News RSS Feed


Send us your news!


Housing transfer vote: It's no

9:40am Thursday 20th March 2008

comment Comments (21)   Have your say »


A BID by Castle Point Council to sell off its housing has been decisively rejected by tenants.

The council, which spent £250,000 promoting the vote, now faces a funding headache.

It says it may have to save £300,000 a year from the housing budget over the next five years to fund improvements required by the Government's decent homes standard guidelines.

The authority had hoped to transfer its 1,700 properties to housing association Swan.

But tenants voted two to one against being taken over by the housing association, despite a series of promises including new kitchens and bathrooms.

The costly process, which taxpayers have had to fund, included a glossy brochure and specially-commissioned film that outlined all the benefits that Swan said tenants would enjoy.

Council is left reeling after transfer rejection

CASTLE Point Council was left reeling after the borough's tenants resolutely rejected a takeover by a housing association.

Despite a concerted campaign to woo tenants into opting for a transfer of their 1,700 council homes to Swan Housing Association, which cost the council £250,000 - some of which was offset by contributions from Swan - more than 66 per cent chose to remain under the control of the authority.

Tenants failed to be swayed by frequent visits from Swan officials, council staff and councillors, as well as an 87-page glossy brochure and a DVD promising them a range of benefits, including new kitchens and bathrooms.

They also ignored threats from the council that it would not be able to afford to bring properties up to the Government's required decent homes standard, and that it would have to sack housing staff.

The authority must now look at other ways of funding repairs and the maintenance programme over the next five years.

Announcing the result of the four-week ballot yesterday, council leader Pam Challis said: "This has always been about tenants having the final say in what should happen to their homes.

"Throughout the consultation programme, we have made it clear to tenants the amount of money the council is able to invest in its housing is limited by central Government spending policies that are beyond our control."

John Synnuck, Swan Housing Group chief executive, said: "We are obviously disappointed with the result.

"However, we have been working with Castle Point Council for more than ten years.

"We will continue to work with the council on issues relating to affordable housing in the borough."

The vote, organised by Electoral Reform Services, showed 66.4 per cent of tenants who took part were in favour of staying with the council.

Tenants celebrate campaign victory

CAMPAIGNERS against the transfer of the borough's housing stock were celebrating a resounding victory.

Castle Point Tenants Against Transfer said the two-to-one vote against the selling of council homes to Swan Housing was the group's second triumph against transfer.

It follows a vote in 1994 when more than 80 per cent of tenants rejected a transfer.

Mary Windsor, a spokeswoman for the group, said: "It goes without saying we are delighted with the result of the ballot. A no' vote is no more than what we expected, given the genuine responses we received from people.

"We are pleased our hard work has been rewarded and the tenants showed by their vote just how they feel, despite the views to the contrary of both Swan and the council."

Some pundits are blaming the result on the council's decision to replace an independent tenants' representative halfway through the process and to ignore the result of a consultation exercise, which showed tenants preferred Chelmer Housing Association.

Castle Point MP Bob Spink said: "The council handled the transfer badly. I supported it once I had received the necessary undertakings, because it would have given tenants more say in their future, more certain maintenance and enabled us to get the 200 or so additional social housing units we so desperately need in the borough."

Dave Blackwell, leader of the Canvey Independent Party said: "They have shot themselves in the foot and it has cost council taxpayers dearly. They badgered tenants too much and the more they intensified their efforts, the more tenants disliked it.

"The residents I spoke to said they were happy with their homes and the council. It was a case of the devil you know'."

David Marchant, the council's chief executive, said: "We had to rigidly stick to guidelines. It wasn't a process of our own making.

"It is disappointing for tenants because the evidence for transfer to Swan was overwhelming, but this is not now going to be achieved and that's a shame. We will continue to give back £1.8million of tenants' rents to the Government for them to spend in other parts of the country.

"The choice of Chelmer was made by a group who were representing the tenants at that time."

Cash crisis may lead to staff cuts

CASTLE Point Council faces a financial crisis after a majority of the borough's tenants voted against a sell-off of council homes.

The authority estimates it now faces a projected shortfall of £1.2million in the cost of bringing all its housing up to the minimum standards required over the next five years.

The council must have its properties up to the decent homes standard by 2010, but had also intended to improve them beyond that requirement as part of a rolling five-year programme.

In the run-up to the vote, the council warned tenants it would only be able to invest £11.4million over five years in improving homes, against Swan's projected £23million investment.

It also said staff redundancies might follow as the council looked for ways to cut its costs.

Following yesterday's result, the council immediately warned it would have to make savings of about £300,000 each year in other housing services to make sure its housing revenue account did not "fall into an illegal deficit".

Council leader Pam Challis said: "We now face a series of difficult decisions about savings which will have a significant influence on the range and quality of housing services we can afford to deliver.

"We remain committed to pursuing further efficiency improvements and, in particular, working with tenants to make the most of our limited resources for housing."

Wendy Goodwin, councillor responsible for housing, has been involved in the transfer bid for the past two years.

She said: "It is a very disappointing result for the tenants who voted for the transfer. There won't be any immediate effect, but over time there will be an impact.

"The circumstances haven't changed and everything we have been saying about restrictions on finance are still there."

Mrs Goodwin said there were no legal restrictions on when the council could hold another ballot, but she ruled the prospect out for the immediate future.

She added: "There will have to be discussions now. As far as redundancies are concerned, I can't say exactly what's going to happen.

"Obviously we wouldn't hold another ballot straight away, but that's an option we will discuss."

What the law says

The council is required by the Government to bring all its homes up to the decent homes standard by 2010.

The standard says homes must be:

  • Fit for habitation
  • In reasonable repair
  • Equipped with reasonably modern facilities
  • Provide a reasonable degree of warmth.

There is money, but the problem is they can't touch it

A tenant who voted against the transfer said he had heard it all before and urged others to sit tight.

Albert Howard, 84, of First Avenue, Canvey, said: "This result is very good and I am very pleased.

"They have been threatening staff cuts for years. There is money, but the problem is they can't touch it.

"It's up to councillors to try to change that and, if they can't, then they should get help from our MP, Bob Spink. They have just got to find ways of using the money."

Mr Howard added: "I don't think people should be unduly concerned because if they don't maintain the housing stock properly, they will be in a lot of trouble."

I am very worried now about our housing stock

Richard Burgess, of Temple Wood, Hadleigh, helped to guide tenants through the pros and cons of the transfer proposals.

He would have been appointed to the board, which would have been formed to run a not-for-profit local housing association under the umbrella of the Swan Housing Association.

Mr Burgess said: "I am gutted. It was unexpected because during the consultation process we spoke to a lot of people and I would say about 80 per cent of them said they were in favour.

"I am very worried about our housing stock now because there is already a deficit in the housing budget and the council will have to make savings by cutting staff."


Your Say YourEcho

Disappointed, Canvey Island says...
10:17am Thu 20 Mar 08

What was on offer to us tenants was a NO BRAINER - millions of pounds of investment versus a reduction in services. This result just proves that two thirds of those who voted have NO BRAIN .

A resident, Castle Point says...
10:41am Thu 20 Mar 08

Disappointed wrote:
What was on offer to us tenants was a NO BRAINER - millions of pounds of investment versus a reduction in services. This result just proves that two thirds of those who voted have NO BRAIN .
What is a no-brainer is that some tenants were stupid enough to believe all the fantastic promises that Swan made. Swan made all the same promises in Tower Hamlets but didn't keep their word. They now claim their Tower Hamlets promises are a "long term project". That is what would have happened round here if they had won. Gullible tenants who believed Swans claims without checking their track record are the ones with no brains. Fortunately most tenants were smart enough to see right through Swans claims and voted NO. They made the right decision.

AJP, Benfleet says...
10:48am Thu 20 Mar 08

A Resident is right. Tower Hamlets main problem is water supply (in the Tower blocks). Swan promised to fix this but they have not done a thing about it. They have only spent money on building new flats for sale or rent. Swan are full of cr@p.

A N Other Resident, Castle Point says...
11:02am Thu 20 Mar 08

Ha, ha, ha - what a suprise - good old Independent Dave s1agging off HIS OWN council yet again! When will you ever say or do something positive for those you supposedly represent? What have we had so far? Let's think... um.... oh yes, a Christmas Tree! You've missed the point and the boat yet again on this one Dave.

AJP, Benfleet says...
12:04pm Thu 20 Mar 08

A N Other Resident wrote:
Ha, ha, ha - what a suprise - good old Independent Dave s1agging off HIS OWN council yet again! When will you ever say or do something positive for those you supposedly represent? What have we had so far? Let's think... um.... oh yes, a Christmas Tree! You've missed the point and the boat yet again on this one Dave.
Not quite sure where you're coming from (dissafected Tory perhaps?) but I can tell you that certain Independent Councillors were the only ones to help the tenants in any way. However, you are right in that the CIP look to be in danger of becoming like the LibDems - standing for everything and nothing, and not being taken seriously because of it.

Ken, Benfleet says...
12:34pm Thu 20 Mar 08

I know a CPDC employee.He has seen public money wasted within his small department.
Multiply that across the whole of CPDC and you WILL find money that can be saved.

Happy®, A.B.C. says...
1:00pm Thu 20 Mar 08

Well AJP you an your cronies have cost some people their jobs.

Still one good thing will come out of this the Council will have to make savings and one of the biggest costs is Waterside farm around £1,500,000 a year.

They may just have to close it with further job losses.

So well T.w.A.T.

Taz, Canvey says...
3:53pm Thu 20 Mar 08

who uses waterside farm anyway? It's swimming pool is more closed than open and other facilities are under used! Maybe if it was sold off, CPBC might gain a few million to spend elsewhere! As for the transfer, good on the majority of tenants for not being intimidated by Swans tactics and for not believing their lies. I've checked with various Swan tenants and haven't found any that are happy with their landlord. CPBC have been dealing with Swan for over ten years, Swan cannot keep their houses in order, there are two properties on canvey that I know of where the tenants are causing problems, of an antisocial nature, to their nieghbours. They have been reported repeatedly, but Swan does nothing to stop their wayward behaviour. As well as this Swan are also known for "importing" troublesome familes, from other districts, to disrupt the lives of the people in whose neighbourhoods they are dumped. So the tenants are to be congratulated on their common sense in voting against transfer and must ignore the accusations of being brainless.

Anon, says...
4:28pm Thu 20 Mar 08

Disappointed wrote:
What was on offer to us tenants was a NO BRAINER - millions of pounds of investment versus a reduction in services. This result just proves that two thirds of those who voted have NO BRAIN .
I must agree with the above. The group that campaigned against the Transfer have done a total diservice to the council Tenants of Castle Point. Rather than gloat like A.Resident does, I suggest he goes around with his cap in his hand and apologies, with the rest of this inane group, to insulting the Canvey Island Tenants.
I suggest A.Resident that should your brain ever get anywhere near the size of your mouth, you may just be able to see exactly how much of an idiot you actually are, and be able to see the dis-service you have done, I am assuming of couse you can actually read what I have written, because it is pretty obvious from your comments on this and other threads, you have not one iota of an idea what you are talking about, as you obviously have not read what has been written. To gloat like you have is a total insult. If this is the quality of the person campaigning against the Transfer, then I really do despair. to me I really do not mind one way or another, I have been following the Transfer with interest, but what I see and hear now following the result is really cause for worry. Because not only has this group done a dis-service to the Tenants, but also to the greater population as they are going to have to pay for it as well.

A resident, Castle Point says...
4:38pm Thu 20 Mar 08

anon and happy you are both ignorant beyond belief. What ever happens within the housing department stays in the housing department. The system is ring-fenced so there can and will be no other consequences outside the housing department, no question of Waterside farm closing down or anything like that because of this decision. Also if you believed all the old twaddle you were being told by Swan and the Council then you are incredibly gullible. All the same threats and promises were told last time (1992-4) and it all turned out to be LIES. The tenants have done the right thing, good for them. You Tory moaners have lost so have the good grace to slink away quietly.

Mojo, at my computer says...
4:43pm Thu 20 Mar 08

WELL SAID THAT MAN! THE TENANTS WERE PROVED RIGHT TO VOTE NO IN 1994 AND THE SAME WILL HAPPEN THIS TIME AS SWAN ARE ONE OF THE WORST LANDLORDS ROUND HERE. WELL DONE TENANTS.

THE TRUTH HURTS, says...
4:47pm Thu 20 Mar 08

Anon you are a total tw@t. Go back to sleep as you understand NOTHING. Happy get down the Tory club where you belong and stop worrying decent people.

schraube, canvey says...
4:47pm Thu 20 Mar 08

Sounds good to me!!

As a mortgage and benefit PAYER.

Why should I contribute one single penny more when my mortgage keeps going up and I have to replace windows and doors,fences etc, then at the end of my life have it all taken from me for rest home fees while all the Council tennants are found free places!!


Mojo, Castle Point says...
4:50pm Thu 20 Mar 08

schraube wrote:
Sounds good to me!! As a mortgage and benefit PAYER. Why should I contribute one single penny more when my mortgage keeps going up and I have to replace windows and doors,fences etc, then at the end of my life have it all taken from me for rest home fees while all the Council tennants are found free places!!
You pay nothing, as you well know shraube/dave/evilc. Council Housing is not subsidised in any way. You'd better join your mate happy down the local Tory club.

Anon, says...
5:02pm Thu 20 Mar 08

The Council DID tell tenants a load of old hogwash last time (1994, exactly the same people) and there IS tons of evidence out there that Swan is a bad landlord, doesn't keep it's promises etc. You'd have to be a pretty gullible idiot to have fallen for this and voted yes.

Thank **** most tenants are smart enough to know when they're being sold a pup and they voted NO. Well done.


Anon, says...
5:04pm Thu 20 Mar 08

So well done Tenants Against Transfer. Good job well done.

acid_jim, says...
5:17pm Thu 20 Mar 08

Mojo wrote:
WELL SAID THAT MAN! THE TENANTS WERE PROVED RIGHT TO VOTE NO IN 1994 AND THE SAME WILL HAPPEN THIS TIME AS SWAN ARE ONE OF THE WORST LANDLORDS ROUND HERE. WELL DONE TENANTS.
You're forgetting one thing. The '94 ballot and rejection of transfer was the final straw that saw off a Tory administration that had held power at Kiln Road for 21 years. Labour seized control from them on the back of a national swing in '95 and pulled out all the stops to demonstrate their commitment to council housing. That’s not going to happen this time.

The tories are on an upward swing and likely to form the next government. Labour locally has blown it, just managing to scrape up a consolation prize of a seat in a recent bye-election. The Canvey independents bend with the wind and lack any real policies on any issue that matters.

The tories have demonstrated their commitment to their housing stock and tenants by trying to sell the lot off (again). If they’re now saying jobs will go and housing standards will suffer then trust me, they mean it. Revenge is the new buzz word in their private members room. Tenants may indeed end up paying dearly for having the balls to stand up against them.

Nick, Canvey Island says...
6:21pm Thu 20 Mar 08

I can't believe people, having left comments saying that Council tennants are stupid not allowing the transfer to go ahead. I have to point out that there is a severe shortage of local authourity housing. I myself am registered disabled, and rent a property from a private landlord, at a ridculous rent which the council top up. If there was more affordable housing, then the cost of upkeep on council housing would be less then what is paid out on benefits. You complain at susidising council housing but seem happy to pay fat cats mortgages. The property I currently rent is an ex council property, so work the sums out for yourselves

Mojo, at my computer says...
11:24am Fri 21 Mar 08

acid_jim wrote:
Mojo wrote: WELL SAID THAT MAN! THE TENANTS WERE PROVED RIGHT TO VOTE NO IN 1994 AND THE SAME WILL HAPPEN THIS TIME AS SWAN ARE ONE OF THE WORST LANDLORDS ROUND HERE. WELL DONE TENANTS.
You're forgetting one thing. The '94 ballot and rejection of transfer was the final straw that saw off a Tory administration that had held power at Kiln Road for 21 years. Labour seized control from them on the back of a national swing in '95 and pulled out all the stops to demonstrate their commitment to council housing. That’s not going to happen this time. The tories are on an upward swing and likely to form the next government. Labour locally has blown it, just managing to scrape up a consolation prize of a seat in a recent bye-election. The Canvey independents bend with the wind and lack any real policies on any issue that matters. The tories have demonstrated their commitment to their housing stock and tenants by trying to sell the lot off (again). If they’re now saying jobs will go and housing standards will suffer then trust me, they mean it. Revenge is the new buzz word in their private members room. Tenants may indeed end up paying dearly for having the balls to stand up against them.
I believe you could be right Jim. I certainly wouldn't put it past the local Tories to be that childish. Doesn't change anything though, we couldn't roll over and accept their lousy deal could we?

schraube, canvey says...
2:20pm Sat 22 Mar 08

Mojo wrote:
schraube wrote: Sounds good to me!! As a mortgage and benefit PAYER. Why should I contribute one single penny more when my mortgage keeps going up and I have to replace windows and doors,fences etc, then at the end of my life have it all taken from me for rest home fees while all the Council tennants are found free places!!
You pay nothing, as you well know shraube/dave/evilc. Council Housing is not subsidised in any way. You'd better join your mate happy down the local Tory club.
And Pigs FLY!!

Mojo, at my computer says...
4:46pm Sat 22 Mar 08

And pigs will fly if you ever post a sensible comment. You schraube/dave/evilc are a loony tunes sad old git. Go away.

Comments are closed on this article.

Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »