Revealed: HRA winners and losers

Readers' comments (13)

• michaelbarratt council tenant | 01/04/2010 8:54 am

  The Government makes an an offer too good to refuse that even Don Vito Corleone would not have had the affront to make
  
  Crawley was to my knowledge debt free(now claimed £3m debt) The Government wants to saddle Crawley council tenants with a £238m debt. Middle England would be marching and demonstrating in the streets if building societies and banks demanded further huge payments from house owners had discharged their debt (many Crawley tenants have lived in their homes for more than 50 years) . In 2006 Crawley Borough Council wanted to sell our homes (less garages) to a housing association ( with rules of association similar to a football club) for £16m or under £2,000 each. All that can be said of the Government 'offer' is as the old lady said. "WHAT A LIBERTY, THEIR GAVIN A GO."

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• michaelbarratt council tenant | 01/04/2010 9:38 am

  THE GOVERNMENT CHOSE THE RIGHT DAY FOR THEIR ANNOUNCEMENT - APRIL FOOLS' DAY PERHAPS THE MORAL IS - DO NOT STEAL THE GOVERNMENT HATES COMPETITION!!

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• alex kendall | 01/04/2010 10:00 am

  As its April Fools day how would the Tory party deal with this issue- Bob, Grant or George??? something you are silent on?????

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Confused | 01/04/2010 10:28 am

  I am not sure about the use of winners and losers from Trowers. All HRAs are better off than in the current system where debt free councils pay an ever increasing amount of rent cash over to the government for them to give to those councils in debt. This is the same except councils keep the cash themselves, but in some cases have to serve a higher debt from this cash directly themselves. Perhaps the real loser here is Trowers themselves that will see the end of the cash cow called transfer legal fees. Transfers are much less likely to happen after self financing and it is in Trowers interest to create confusion over self financing to keep the transfer consultancy fee gravy train alive

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• paul leader | 01/04/2010 2:28 pm

  it is about time the HRA was looked at only this change does not go far enough to stop councils taking what is tenants money out through the back door of a so called ring fenced account. It will never be spent well while councils and councilors have control of the HRA. let the Tenants loose on the HRA so they can drill down and see exactly where thier money goes down to the penny and on what, councils have robbed Tenants for to long and now they will be able to build more homes to rob.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Alex Westran | 01/04/2010 4:53 pm

  In esscence these plans would give financial benefit to the councils taht take on additional debt. By allowing councils to keep money taken from rents it would not only give added stability by knowing how much money they will generate roughly each year, but it would also mean they would get to keep the money that would have dissapeared into other councils or central governments coffers before. Its just the stigma of having additional debt and what that means to us all on a personal level that is the tough pill to swallow.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• 

  | 01/04/2010 9:10 pm

  At last some real figures to work with. Many thanks for putting up the excel file breakdown. I wonder what the methodology used to work out these splits was? It would be interesting to know...
  
  Because whilst some Labour controlled boroughs are taking on some of the debt it appears that Tory boroughs overall seem to be the biggest losers.
  
  Analysis:
  
  In terms of the Top 20 winners and losers, it appears that 10 of winners are Labour run boroughs (one of which is dual Lab/LibDem controlled). The top 5 winners are all Labour run boroughs with the exception of Islington which the LibDems hold by one vote and which Labour expects to take back control of at the next election. Were that to happen then it would mean that £3.2bn of debt would removed from these 5 Labour run boroughs and redistributed to others.
  
  In terms of the top 20 losers it appears that 16 out of the top 20 losers are Conservative controlled boroughs (one of which is dual Con/LibDem controlled). Only 3 of the losers are Labour run boroughs.
  
  Data on political control of the various councils used comes from:
  
  http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm
  
  Now that the all important breakdown has been released, and the devil being in the detail, I wonder if the "Government analysis shows most councils are enthusiastic about the change" claim will now hold up with the Conservatives?
  
  Whose councils clearly have the most to loose from the current calculation...
  
  From Conservative council's perspective, it could be difficult to understand why their debt free boroughs should take on the debt of Labour controlled inner city boroughs who have spent vast amounts on building council housing in their areas. And, in the case of London boroughs under the current national HRA settlement whose tenants receive a HRA subsidy of £15 per property per week paid from from tenant's rents in poorer parts of the country (figures from 2005 Audit Commission report, Financing Council Housing), why should Conservative boroughs now fund their spending? Especially when the proportion of council housing of the London boroughs in the Top 5 winners, compared to the national average, is so grossly disproportionate?
  
  For example, Islington has nearly 50% council housing (rising to 70% in some wards) when the national average is just 12%. This huge amount is due partly to the muncipalisation of the borough that occured when Margaret Hodge, in her looney left days, was leader of the council. Statues of Lenin in Town Hall and lots of column inches in Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs section were the order of the day. The Labour propaganda machine in the borough is promising to build yet more but should the means to do this entail other (mainly Conservative) boroughs in the rest of the country taking on £639m of their debt in order to do so?
  
  What will the other (mainly Conservative) boroughs who will be paying for Islington's (and Hackney's and Newham's and Sheffield's and Manchester's) council house building programme actually get out of it? Other than their debt?
  
  Surely a fairer approach would be to require certain indebted inner city Labour and former Labour boroughs with disproportionate amounts of council housing (and thus council housing debt) to sell some of their stock so that they pay down their debt and bring their stock levels closer to the 12% national average? Doubtless they would not agree. But what about the thoughts of the Tory run boroughs who are now expected to bankroll them?
  
  Don't think the current proposal will sail through before the election somehow...
  
  
  ILAG

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• John Perry, CIH | 02/04/2010 11:29 am

  This article is rather alarmist as the real issue is not the level of debt in each LA but what the settlement does to their HRA overall, and their ability to spend/borrow. Those receiving new debt will need to look at the cost of that debt compared with the payments they now make to government. The HRA prospectus is intended to make all LAs better off, although some will benefit more than others.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• written with irony | 03/04/2010 8:17 am

  This makes perfect sense to me, load an otherwise debt free (in some cases)HRA with a huge debt, disguise it as a favour and make sure the poor tenants don't understand it and then continue to deprive them of a VFM service that they are entitled too.
  
  Suggest that it makes LA's self financing but still insist on having major say in how the HRA is run! The TSA will not be able to interfere in LA's that are not providing VFM because they are not regulating Governance or Viability both of which are the key to tenant satisfaction.
  
  I don't see how a debt free HRA being "forced" into taking on a huge debt will benefit the tenant, but it's not about them, IS IT????????
  
  Oh and at the same time take away local authority tenants choices. Make it impossible for the tenants to ask their landlord for a transfer. Keep LA tenants the poorest of all social housing after all they should be GRATEFUL for whatever is on offer after all most of them are on benefit so why should we care............The results of this review are just what the image of COUNCIL HOUSING and COUNCIL TENANTS needed at this point in time. A continuation of a hidden tax on rent, leaving housing staff to try and maintain homes on much less money than is collected (servicing the debt will come from rent money)and leaving the tenant feeling like the poor relation to RSL social housing tenants, who of course are treated with much more respect.
  This is a must win situation for all LA’s grab the opportunity while you can, keep Council tenants down where they belong.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• johnbull | 03/04/2010 2:42 pm

  This Idea is an outrage, since it will mean the councils are effectivly ending up financing and administering a central government housing estate.
  Once money given to councils, in massive subsidies, to build council houses has been repaid. It should be up to the council to decide what to do with the housing stock in its area.
  If Crawley is debt free it should be able to charge those tenants who have paid their rent for, say the last 30 years. a maintenance charge and rates only.
  Paid of course means paid by them and not paid by the state through the benefit system. This would put them in the same position as people who have bought their own prperty and paid off the mortgage.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment