The difficulties facing people on Universal Credit are now widely known. People making a claim are faced with a wait of 6 weeks or more before they get their first payment. One of the critical components of UC is the housing element which replaces housing benefit (or local housing allowance for private tenants). An application for UC is treated as a new claim which means that somebody who has previously been receiving housing benefit suddenly finds it stopped. This inevitably means that, unless they have some savings, they are cast into rent arrears. The poorer somebody is then the more difficult it is for them to extricate themselves from debt, which, in this case, is no fault of theirs. Even though advance payments can be issued (the DWP kept this quiet for a long time) it is a loan which has to be repaid over 6 months. Read the rest of this entry »
This is an article published in the Morning Star on October 10th 2017
Jeremy Corbyn’s conference announcement that Labour would be carrying out a review “of social housing policy – its building, planning, regulation and management” is very welcome. So is his comment that “Labour would speak to social housing tenants all over the country” and bring forward “a radical programme of action” in time for next year’s Labour conference. However, one critical issue needs adding – funding.
The review gives tenants and supporters of council housing the opportunity to tell Labour what we think would constitute “a radical programme of action”. It suggests that Corbyn recognises the need to go beyond the Manifesto which was still rooted in New Labour’s housing policy. For instance, Labour’s “first priority” was not a council house building programme but helping first time buyers onto the proverbial housing ladder.
Whilst Jeremy had spoken of 100,000 council homes a year this was watered down to 100,000 ““affordable homes” for “rent and sale” by the end of the Parliament, with no indication of the proportion of each. Read on below or download a PDF here radicalpoa Read the rest of this entry »
Writing this on the Monday before the election only a mug would predict the outcome. The polls are all over the place. However, given the fact that May called the election to give herself ‘a stronger mandate’, if she does not secure an increased majority she will have suffered a big defeat. She went into the election with a working majority of 17, with predictions of a landslide, some suggesting she would outdo Thatcher’s 1983 majority of 144 seats. The landslide looks increasingly unlikely and her campaign has been so bad that the usually Tory supporting media are deriding her performance.
“Far from being strong and stable, Mrs May has looked curiously brittle” said the Financial Times in its not very enthusiastic call for a Tory vote. Perhaps the only reason they adopt such a position is that “the alternative to Mrs May is worse.” The FT bemoans the “sad indictment on the state of Britain that neither of the main party leaders is particularly impressive.”
Still, even though Mrs May is “the safer bet” this “does not amount to a blank cheque (for Brexit)”. Her ability to deliver “the best deal for Britain in terms of the closest possible relationship with the EU is worryingly unclear”. The FT thinks that she “limps towards the election finishing line”. It’s verdict is that
A letter to the Swindon Advertiser
What exactly does InSwindon think it is? The town centre’s political police? They don’t appear to even know what is on their own website. Under the page ‘for Business’ it refers to charges for leaflet distribution under two pieces of legislation, the 1990 Environmental Protection Act and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. However, it states quite clearly that “The legislation does not apply to the distribution of free literature
By or on behalf of a charity…
Where the distribution is for political purposes
Where the distribution is for the purpose of a religion or belief.”
Material distributed by a campaigning organisation such as Keep Our NHS Public certainly qualifies as “distribution for political purposes”. So why is InSwindon harassing this organisation? Read the rest of this entry »
Swindon Council’s second raid on the housing account
As Swindon Council faces the decline of central government Revenue Support Grant year on year, it has scrabbled around desperately looking for ways of saving money. Its imposition of parish councils on the town without a democratic mandate was one such means, transferring services and costs to the new parishes1. Casting its eye around for other sources of money to cover the growing financial chasm in the General Fund, it organised a “transfer of assets” between that fund and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), the separate account for council housing. It transferred garages and some shops owned by the HRA to the General Fund, giving the latter an extra annual income of £1.25 million. After some housing owned by the General Fund was transferred to the HRA as a sweetener, the housing account still loses an income of more than £500,000 a year. The ruling group had said that the outcome of the transfer between the two accounts would be “fair and balanced”. In reply to a question at a cabinet open forum the Cabinet Member cynically replied, “yes, but we never said it would be equal”! “Fair and balanced” meant the General Fund gaining at the expense of the HRA and tenants.
Now faced with a funding gap for homelessness prevention and relief (for reasons explained below) they decided to make another raid on the HRA. The Council Cabinet proposed to use £17 million of HRA money to buy 80-100 properties on the open market so that they could transfer some families currently housed in the private rented sector and thus prevent the General Fund from having to pay for them. Their presentation of this as action to deal with homelessness was pure propaganda. This was simply a means of preventing the General Fund having to cover a funding gap of £400,000. (Read on below or download a PDF here sbcraid ) Read the rest of this entry »
A number of new or amended regulations in relation to the Private Rented Sector have come into force on April 6th.
1) Rent Repayment Orders
Rent Repayment Orders (RROs) were introduced by the 2004 Housing Act in response to situations where the landlord of a property had failed to obtain a license for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) which were subject to a mandatory license; and offences in relation to conditions of the license. The 2016 Housing and Planning Act has extended RROs to cover a wider range of offences. These are
- Failure to comply with an Improvement Notice (to rectify a health or safety hazard);
- Failure to comply with a Prohibition Order (prohibiting use of the premises or part of it);
- Breach of a banning order (where a landlord is banned from letting housing, engaging in letting agency work, or any property management work);
- Using violence to gain entry to the property;
- Illegal eviction or harassment of the occupants.
Read on below or download a PDF here rogue landlords
This is a letter to the Swindon Advertiser
Paying more for worse services
I’ve just received my council tax notice with a 10.9% increase for 2017/18. As Mr Renard finally admitted in his column residents are paying more for less. These very high increases are the result of the flagrantly anti-democratic imposition of parishes on residents who patently did not want them. Even if it is legal for the council to charge us for services which they no longer provide it is politically and morally repugnant, and it certainly ought to be illegal.
This policy chimes well with central government’s gutting of public services. The decision to impose parishes has the impact of moving away from the concept of equalisation of services across the town regardless of the poverty or wealth of individual areas. What Mr Renard is presenting as ‘choice’ is bogus. If services are not provided by taxation at the town level then you can only chose what you can afford. His regime’s action will exacerbate inequalities across the town. Read the rest of this entry »