“Yes well done Paul. Everything you say is backed up by the written word, as always. Defend Council Housing have approached NPT CBC asking for a meeting between themselves and the WHQS team within NPT CBC who work with the Tenant Advisers but they will not respond to the request. Letters have been sent to this newspaper by the NO campaign which sadly never make it on to the pages. The whole issue is one sided and until there is honesty and the reasons given why NPT CBC are so desperate to get rid of this housing stock as quickly as possible before legislation changes, perhaps in favour of council housing, then we will not get the truth. Is there more to this than meets the eye apart from a desperation to borrow money against the collateral of 9000 plus houses and ultimately put those tenants homes at far more risk than staying with the council would mean?”

“Well said Paul! I think you should have been an independent tenants adviser...it would have cost so much less than the present crew and also the tenants would have been given a great deal more to think about rather than an empty promise of anew bathroom.
David”

“As well as the first two comments here made by 'GT' and 'Paul Johnson' of Port Talbot there has recently been three letters published in the Post refering to the proposed transfer of council housing stock in Neath Port Talbot (Post, October 29 and 30), all of which have a common thread - and that is they all dismiss the Defend Council Housing campaign as inaccurate and irrelevant, therefore encouring tenants not to listen those who are putting the case against stock transfer. This type of behaviour I believe is mendacious or is at least a gross ignorance on their part.

It is only fair tenants are made aware of the case against stock transfer before they are asked to make such a historic decission on the future of their homes. However, it would seem there are some who would prefer tenants are denied this information, and thus a fair and balanced debate.

In all the years I have been involved with Defend Council Housing I have noticed the only tenants who have been in favour of stock transfer are those who have based their opinions only on the subjective one sided propaganda put out by those promoting stock transfer, rather than listening objectively to both those promoting stock transfer and the evidence accumilated by the House of Commons Council Housing Group, DCH, the trade unions, etc. It is therefore little wonder these minority of tenants form the opinions they do, after all they are, in effect, only listening to the prosecutions case and not the defence before making a judgment.

Not only that but it is disengenious for Neath Port Talbot Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Peter Rees, to insists the money to improve housing stock would not be available should tenants vote against the transfer (Post October 22). Homes will have to be brought up to the Welsh Housing Quality Standard even if tenants vote against the transfer. His other claim that rents could double trebble if tenants voted no is outright bullying in my opinion, and has since been refuted by both the Deputy Minister for Housing at the Assembly, Jocelyn Davies, and South West Wales AM, Peter Black, as totally unrealistic!

There is a strong argument that tenants should have a 'level playing field' with regard to standards and services whoever they choose for their landlord. The House of Commons Council Housing Group have been making this case for some years, along with the Defend Council Housing campaign, trade unions and three consecutive votes at Labour conferences. And, collectively, we are now winning that argument.

Throughout the UK tenants determined opposition to stock transfer privatisation, and the financial crisis hitting housing, have forced government to change policy. 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 many tenants, and driven controversial privatisation.

Ministers promised the Review of Council Housing Finance will "ensure that we have a sustainable, long term system for financing council housing" and the government has now produced concrete proposals as a result of the review. But, most importantly, it should be noted the consultation document explicitly promises "a level playing field between transfer and retention".

The question tenants need to asking is why Neath Port Talbot Council are ignoring these facts and pressing ahead with the proposed stock transfer ballot. I suggest the answer can be found in the House of Commons Council Housing Group's latest report, 'Council Housing: Time to Invest', which states: "The demand for privatisation through stock transfer, PFI, ALMO or Local Housing Companies 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 se”

“The House Of Commons Report referred to by Paul Lynch is an all party report.
It is a very timely document and has come out at a most appropriate time for NPT tenants.
The MPs led by Austin Mitchell MP took evidence from numerous sources including tenants,tenant groups, academics, Local Authority , Housing officers and trade unionists etc.
On page 55 it states 'Stock transfer is privatisation'. That is about a clear staement asit comes.But why is this never mentioned in any of the literature sent out by the council or its consultants.
The consultants say that we should not listen to 'rumours' but this authoritative report is surely more than a rumour.
I think the New Labour controlled council is so keen to off load the housing that it has ignored privatisation and several other key issues for tenants such as the financial viability of privatised Housing Associations,many of which have been severely hit by the financial crisis that has hit property prices and registered social landlords during the past 2 years.
Can we trust the council and its consultants to give us the facts? I have to agree with Paul Lynch and the Defend Council Housing Camapaign. Vote NO for housing security and against privatisation!
David”

“Spare a thought for the poor employees of NPT Building Services and Management who will be told to transfer to NPT Homes or become redundant. While they will keep the same pay and conditions under TUPE, I am baffled after reading an independant staff newsletter published in August 09 that says NPT homes will apply for it's company to be admitted into the Local Government Pension Scheme. How can this be? Surely they will become private employees, and any future pensions should come from NPT Homes and not the taxpayer. Looks like the council is trying to decieve it's workforce as well.”