“Part 3
The government has now produced concrete proposals as a result of the review. The promise of capital grants in excess of £6 billion to meet the backlog of outstanding works offers real hope to those areas where tenants have refused to be blackmailed into transfer.

And, most importantly, it should be noted that the consultation document explicitly promises a level playing field between transfer and retention.”

“Part 2
Neath Port Talbot Council has a staggering £5.2 million to promote stock transfer, yet the local DCH campaign against transfer has virtually no money at all. How can anyone describe this process as a fair and balanced debate?
In no other ballot process in this country is there such a democratic deficit: there would be an outcry if the abuses allowed in transfer ballots were permitted in local elections or referenda. Behaviour that would be illegal in the selling of an insurance policy is routine in stock transfer ballots.
It is time to end the privatisation of council housing and the blackmail and bullying of tenants.
Council housing isn't perfect but millions have benefited from the decent, affordable, secure and accountable housing that democratically elected local authorities have provided. The major problems are directly caused by lack of investment.
Public funds have been made available to bring homes up to standard through stock transfer. The Defend Council Housing campaign, supported by trade unions, councillors and MPs, have long been saying that the same funds should be available to invest directly in council housing.
Nationally all council tenants are being robbed. Years of robbery have left council homes with a huge backlog of disrepair. Tenants are demanding a fair return for their rent. For decades they have paid more to Government than is spent on the upkeep of council homes. Ministers claim much of the robbery from rents is used to pay for historic debt, yet there is no justification for tenants money being used to finance historic debt.
Not only are tenants being robbed now, but the money which has been taken by government in the past 30 years from rents and right-to-buy sales is a staggering £68.6 billion. The government has already taken enough from council housing to pay off the total debt and provide enough gap funding to more than meet the investment backlog.
In Wales the UK government robs tenants rents as it does in England through a pooled negative subsidy regime. Almost £100m was taken from tenants in Wales in 2006/07 for example, the difference between £450m rents and only £350m in allowances (figures from HRA Subsidy Determination 2006-07, Welsh Assembly Government).
Tenants in Swansea, who voted to keep the council as their landlord, pay £8 million funding their housing debt every year. The UK government could write that debt off for Swansea tomorrow, releasing £8 million a year for much-needed spending on tenants homes. The same could happen for Neath Port Talbot.
The UK Treasury is prepared to spend millions of pounds to write off housing debt if tenants agree to transfer, and then let the new housing association landlords keep all of the rents to spend on the homes. The Welsh Assembly Government will add dowry payments to the new landlords.
In Wales widespread opposition to transfer means the process of forcing councils to submit options appraisals and/or ballot tenants has been slow. NO votes in Wrexham and Swansea, and large minorities voting NO in Conwy and Merthy Tydfil, indicates ongoing hostility to transfer. Tenants voting to stay with the council put government under real pressure. It is clear council housing is here to stay. Tenants campaigns have won wide backing from trade unions, councillors and MPs, and have pushed the issue to the top of the political agenda.
The case for council housing is at last being heard. Government on 21 July 09 published proposals to reform council housing finance and address the funding injustices which have caused disrepair and misery for tenants, and driven controversial privatisation. The Review of Council Housing Finance was a product of this determined opposition to privatisation.
The demand for a level playing field means that equal funding should now be available for council housing as was available for transfer. This is the level playing field between the four options which tenants, councils and others in”

“Part 1
Firstly it is important to point out that council housing is defined by three key principles. It provides secure tenancies, lower rents and an elected, accountable landlord. In the current climate all three qualities are more valuable than ever.
The problems with stock transfer is the change from public to private ownership. Stock transfer is privatisation in legal terms. Housing associations or Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) have rents and charges higher than for council tenants, they provide assured not secure tenancies and they have a reputation for being unaccountable (See: House of Commons Council Housing Group report, 'Council Housing: Time to invest').
Privatisation is increasingly risky in today's precarious financial climate. The central problem of housing associations is that as private, not public, companies they are exposed to the same forces now ravaging private sector companies across the economy. RSLs borrow directly from private lenders at higher costs than councils. Even before the credit crunch RSLs were bad value for the taxpayer. According to a report by the National Audit Office in 2003, it costs £1,300 per home more for refurbishment after transfer than it would cost for a council to do the same work.
The demand for privatisation through stock transfer is driven by government, private landlords and developers including RSLs, and other would-be beneficiaries. Many have massive financial interests and much to gain materially or professionally by driving through privatisation with hard selling.
In 2004-05, tenants from up and down the country reported to the House of Commons Council Housing Group the biased nature of the stock transfer consultation process. They heard shocking stories of councils one-sided propaganda pushing transfer. Since then there have been more abuses of the ballot process.
With no limits set at present councils spend crazy amounts of money promoting privatisation. And yet there is no budget at all to ensure that tenants hear both sides of the argument, with tenants putting the case against transfer.
In March 2007 Swansea the council passed the following motion: "Because of significant concerns and unanswered questions Council, on the 21st September 2006, requested Cabinet to halt the promotion of Housing Stock Transfer until a fair and balanced case could be developed; ¿Council considers that, notwithstanding expenditure in excess of £1.4 million, a fair and balanced case was not presented to tenants. Council further considers that significant unanswered questions remain, ¿Council notes with concern that the Cabinet nonetheless proceeded with the ballot and specifically criticises Cabinet for ignoring the clear, express view of Council."
Neath Port Talbot Council has a staggering £5.2 million to promote stock transfer, yet the local DCH campaign against transfer has virtually no money at all. How can anyone describe this process as a fair and balanced debate?
In no other ballot process in this country is there such a democratic deficit: there would be an outcry if the abuses allowed in transfer ballots were permitted in local elections or referenda. Behaviour that would be illegal in the selling of an insurance policy is routine in stock transfer ballots.
It is time to end the privatisation of council housing and the blackmail and bullying of tenants.
Council housing isn't perfect but millions have benefited from the decent, affordable, secure and accountable housing that democratically elected local authorities have provided. The major problems are directly caused by lack of investment.
Public funds have been made available to bring homes up to standard through stock transfer. The Defend Council Housing campaign, supported by trade unions, councillors and MPs, have long been saying that the same funds should be available to invest directly in council housing.
Nationally all council tenants are being robbed. Years of robbery have left c”

“Last week the national press carried a story that said about one million low paid families would be denied a mortgage in the future by banks and mortgage lenders who are tightening up their lending rules.
These people will need help with decent affordable housing.Otherwise they wil be condemned to a twilight world of shoddy housing or worse.
Yet, New Labour is planning to hand over all council housing to private housing landlords who operate in the free market .These new landlords can go bankrupt , can buy and sell on the open market,can merge or be taken over. Already some of the new private housing companies have become involved in financial scandals.I am thinking in particular of a company called Novas Scarman which suffered from a collective failure of management and has lost its 'registered social landlord ' status.”

“In longford martyn peters is a hero to the people. and there is a lot of no posters in windows but he is wrong this time.”

“The Yes campaign is spending 5 million pounds of public money-our money -on persuading tenants to vote yes.
That money could have been used to repair roofs, replace windows and put in damp proofing.
Labour used to be the party that would defend low income families but it looks to me that it is Cllr Martyn Peters [PC] and Cllr Keith Davies [Lib Dem ] who are speaking out for the low income families while New Lab cllrs are speaking out in support of those consultants who are doing nicely out of privatisation and stock transfer!
Dai”

“The Defend Council Housing Campaign has organised a series of public meetings from Glynneath to Croeserw and from Pontardawe to Port Talbot. Yet nowhere has its speakers found any appetite for stock transfer. Tenants are increasingly clear that stock transfer is privatisation.Something which the new House Of Commons Report has confirmed .

Cllr Martyn Peters ,an outspoken critic of stock transfe,r has also said that not one council home tenant has ever asked him about transferring to a local Housing Association home whereas he has had many requests from Housing Association tenants to transfer to a council home.

The yes campaign seems to be increasingly rattled by the Defend Council Housing arguments.They should be !

More and more tenants across the Borough are displaying VOTE NO posters in windows and despite the 5 million pound of public money being spent to persuade tenants to vote for stock transfer there is a real battle over the future of council house ownership.
Huw”

“this take over is yet another sign of neath port talbot council being unable to do what they are paid for ie look after the finances 20 million gone in iceland whos head rolled for that one basically neath port talbot are selling each council house for 16000 some one is going to get rich and i bet it wont be the tennents or leaseholders and who will get the bonus for this sale of the century”

“The rents of NPT CBC council housing stock bring in 28million a year approximately. Multiply this by 30 (years) and you get 840 million approximately. Mr. Peter Rees keeps shouting the council need 645 million over the next 30 years - well there it is - especially since the figures given out by NPT CBC do not correspond with this 645 million i.e. 1. Figures on page 69 of the online version of the WHQS and Social Housing Renewal Cost Model Report relating to Neath Port Talbot states approximately £352 million for total forecast of capital cost for 30 years.
2. Social Care Health & Housing Cabinet Board 14th December 2007 page 3, which is part of the Landlord Stock Business Plan 2007/37 states in the penultimate paragraph of that page ¿The Council¿s Consultants Tribal have been working with the Council to consider the issue. Their initial draft option appraisal indicates a finance gap of £90 million to meet WHQS and a total shortfall over 30 years of £216 million based on a projection of the 2005/6 budget.¿
If NPT CBC are not only talking about capital costs in these figures then surely that is misleading to the public? Mr. Rees asked for figures well here are some - would he now be kind enough to clarify.”

“The council cannot afford to repair houses even with the rents they recieve, £450k per year for every pound per week in rent, what is the average rent, if it is £50 thats over 20 million pounds per years in rent , where is it going? Why make some people rich by tranferring the houses to a new socail property owner for a small transfer fee, Give the houses to the tennants for the price of the legal costs plus a pound and stipulate if they sell the houses within the next 20 years they repay the council, ie, the rest of the people of N+PT the current market value of the houses. We all win. the council does not have to find money to repair the houses. The council will need less staff and therefore need tp pay less in wages and council tax can go down. The people who have looked after their houses win and the people who have abused their houses will have to live with the problems they have caused.”