Better Homes, better Lives with GHA

[fourbytwo]

most sitting tenants of housing about to be transferred to 'most' Housing Associations.....were asked to 'join' and become full members............
Included in that 'membership' was the statement that until the HA thought otherwise, tenants would lose their right to buy under the legislation.......
Almost all documents I have seen, preclude a 'vote', and 'assume; that all tenants, whether actually paying the £1
fee or not..........are assumed to have accepted ALL THE CLAUSES WITHIN THE CHANGEOVER DOCUMENT...!
It does not matter a jot whether the 2nd stage happens or not.....the HA still hold the right of veto on reverting to
the 'ability to buy your house'.......
This is the clause that allows HA and similar to claim for finances.....as assets for security/loans....!
Without this HA could not get the 'special monies' to upgrade current housing stock, or in fact build new stock.
Banks would not look kindly into 'assets being sold-off'.....so, the swings and roundabouts game continues...!

[onyirtodd]

I have no knowledge of the documents 4x2 has seen but I doubt if any contract between two charities could invalidate a preserved legislative right to buy and I'm absolutely certain this didn't happen under the (very) recent merger of Hyndland Local Housing Organisation and Glasgow West Housing Association.

I suspect any tenant who has become a £1 member of a merged organisation under a document which claims to be able to deprive them of a preserved right to buy would have recourse in law.

That's not to say there aren't moves by the Tartan Tories to reduce the right to buy but even BawFace Neil says "The proposed changes to Right to Buy will encourage social landlords to build more new properties whilst allowing tenants to retain existing Right to Buy entitlements."(my italics)

[Lucky Poet]

Does he take sugar?

[onyirtodd]

BawFace? Ah dinny ken.

[Lucky Poet]

I have no knowledge of the documents 4x2 has seen

Address fourbytwo, not us. It's a bit rude otherwise, no?

[Josef]

Thought you would have got the reference the first time, Onny. Not that I did till LP's second post, mind you .

Are there any defensible reasons for 'Right to Buy' in social housing?

[draugelis]

Are there any defensible reasons for 'Right to Buy' in social housing?

IMHO, no.

[Dexter St. Clair]

There's nothing stopping them from buying a council house. There's plenty on the market but for some reason they want a discount after paying for their accommodation for twenty years.

[onyirtodd]

I have no knowledge of the documents 4x2 has seen

Address fourbytwo, not us. It's a bit rude otherwise, no?

Not in the least. If fourbytwo brings mention of documents to the forum I'm entitled to refer to them and the fact I haven't seen them

[onyirtodd]

Thought you would have got the reference the first time, Onny. Not that I did till LP's second post, mind you .

I still don't get the reference I'm afraid. Do enlighten me.

Are there any defensible reasons for 'Right to Buy' in social housing?

Probably not.

[onyirtodd]

Glasgow Housing Association has been forced into a U-turn on a multi-million pound repairs contract.

Amid executive departures and mounting speculation that regime change is afoot, the GHA has reversed its snub to a Glasgow City Council-owned company in favour of a private firm by awarding City Building the lucrative contract.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/disp ... s_deal.php

[Dexter St. Clair]

City Building has been doing the work on the southside since Connaught hauled out. City Building's bid was cheaper.

[Josef]

I still don't get the reference I'm afraid. Do enlighten me.

I'm assuming that''s a straight question (it's whooshed past me otherwise), so I'll answer it straight.

'Does he take sugar?' was the first program on UK radio to champion disabled people, and took its name from the then (and possibly still) common habit of indirectly addressing disabled people in the third person.

You're well known on HG for raising issues on behalf of the disabled, so I reckoned there was a better than average chance you would be familiar with it. Since you'd just referred to the previous poster in the third person, likewise I presumed you'd be more likely to get the reference made by LP.

No sarcasm whatsoever was intended.

[onyirtodd]

I still don't get the reference I'm afraid. Do enlighten me.

I'm assuming that''s a straight question (it's whooshed past me otherwise), so I'll answer it straight.

'Does he take sugar?' was the first program on UK radio to champion disabled people, and took its name from the then (and possibly still) common habit of indirectly addressing disabled people in the third person.

You're well known on HG for raising issues on behalf of the disabled, so I reckoned there was a better than average chance you would be familiar with it. Since you'd just referred to the previous poster in the third person, likewise I presumed you'd be more likely to get the reference made by LP.

No sarcasm whatsoever was intended.

Right. Makes sense now. I was trying to work out if there was something I ought to know about 4x2 but didn't.
I'm familiar with Does He Take Sugar and I'm delighted Peter White has 'escaped' the disabled jungle to present more mainstream content - even if You and Yours is generally shite.

I readily acknowledge a reputation for being rude where appropriate but if I came across as rude on this occassion it was unintended. Second Stage Transfer and the machinations of GHA are probably deadly dull to many here but, to anyone who's worked to make 2ST happen nothing comes as a surprise.I hadn't heard 4x2's allegation previously and wanted more info. I'd still like to see the documents in question.

[onyirtodd]

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... it_GHA.php

Troubleshooters called in at crisis-hit GHA

It just gets worse and worse.