI know how far down the chain this goes. e.g. recently LA messed up annual notification of rent increase and rapidly sent out another one. I've raised questions on how and who's paying over a month ago with no reply. Wondering if FOI request would work .
How they messed up the rent increase? Easily done given the somewhat complicated rent convergence formulas used to calculate annual uplift. Actually the formula's not that complicated, but Excel issues can arise when you apply it to tens of thousands of tenants
Cost to correct should be pretty easy to calculate. It's mainly going to be:
3 hours of rent accountant time
Number of tenancies x £1 printing/posting costs
Will FOI request work? Can't see why not.
Cost to correct should be pretty easy to calculate. It's mainly going to be:
3 hours of rent accountant time
Number of tenancies x £1 printing/posting costs
Will FOI request work? Can't see why not.
Sounds as if it's been misread, or I'm not clear enough.
This year, Tenants ( number unknown, but possibly all) got a letter ,which was a copy of the previous years letter, showing no rent increase. Week letter second one with correct rent, and big bold statement saying to ignore first one.
So- how much did this cock up cost the LA, who's paying for it( LA--I doubt it/ Tenants ,who didn'tmake the cock up/ Council tax payers ?)
I've asked, but yet no reply, hence why I ask if the matter is covered by FOI?
This year, Tenants ( number unknown, but possibly all) got a letter ,which was a copy of the previous years letter, showing no rent increase. Week letter second one with correct rent, and big bold statement saying to ignore first one.
So- how much did this cock up cost the LA, who's paying for it( LA--I doubt it/ Tenants ,who didn'tmake the cock up/ Council tax payers ?)
I've asked, but yet no reply, hence why I ask if the matter is covered by FOI?
It sounds like you are in one of the few remaining Council areas who still own their council housing stock.
How can a cock-up like this occur? Simple. Somebody pressed the wrong key on a computer keyboard and didn't notice it. That led to a few thousand incorrect letters being printed and sent out to tenants. So the cost is the printing of the letters (if we are talking as much as a penny each I'd be surprised) plus the cost of postage which will be at a reduced rate from standard because it is a bulk load.
After the letters were sent out, somebody spots the cock up and puts it right. Well, one letter would have been sent to tenants anyway about this so its only the first letter and postage that will be an additional cost.
Housing Revenue Account will be ring-fenced to prevent cross-subsidisation. The costs of the cock-up will therefore be part of the expenses of running the Housing Department. Even if it were only a small local authority then the cost of this will be the financial equivalent of a fart in a thunderstorm
The words "sledgehammer" and "nut" spring to mind. Perhaps you should find something worth getting steamed up about to get steamed up about
How can a cock-up like this occur? Simple. Somebody pressed the wrong key on a computer keyboard and didn't notice it. That led to a few thousand incorrect letters being printed and sent out to tenants. So the cost is the printing of the letters (if we are talking as much as a penny each I'd be surprised) plus the cost of postage which will be at a reduced rate from standard because it is a bulk load.
After the letters were sent out, somebody spots the cock up and puts it right. Well, one letter would have been sent to tenants anyway about this so its only the first letter and postage that will be an additional cost.
Housing Revenue Account will be ring-fenced to prevent cross-subsidisation. The costs of the cock-up will therefore be part of the expenses of running the Housing Department. Even if it were only a small local authority then the cost of this will be the financial equivalent of a fart in a thunderstorm
The words "sledgehammer" and "nut" spring to mind. Perhaps you should find something worth getting steamed up about to get steamed up about
[quote=Who me ?]
So- how much did this cock up cost the LA, who's paying for it( LA--I doubt it/ Tenants ,who didn'tmake the cock up/ Council tax payers ?)
[/quote]
How can the LA pay for it and not the council tax payers?
And whos going to pay for them to respond to your request? Even if you pay the token amount for a FOI request it doesn't cover the costs.
It sounds like a cock up quickly corrected. I'm probably missing something as I'm not sure I understand why you're trying to turn it into something.
So- how much did this cock up cost the LA, who's paying for it( LA--I doubt it/ Tenants ,who didn'tmake the cock up/ Council tax payers ?)
[/quote]
How can the LA pay for it and not the council tax payers?
And whos going to pay for them to respond to your request? Even if you pay the token amount for a FOI request it doesn't cover the costs.
It sounds like a cock up quickly corrected. I'm probably missing something as I'm not sure I understand why you're trying to turn it into something.
You can ask anything you like under FOI to local authorities. However, they are able to refuse to give certain information if they so wish. If you want to do it anonymously you can go to www.whatdotheyknow.com and do it from there
[quote=Who me ?]Sounds as if it's been misread, or I'm not clear enough.
This year, Tenants ( number unknown, but possibly all) got a letter ,which was a copy of the previous years letter, showing no rent increase. Week letter second one with correct rent, and big bold statement saying to ignore first one.
So- how much did this cock up cost the LA, who's paying for it( LA--I doubt it/ Tenants ,who didn'tmake the cock up/ Council tax payers ?)
I've asked, but yet no reply, hence why I ask if the matter is covered by FOI?
[/quote]
Cost to LA will be printing and postage.
This will be paid for by council taxpayers (the LA pays the cost but all LA costs are paid by taxpayers)
You can ask anything you like under FOI . Whethrr they answer depends.
This year, Tenants ( number unknown, but possibly all) got a letter ,which was a copy of the previous years letter, showing no rent increase. Week letter second one with correct rent, and big bold statement saying to ignore first one.
So- how much did this cock up cost the LA, who's paying for it( LA--I doubt it/ Tenants ,who didn'tmake the cock up/ Council tax payers ?)
I've asked, but yet no reply, hence why I ask if the matter is covered by FOI?
[/quote]
Cost to LA will be printing and postage.
This will be paid for by council taxpayers (the LA pays the cost but all LA costs are paid by taxpayers)
You can ask anything you like under FOI . Whethrr they answer depends.
Thanks -the answer I was looking for . Many reasons for asking the question, mainly as they keep on saying they have no funds etc , but can lose what you say is little amounts. Only takes a few little amounts to add up to a fair whack . AFAIK, there's good few places still with council stock - a lot of tenants nationwide saw through the stock transfer fiasco . In fact our stock went down prior to our debacle as folks bought their homes, rather than see them sold off at a pittance.
Stock transfers were a swindle implemented mostly in Blair / Brown era.
To keep necessary capital spending (and borrowing) off the public balance sheet (so as to meet golden rules) Lsvt / almo structures were given huge advantages in additions funding vs remaining in house.
The mistake sounds regrettable, but is hardly the next Watergate.
The council I work for has a general fund budget of circa £300m a year. Hra rent is about £90m pa. Savings needed from funding cuts are estimated between £70m - £100m over the next 3 years.
The cost of a mistaken print run - will be no more than £1 per tenant, but probably less as discounts on printing and postage are common in most industries. Yes its a waste, and should be addressed, but it is not really material in the scheme of things.
Slightly puzzled about the thought the "council" should pay rather than taxpayers or tenants.. it does not compute.
Ps I estimate badly phrased foi questions waste far more pa than an erroneous print run (that is to say, questions that are so ill informed the answer will be meaningless. Ie last week I had one asking how much of the Council's council tax - per band - is paid to the EU. Er, none whatsoever.)
Ian
(accountancy manager at a council)
To keep necessary capital spending (and borrowing) off the public balance sheet (so as to meet golden rules) Lsvt / almo structures were given huge advantages in additions funding vs remaining in house.
The mistake sounds regrettable, but is hardly the next Watergate.
The council I work for has a general fund budget of circa £300m a year. Hra rent is about £90m pa. Savings needed from funding cuts are estimated between £70m - £100m over the next 3 years.
The cost of a mistaken print run - will be no more than £1 per tenant, but probably less as discounts on printing and postage are common in most industries. Yes its a waste, and should be addressed, but it is not really material in the scheme of things.
Slightly puzzled about the thought the "council" should pay rather than taxpayers or tenants.. it does not compute.
Ps I estimate badly phrased foi questions waste far more pa than an erroneous print run (that is to say, questions that are so ill informed the answer will be meaningless. Ie last week I had one asking how much of the Council's council tax - per band - is paid to the EU. Er, none whatsoever.)
Ian
(accountancy manager at a council)
Ian, as an ex member of a residents association I agree with your comments- Stock transfer was a pipe dream of the ODPM, who was more at home on the high seas, serving tea ans scones(with jam and cream) than on the stable floors of HOC.
Unfortunately ( possibly too near election time for an honest answer) ,I've twice asked my local councillor to delve into the matter- a cheap and easy solution to the matter, and had no reply . So as I said- local press/ ask my MP (ex Mayor of town and opposite party to council majority) or FOI. The matter of the financial error is irrelevant- it's the lack of reply that's totally unacceptable . I have minor, niggling repairs that are done now on a longer term basis as cash is tight. If postage for the second letter on bulk was as low as 25p second class ,with a tenancy of 10,000 ( not a high figure in a normal town) ,then cost of postage would be £2500 - make a few more financial errors, employ a few more financial checkers
to check up and the figure rises. Then have houses waiting for improvements till empty and left empty for upwards of 20 weeks @ £90 pw and this figure rockets.
Unfortunately ( possibly too near election time for an honest answer) ,I've twice asked my local councillor to delve into the matter- a cheap and easy solution to the matter, and had no reply . So as I said- local press/ ask my MP (ex Mayor of town and opposite party to council majority) or FOI. The matter of the financial error is irrelevant- it's the lack of reply that's totally unacceptable . I have minor, niggling repairs that are done now on a longer term basis as cash is tight. If postage for the second letter on bulk was as low as 25p second class ,with a tenancy of 10,000 ( not a high figure in a normal town) ,then cost of postage would be £2500 - make a few more financial errors, employ a few more financial checkers
to check up and the figure rises. Then have houses waiting for improvements till empty and left empty for upwards of 20 weeks @ £90 pw and this figure rockets. Oh I do love a stupid FOI! Don't forget to ask how much it will cost the council to answer FOI, generally they go over at least half a dozen desks at ££ per hour! You may find that answering your questions costs more than the printing mistake!
Edited by Type R Tom on Sunday 5th April 11:32
I dont see what you hope to gain here, or indeed why you would make an issue of if anyway?
Mistakes happen, unfortunately.
Unless you think they should have just stuck to the terms of the first letter and the LA, and hence the council tax payer, should take the hit from the reduced rental income, what else could they do but send out another letter?
Are you wanting someone's head on a spike?
Mistakes happen, unfortunately.
Unless you think they should have just stuck to the terms of the first letter and the LA, and hence the council tax payer, should take the hit from the reduced rental income, what else could they do but send out another letter?
Are you wanting someone's head on a spike?
Off topic, but I see that there is a lot of selective memory syndrome around Ian Geary and Who me…
LSVT transfers were dreamt up by the Tories in the 1980s, the major reasons for them being a belief (rightly or wrongly) that many local authorities were making an absolute pig’s ear out of running their housing stocks. In many cases they were right.
The first one IIRC was in 1988 and involved the housing stock of a local council down Chesham way. They followed thick and fast in the 1990s, and the Council I worked for at the time transferred theirs in 1995.
The result was immediate and highly beneficial to all concerned including the tenants. No longer were the people charged with running them constrained by council policy; no longer were tenants only getting emergency repairs done because the council couldn’t afford to do the rest. The Housing Associations that were set up could borrow on the open markets, could carry out all the catch-up repairs that needed doing after the many years of underspending, could build new houses and modernise and improve their old ones.
To read: Stock transfer was a pipe dream of the ODPM, who was more at home on the high seas, serving tea and scones(with jam and cream) than on the stable floors of HOC. was mildly amusing, but about as accurate as a weather headline in the Daily Express
LSVT transfers were dreamt up by the Tories in the 1980s, the major reasons for them being a belief (rightly or wrongly) that many local authorities were making an absolute pig’s ear out of running their housing stocks. In many cases they were right.
The first one IIRC was in 1988 and involved the housing stock of a local council down Chesham way. They followed thick and fast in the 1990s, and the Council I worked for at the time transferred theirs in 1995.
The result was immediate and highly beneficial to all concerned including the tenants. No longer were the people charged with running them constrained by council policy; no longer were tenants only getting emergency repairs done because the council couldn’t afford to do the rest. The Housing Associations that were set up could borrow on the open markets, could carry out all the catch-up repairs that needed doing after the many years of underspending, could build new houses and modernise and improve their old ones.
To read: Stock transfer was a pipe dream of the ODPM, who was more at home on the high seas, serving tea and scones(with jam and cream) than on the stable floors of HOC. was mildly amusing, but about as accurate as a weather headline in the Daily Express
[quote=Who me ?]Sounds as if it's been misread, or I'm not clear enough.
This year, Tenants ( number unknown, but possibly all) got a letter ,which was a copy of the previous years letter, showing no rent increase. Week letter second one with correct rent, and big bold statement saying to ignore first one.
So- how much did this cock up cost the LA, who's paying for it( LA--I doubt it/ Tenants ,who didn'tmake the cock up/ Council tax payers ?)
I've asked, but yet no reply, hence why I ask if the matter is covered by FOI?
[/quote]
The matter will be covered by FoI but you need to realise that the information you ask for may not be held. It is not unreasonable for the LA not to have the information in a form that meets your request. For example, they probably do have the information to answer your question if they collate all of that information, process it in a way that answers your question then they can send you it. A lot of naive officials will cause that to be done and cost the LA a fortune compiling the answer to your request. What the LA should do is simply answer by saying "Thanks for your request, the information to satisfy your request is not held in a form that allows the request to be met."
While the LA is subject to the Act the Act doesn't make those in schedule 1 data processing centres to answer all forms of questions that arise from their holding information.
If you are waiting a long time for an answer then someone in the LA hasn't the shoulders to tell you your request will not be met and is making them process the data for you...they don't have to and should not do so.
This year, Tenants ( number unknown, but possibly all) got a letter ,which was a copy of the previous years letter, showing no rent increase. Week letter second one with correct rent, and big bold statement saying to ignore first one.
So- how much did this cock up cost the LA, who's paying for it( LA--I doubt it/ Tenants ,who didn'tmake the cock up/ Council tax payers ?)
I've asked, but yet no reply, hence why I ask if the matter is covered by FOI?
[/quote]
The matter will be covered by FoI but you need to realise that the information you ask for may not be held. It is not unreasonable for the LA not to have the information in a form that meets your request. For example, they probably do have the information to answer your question if they collate all of that information, process it in a way that answers your question then they can send you it. A lot of naive officials will cause that to be done and cost the LA a fortune compiling the answer to your request. What the LA should do is simply answer by saying "Thanks for your request, the information to satisfy your request is not held in a form that allows the request to be met."
While the LA is subject to the Act the Act doesn't make those in schedule 1 data processing centres to answer all forms of questions that arise from their holding information.
If you are waiting a long time for an answer then someone in the LA hasn't the shoulders to tell you your request will not be met and is making them process the data for you...they don't have to and should not do so.
rs- we had similar tales from our lot during stock transfer. Like something from Animal farm - "All will benefit", but not as much as the housing staff ,with the manager getting a massive salary increase.
All that was needed was for the hard pressed council staff to have the financial handcuffs taken off and allowed to borrow on the open market, as the Housing Associations are allowed to .
Then there's the loss of security, which ONLY a vote of the tenants can change. Ask the hundreds of tenants on housing benefit in one town ,who lost their tenancies due to a cock up in benefit non payment, due to this not being mentioned in the transfer.
Locally a group of councillors went public over the way the facts were being manipulated in favour of a yes vote.
Read -http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/ and hear some more horror stories .
All that was needed was for the hard pressed council staff to have the financial handcuffs taken off and allowed to borrow on the open market, as the Housing Associations are allowed to .
Then there's the loss of security, which ONLY a vote of the tenants can change. Ask the hundreds of tenants on housing benefit in one town ,who lost their tenancies due to a cock up in benefit non payment, due to this not being mentioned in the transfer.
Locally a group of councillors went public over the way the facts were being manipulated in favour of a yes vote.
Read -http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/ and hear some more horror stories .
Who me said:
rs- we had similar tales from our lot during stock transfer. Like something from Animal farm - "All will benefit", but not as much as the housing staff ,with the manager getting a massive salary increase.
All that was needed was for the hard pressed council staff to have the financial handcuffs taken off and allowed to borrow on the open market, as the Housing Associations are allowed to .
Then there's the loss of security, which ONLY a vote of the tenants can change. Ask the hundreds of tenants on housing benefit in one town ,who lost their tenancies due to a cock up in benefit non payment, due to this not being mentioned in the transfer.
Locally a group of councillors went public over the way the facts were being manipulated in favour of a yes vote.
Read -http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/ and hear some more horror stories .
I took the question mark out of your username because, as you know, it buggers up the formatting All that was needed was for the hard pressed council staff to have the financial handcuffs taken off and allowed to borrow on the open market, as the Housing Associations are allowed to .
Then there's the loss of security, which ONLY a vote of the tenants can change. Ask the hundreds of tenants on housing benefit in one town ,who lost their tenancies due to a cock up in benefit non payment, due to this not being mentioned in the transfer.
Locally a group of councillors went public over the way the facts were being manipulated in favour of a yes vote.
Read -http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/ and hear some more horror stories .
Well I had a read as you suggested, and I'm not sure that "Defend Council Housing" are finding all that many horror stories to report upon. When you take out the "bedroom tax protests" "Marches for Homes" and conference reports there isn't a great deal left.
I did look closely at the Aylesbury estate report from Deloitte though, initially because I thought it might be something from Aylesbury Bucks and involving a HA I have done some work for, but in the event I found that it was about an estate In Southwark. I've never worked for Notting Hill Housing Trust, but I have done work for organisations with similar estates in such places as Holloway. I can't say exactly where because of client confidentiality but if you go north from Kings Cross station and cross the Regent's Canal you wouldn't be far away
The estates were built in the 60s (a bad time for Council housing development - too many experimental ideas both in layout and building fabric/ construction that didn't stand the test of time) and had become a dilapidated rabbit warren. Density was far too high (that was seen as a "good thing" at the time) and the repair costs were likely to be horrific. After years of neglect or semi-neglect, It would have been far cheaper to pull the whole shambles down and start again. But if you were to suggest such a thing you would have the protest groups forming and launching campaigns before the ink was dry on the report.
Council housing has been a political football almost since it first came on the scene around the time of the First World War ("homes fit for heroes" and all that) The local council that I worked for prior to LSVT in 1995 had been formed by the amalgamation of 6 Rural District and Borough Councils at the time of reorganisation in 1974, and the archive minutes of those councils (that I spent a couple of years trawling through for various purposes that I shan't bore you with here) highlighted this quite well. Contrary to popular belief, council house sales didn't start with the Right to Buy in 1980, there were many discretionary sales in many areas before that (the earliest I ever came across was a few sold in Common Hill, Cricklade, in 1930), but the minutes showed that labour-controlled councils refused to sell their houses, whilst conservative ones did. The minutes, and the facts on the ground, also showed that labour councils tended to build larger estates and had a generally more cavalier attitude to its tenants and their repairs than conservative-controlled ones.
Manchester City Council transferred much of its stock to HAs in the early years of the current century. The transformation that has gone up there since the HAs took over is more than remarkable - it is dramatic.
As regards the "pay rise" issue, I have to agree that some salaries increased after my local council housing stock LSVT (mine went up by £800pa, from £15900 to £16700). I don't know about you, but I would rather pay £80 grand to somebody who gets things done rather than pay £70 grand to somebody who simply sits on their arses all day and dreams up new and exciting excuses for not carrying out essential repairs.
Problem is that the salary increase you mention DOES NOT reflect what our head of Housing let slip at one meeting. His and his deputy's salaries would increase by almost 100%( to somewhere like 150 k) , with the slender repair staff being required to seek re employment at lower wages. Locally ,we've seen a taste of what stock transfer would have brought. One estate, a lot younger than ours has had it's stock decimated in a PFI sell off, to build shoe boxes privately or on a shared ownership basis. Yet ,the company involved can't sell the stock. Pointless when folk can't afford the mortgage, yet the "social housing " waiting list grows endless, with folks ending up in unfit housing, and the land where social housing was demolished remains open, with in many places a high growth of grass . This government has reversed on decent housing help. Recently as a result of government grants, we've had a new combi heating system and external insulation( done by Cowboys from one of the Eastern ex communist block countries )( house is too old for cavity ) ,all done by grant aid. It's now fixed, so why do these idiotic schemes try to fix something that's not broken . Repairs in certain departments are done by contract staff- very different to a lot of years ago, when a lot of work was done by cowboys. These days, we know the council staff - they are the ones who take their time, do a first class job and time is no problem. Contractors do an equally good job, BUT it's speed that matters to the firm.
At stock transfer time, a few tradesmen( of well known and reputable firms) visited the caravans showing off the "new " kitchens and bathrooms etc being used as a bait for yes. Their verdict. UNPRINTABLE ,in case they might be sued ,as the quality of work and materials was deplorable.
However, we will remain ,indefinitely at the extremities of this argument, me as a tenant( who sought out the TRUTH of both sides of the stock transfer argument ,and found hmg CASE wanting and flawed in favour of private landlords ) ,and you as an employee of a now private housing company. However, I now still have my tenancy agreement afforded to me by an Act of Parliament, which would take a change in the law ( or a vote by a MAJORITY of tenants), to remove. As an OAP, I have the majority of my rent paid ( four weekly in advance) by DWP, with no penalties if they cock up . Those ,who voted for moving to a housing Association, live in fear of DWP cocking up and ot paying those four weeks in ARREARS, AND THEN PAYING LATE . Judge ,then has NO OPTION but to SIGN ORDER TO EVICT. It happened to hundreds of Coventry tenants- it could happen anywhere a landlord wants properties emptied to make a quick buck on the ground.
But, MODS- this started off as a simple request for FOI help and has now gone off topic that far that the good ship is now heading for rocks ,and some ( who've not re appeared ) ,might de rail it, so please CLOSE.
At stock transfer time, a few tradesmen( of well known and reputable firms) visited the caravans showing off the "new " kitchens and bathrooms etc being used as a bait for yes. Their verdict. UNPRINTABLE ,in case they might be sued ,as the quality of work and materials was deplorable.
However, we will remain ,indefinitely at the extremities of this argument, me as a tenant( who sought out the TRUTH of both sides of the stock transfer argument ,and found hmg CASE wanting and flawed in favour of private landlords ) ,and you as an employee of a now private housing company. However, I now still have my tenancy agreement afforded to me by an Act of Parliament, which would take a change in the law ( or a vote by a MAJORITY of tenants), to remove. As an OAP, I have the majority of my rent paid ( four weekly in advance) by DWP, with no penalties if they cock up . Those ,who voted for moving to a housing Association, live in fear of DWP cocking up and ot paying those four weeks in ARREARS, AND THEN PAYING LATE . Judge ,then has NO OPTION but to SIGN ORDER TO EVICT. It happened to hundreds of Coventry tenants- it could happen anywhere a landlord wants properties emptied to make a quick buck on the ground.
But, MODS- this started off as a simple request for FOI help and has now gone off topic that far that the good ship is now heading for rocks ,and some ( who've not re appeared ) ,might de rail it, so please CLOSE.
Many threads on PH veer off topic, sometimes seriously, but that in itself isn’t a reason for closing them. If it was, the UKIP thread on NP&E would have been closed about 50 times by now
You say we are at opposite ends of the argument, but I’m not sure that is 100% the case. You have experience of our own local authority area and you have a fixed view on the rights and wrongs of council versus housing association properties, and nothing is going to change that view. Just to pick up on a few points however:
I have therefore been able to see the results of the policy from both sides of the argument and in many different organisations. All I can say is that many of your horror stories are not borne out by the facts on the ground up and down the country. One particular horror story perhaps needs further examination:
Having said all that, if you honestly think that all these horror stories are true then it probably explains a lot about why you started this thread about wanting to start a FOI request over a simple cock up with a standard rent increase letter
You say we are at opposite ends of the argument, but I’m not sure that is 100% the case. You have experience of our own local authority area and you have a fixed view on the rights and wrongs of council versus housing association properties, and nothing is going to change that view. Just to pick up on a few points however:
Who me said:
and you as an employee of a now private housing company.
No. I was a council employee until 1995 and then transferred with the housing stock to a housing association. I left them in 2004 and since then I have worked in a consultancy capacity for housing associations and local councils all over this island from Aberdeen to Plymouth and from Kent to Merseyside. For the last couple of years I have been semi-retired hence my posting on PH at 0930 on a Wednesday morning I have therefore been able to see the results of the policy from both sides of the argument and in many different organisations. All I can say is that many of your horror stories are not borne out by the facts on the ground up and down the country. One particular horror story perhaps needs further examination:
Who me said:
Those, who voted for moving to a housing Association, live in fear of DWP cocking up and ot paying those four weeks in ARREARS, AND THEN PAYING LATE. Judge then has NO OPTION but to SIGN ORDER TO EVICT
This is tin foil hat stuff of the highest order. People do not get evicted because their benefits get paid in arrears, or even late. The eviction process is taken very seriously by social landlords (councils and HAs) and even more seriously by the courts. Nobody binds a judges hands in matters such as these.Having said all that, if you honestly think that all these horror stories are true then it probably explains a lot about why you started this thread about wanting to start a FOI request over a simple cock up with a standard rent increase letter
I don't have much to contribute from personal experience, but:
rs1952 said:
I don't know about you, but I would rather pay £80 grand to somebody who gets things done rather than pay £70 grand to somebody who simply sits on their arses all day and dreams up new and exciting excuses for not carrying out essential repairs.
If it's the same person, with a pay rise, why are they going to be more effective after the pay rise?masermartin said:
I don't have much to contribute from personal experience, but:
Because they are no longer being shackled by a government and/or a council who have policies that prevent them doing their job properlyrs1952 said:
I don't know about you, but I would rather pay £80 grand to somebody who gets things done rather than pay £70 grand to somebody who simply sits on their arses all day and dreams up new and exciting excuses for not carrying out essential repairs.
If it's the same person, with a pay rise, why are they going to be more effective after the pay rise?Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff