Great-gran ‘rushed’ into £2,000 house move
Tuesday 29th September 2009, 2:30PM BST.
The new Guernsey Housing Association development of flats at Hougue a la Perre.
A GREAT-grandmother initially given two weeks to move house by the States has been saddled with four-figure bills.
The 79-year-old, who asked not to be named, lived in her States home for more than 15 years.
She received a letter from the Housing Department at the beginning of September asking her to view a flat in the new Hougue a la Perre estate, Grand Bouet.
Within a week she was asked to accept the tenancy and was expected to move within just 11 days. After relatives stepped in, however, the woman was given three weeks from viewing to moving in.
The department insists it has acted within guidelines.
Nevertheless, the woman’s family is outraged. A daughter acting as spokesman said: ‘I can understand the Housing Department wanting to free up three-bedroomed properties for families and I am pleased that they have new purpose-built blocks to rehouse people.
‘But I just cannot get my head around the way they work the system.’
The States told the OAP she had to buy her own carpets and curtain fittings for the new flat, which cost her £2,000, and remove floor coverings from her old home.
As a result, the pensioner moved in such a hurry that she did not have time to organise a phone connection.
Her daughter said her mother was lucky to have the support of her family, or the upheaval could have had terrible consequences had she been on her own.
A Housing spokesman said: ‘The department writes to the tenant as soon as a suitable property becomes available and invites them to view it.
‘The viewing usually takes place within a week. If they accept the property – and there are certain circumstances where they can turn it down – they are given an average of one to two weeks to organise removals etc.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Hmmm-this story seems like a bit of housing bashing to me. I think that the time scales seem reasonable – you wouldnt get that sort of grace in the private sector – or would you get the carpets etc paid for – i think not.
Report abuse
Anyone for a sweepstake on how long her old place will be empty?
Weeks?
Months?
A year?
Or flattened entirely, like Mont Arrivee, and turned into unoccupied rubble mounds?
Report abuse
Bob-surely everyone has the right to live in good well maintained accomodation. Therefore if the property needs to be modernised and hauled into the 21st century so be it. If the previous tenant lived there for 15 years, then im sure things like electrics will need to be redone – and this will take time.
The Rubble mounds you refer to at the Mont Arrive site are soon to be brand spanking new ultra modern, ultra eco friendly accomodation. Unfortunatly people cant live in houses when they are being redeveloped can they? Lets face it – a states department are not going to let property sit idle and rent slip through their fingers for the sake of it.
Report abuse
Another States bashing non-story by the GP.
Report abuse
Couldn’t agree more dan. What can we do about it though? Maybe we could launch our own underground rag?
Report abuse
Auntie GP/ Dave Jones – The states are of course very and rightly proud of their rubble mounds. I apologise. The people kicked out from there must be grateful that their former homes have been so promptly put to such urgent “social need” housing use. Looks more like a digger testing ground, so maybe that’s why Dave’s left ‘em that way.
This isn’t a non-story, but a prime example of housing walking over the vunerable. Most private sector tenants would get a year or two stay of eviction following a fifteen year tenancy. This sort of bullying really causes distress, and this lady’s move needn’t have been rushed.
Report abuse
to qoute Bob
watch this space on Mont Arrive
at least the “unoccupied rubble mounds” have more Architectural merit than the old states houses
I think the lady has been poorly treated but possibly has a better home than before
She shouldn’t have to pay for fixtures and fittings though
Report abuse
I totally agree with the above comments, housing is obviously giving the old lady a better standard of accommodation.
I would have thought that her family would have been only too pleased and would have stepped in to help her.
Her daughter says the lady was lucky to have the support of her family, me thinks they should have just got on with the job of helping her move rather than slag off the housing department who are trying to help her.
And how long does it take to move one 79 year old lady with the help of relatives?
Mind you not knowing the family I could imagine that if she hadnt got a move they would have said ” My mum has been in the same old states house for 15 years, it needs work done to it, and no one cares about her, as others are being moving into lovely new flats. ”
It seems to me that housing will never win.
Report abuse
Bob you speak sense…
I’d imagine when writing their comments Aunite GP and Dan are nicely tucked up in their private sector dwellings with no fear of an impending eviction!
As for quote ‘I think that the time scales seem reasonable – you wouldn’t get that sort of grace in the private sector’ – what complete rubbish. What’s lacking here is the states ability to investigate situations on a case by case basis and show compassion where needed. Giving an elderly lady such a short period of time to pack, organise a move and then fund the furnish of a new home is totally unreasonable. Aunite GP – have you not got a granny?
As for ‘you wouldnt get that sort of grace in the private sector ‘, again what complete rubbish. If you were stupid enough to sign a contract allowing a landlord to enforce such a short notice then that’s your own lookout. States tenants do not have the luxury of dictating such terms!
The problem with the likes of you Auntie GP is that you’re likely to have a universal opinion of all states house tenants and I’m sure it’s not a very favourable one. What you have to realize is that by far the majority of states tenants are hard working people who have to seek assistance in an unrealistic housing market.
Well done Guernsey Press for bringing this story to the people!
Report abuse
Churchill – you couldnt be wider of the mark if you tried. Allow me to respond point by point if i may.
1. Yes I do live in private accomodation, but I come from a states house background, my family were up until very recently still in state accomodation-and lived in fear of impending eviction, so I know exactly what that is like.
2.In the private sector – my landlord is not going to pay for my carpets is he? Notice periods are notice periods and we all have to abide by them when we rent – it is the nature of the beast. 3 weeks is plenty of time-we managed to move my parents out in 2 days, and they had 1 week notice-its called family rallying around and helping out-after more then 20 years in that house there was a lot to sort too! And yes thank you, I have a granny, and she bakes the best bakewell tart in the world!
As for my “universal opinion” of states house tenants, I am disgusted that you would make such a derogatory claim on my charachter based on 2 comments on this board.
What you do not realise is that there are so many people living the life of riley in states houses, with nice big cars and flat screen tv’s and nice holidays, meanwhile there are people in dire need of “social housing” which by design is there for the poor and needy.
This is purely a guess, but i reckon you live in states accodation and earn a reasonable wage and are worried that you might be asked to leave in the near future, or maybe you have already been caught up with and asked to go private. Before you moan and complain about giving your house up-maybe you should go and live in some of the squats and poor conditions some people, often with children have to live in. Then you can make your decision as to whether it is fair or not to ask hard working people who can support themselves in the private sector out to make way for the more needy. Where is your compassion?
Muzeek
It is standard that you must supply your own curtains and carpets-have you been in the properies at Hougue Ala Perre? They are not that big-so I am guessing that to cost £2k-they must be very nice very expensive carpets!
Report abuse
so the family were in such a rush thy had to throw away prized possessions and didn’t have time to organise a phone connection. But according to the timescale, she had moved six days before she had to! Yes, another poor dig at a states department.
Report abuse
Auntie GP. To start with I’d prefer not to waste my time further discussing the situation of the private sector as it has no bearing on this article.
As for your guess on my personal situation, well expectedly you are mistaken. I too have come from a states house background but have worked hard and have lived comfortably in the private sector for many years now, so I’ll ignore your protests to my lack of compassion. In fact if you were able to understand my point it is compassion that inspired to post my comment in the first place. But hey lets not get into some sort of competition here…I was born in a skip but now I have..etc..etc.
As you have rightly pointed out there are undeserving occupants living in states properties. Believe it or not I agree with your comments that these undeserving cases should not be catered for by the states. I do believe however there are many deserving cases out there and it is their position I think the states should consider more carefully before casting their iron ruling. And let’s face it a 79 year old lady is unlikely to be in a position to break free states assisted housing and move to the private sector!
To consider the case in hand, I’d imagine Juliet Pouteaux of the GP is more than capable of making the distinction between a worthy and unworthy states tenant. So having run the article on the Great-grandmother do you really think that her position was as you so put it ‘living the life of Riley’? Or do your concerns with the reporting ability of the GP run so deep you are unable to even consider their subjects point of view as a valid one?
Again, well done GP. It is articles like this that may make the States think before acting!
Report abuse
What’s that saying? Never look a gift-horse in the mouth?
This woman is getting an almost free flat. It says more about the family who are complaining than it does about the States.
It seems to me that so many benefit claimers think they are owed the world for free.
Report abuse
Churchill-I was not suggesting that this particular lady was living the life of riley. I believe that she is deserving of States Housing, and I am glad that she has somewhere nice and manageable to live now.
My previous comments related to the perception of states housing in general, and the usual bandwagon of states bashers, and in particular housing bashers.
In respect of this particular case I fail to see where there is any unreason?
Firstly, as reported the new property was offer? Why was it offered? Did housing just decide to move her? Or is it more likely that she has applied for a transfer at some point, and now her time had come. The report also states that she can refuse the property should she have a reason for doing so. Once the acceptance was made and the lady was told there is 11 days to move, an extension to that deadline was agreed after a request from the family, fair enough. What the report does not say, and we will never know is, were they told that 3 weeks is all they can have, deal with it! I am guessing not as if that was the case i am sure that would of been put in the report. So that leads me to assume that 3 weeks was agreed as a reasonable time by the tenant/family. I think 3 weeks is plenty of time to arrange a move. The headline suggests that the housemove cost of £2k was forced upon them. as pointed out previously, it is not unreasonable to ask tenants to supply carpet and curtains, and that this did not have to cost £2k. It was designed to stir an uprising against the beast of housing. I am afraid it seems to me like the reporter has decided that this would be easy pickings, great gran forced to move-easy headline. Your right I do have a bone of contention with the press as i find their liberal use of fact, along with dollops of spin, paint an altogether unbalanced view of any situation they see fit.
Apolgies for guessing incorrectly your situation. Well done to you.
Report abuse
If you were told you were OFFERED a newly built place to live in, a more appropriate size, in a unit which you have no financial responsibilities towards save a subsidised rent and your creature comforts, complaining seems churlish, no?
Of course there will be issues with leaving a house you’ve spent an amount of time in enough for some proper roots to have grown, and sentimentality is bound to colour aspects of the decision, but the bottom line is simply this: The States want to improve their Housing policy, to make it more efficient and to make it fairer. Housing costs the tax payer a fortune.
The GP have lost their mind on this one. As have the public who think that being allocated a new flat in an island with chronic shortages is somehow an act of pensioner bashing.
Does her family really believe that this is supporting her? I understand why the press wanted a different angle on the Housing thing, following the fanfare of new developments and new projects, but even out of context the words and quotes are every-day house moving angsts and to front-page this is a clear attack on Dave Jones, but also making the public believe that the States are somehow constantly inhumane.
The agenda is clear. It hates the public sector. Is it doing the job of the politicians by making us support drastic frontline cuts that will happen in the following years after finance shrinks due to our over enthusiastic Euro-Ringer?
Report abuse
Arnald…..i’m gobsmacked…..I actually agree with your post above!!!
Report abuse
I’m sorry but three weeks is not ‘rushed’.
Report abuse
My mother has never asked for, expected or taken charity in her life. She, and my late father, worked hard all their lives to provide for their family and took pride in any house they occupied and if jobs needed doing the family did it themselves and didn’t run to the States expecting them to! Muzeek, as a family we willingly rallied around every night after a day’s work, like any family would and yes she is grateful to have moved to such a nice apartment but I still believe she should have been given more notice that she was to be moved. Perhaps your family roots aren’t as deep as mine. The thought of any elderly people with no close relatives having to suddenly move on at short notice was the reason for my speaking out and the only way I could do that was to talk about my/our family’s situation and my strong feeling that tenants should be given fair warning.
Report abuse
It would seem that Housing is back on the agenda to be kicked, this really was a non story and the true factsof this move are not as reported in the press. The staff at Housing become more demoralised every time the press blows something like this up out of all proportion they work extreamly hard to try and make any move as smooth as possible. Of course the real target of the press is me, as some of you may have already realised. I would also like to know from the press reporter whether she believes the Taxpayer should have paid for any new carpets?
Report abuse
This brings to mind the story about the ingrates who are suing the Gas Co for possibly saving their lives by disconnecting their gas cooker
Report abuse
Dave Jones – I would also like to know from the press reporter whether she believes the Taxpayer should have paid for any new carpets?
Well we (the taxpayer) pays for all those young single mothers to walk around with their new mobile phones, widescreen tvs, sky tv, nice clothes! thats what the taxpayers money goes on, so yeah id rather pay for an OAP’s carpets than some kid thats has a kid and wont work a day in her life!
i used to live in a states house with my parent and we got a letter saying we earn too much so get out, which is fine we are much better off not being in states housing BUT they moved in a young girl of 19 with 3 children into my old house, and who pays her rent WE DO!!!!!! shocking!!! my mother paid her rent every week without fail and always worked sometimes 2 jobs! so they kick us out and move in a child that will never work because why should she when the states will pay her rent, buy her clothes, trick her house out with the mod cons! lucky little girl!
I do think 3 weeks is abit rushed specially if the OAP has lived in that house for say 30 years or whatever, i’m sure there was a lot of belongings to sort out, alot of older people like to keep things for the sake of keeping them, so 3 weeks for a normal person is pretty fair for sure, but for an old lady/man it is pretty hard, but i’m sure if they went to the housing they might be able to help? who knows!!
Report abuse
Vee – you are confusing housing with Social Security. Also the article states over 15 years, which means probably less then 16 years so not quite 30. If you take issue with paying income tax and social security to create the excellent welfare state we live in, the answer is simple, give up work, have a child and reap the benefits of, well benefits! Or you can choose not to, and to work, and to pay your taxes and be a contributing member of society. I agree with Dave Jones on this one, it is not a story, it almost certainly does not present the full facts, it is not objective and has an agenda to make Dep DJ as uncomfortable as possible. And whether they are meant to or not, they are no doubt making the lives of the staff at housing very miserable. Good work GP!
Report abuse
My Gran had much less notice when they evacuated the Island!
Report abuse
My Great Gran had to carry the entire street on her back when she was told to move. 85 people and their belongings all stacked up on the shoulders of a 109 year old.
The States Housing employees lined the street that day telling her to hurry up and what was she moaning for. The sound of laughter when she tripped on a used syringe rings forever in my ears.
I was hoarse by the end.
This must stop. This shameful treatment of the older persons; making them live against their will, being all young around them, sprinting past them when you want to get the last packet of Spice before they waste it on feeding their gerbils, must be acted against. At the very least, televised.
I say televise it.
Report abuse
Hettie
But why go to the media and slag off the Housing Department, after you had gone to Housing and it was extended to 3 weeks.
As usual you go public like many others and make thing bad for a department who are trying their best to improve the life of their tenants.
And as for the reason why you went public ie worried about those without relatives to assist them, I am sure they treat every case on its merits.
Report abuse
Ithink this lady is very lucky to have a lovly flat like that with a fab view.I think she should pay for her own carpets like everyone else .my parents are in private sector and they have to maintain their house etc so why shouldnt this lady Im a widow and i had to down size and yes you have to get rid of things.
Report abuse
Auntie GP – no i’m not confusing the housing with social security! i know very well which is which and what they represent. States housing throw out paying WORKING people and move in single mothers who dont work like u clearly pointed out also, i work and have done since i was 15, i own my house, i have never begged for anything yet my tax money goes on those who dont work and dont want to work! this is the world we live in and to be perfectly honest its pants! i cant stand it that people get everything an dont work for it! i am working to pay my mortgage and provide for my family and i am very proud of that! i do a good job and help people out when i can, but i do think the older generation SHOULD have a little bit more time than 3 weeks. Sorry what i meant when i said if the OAP had lived there 30yrs or something, i meant OAPs as a whole, sorry about that.
I totally agree with u 100% that people who work in the housing do get a lot of hassle, of course they do! but i do believe (and this is only because i used to live in a states house) that they need to be more understanding and they arent i promise you! i could sit here all day and tell you things about when i lived in a states house, but who cares thats the past all i’m saying is, if they issue letters or come round and say we have found another house/flat for you and u accept, maybe they need to ask the person in question how long it will be until they are ready as in got all there stuff together, thrown out bits/bobs whatever, and if that person then says a stupid answer like a year well then they simply give them a decent time frame like 3 months, thats my personal view on it!
Report abuse
Vee-but housing do not provide the people who live in their houses with nice tv’s or mobile phones etc – yes they have a subsidised rent scheme, but that is open to all people in social housing if they qualify. The point of social housing is to house those who need help as they can not survive in the private sector. If everyone could afford a mortgage then they would take one out, lets face it who wants to pay rent! And if that was the case, imagine how much higher the house prices would be, greater demand would mean greater prices! As a tax payer i agree it is frustrating that some people work the system to their advantage, but that happens in all walks of life. If we did not live in a welfare state then imagine the state this island would be in! Homeless on the streets, orphanages full of unwanted children-it would not be a very attractive place to live would it! I accept that your personal view is that more time should be given, and agree or disagree, the truth is it is not that long. You would not get that long in the private sector,so why the public sector?
Report abuse
Why all the fuss about living in a states house?? no shame in it!! What the fuss should be about is the fact that no one person or 2 people should be living in a house made for more people i.e. if you’re on your own you should not be GIVEN a house to live in with 3 bedrooms! makes sense no!?
I’d love for the states to give me a house for me and my son as i am not even able to afford to rent more than a shed! If i, as a full time worker, am helping to pay towards keeping people who are living in a states house why should they have a much bigger house than needed?
If anyone wants to offer me a place that i can move into in 3 weeks time and ONLY pay for my carpets and curtains please let me know and i will not make such a fuss!!
Report abuse
JL Seagull
Roflmao thats brill :)))))
Report abuse
I think the housing department have done good for this island in the past eight years. I applaud housing for the changes they’ve made and I think they do a very tough job and have to deal with some very rude people at times. I have family who live in states houses (my mother also grew up in a states house) who are extremely grateful for the assistance the housing department have given them. It is not a god given right to live in a states house. I would not be happy if I as a tax payer had to pay for carpets etc.
Report abuse
I am from Guernsey and now live in England, its time the housing got its act together and good for them for taking this action, wehy should a single person live in a three bed place when there are alot of familys waiting for housing. I also agree why should the tax paper pay for carpets and curtians, my parents worked very hard and bought there house, but when they needed assistance they were told to use there saving.
Good for the housing, its time they came into the 21st century and tightened up and stopped people from sponging off the states.
Report abuse
This lady had nearly a month to move – she is a great-grandmother so one assumes a large family is around to help out? How long does it take to organise a phone line, and as for carpets and curtain costing £2000 they must have been top of the range.
What she will have now is a brand new flat, fit for purpose, easy and cost effective to heat and very comfortable. Are the family and the tenant not grateful for this? The family must have known months ago that a move was on the cards so why didn’t they start sorting things out things beforehand. Of course people collect lots of things over 15 years – they could have had a car boot sale and used the proeeds towards the cost of new carpets and curtains. Of course – that is a bit of hard work isn’t it? Much easier to go moaning to the GP who seem all too happy to go on a witch hunt where anything to do with the public sector is concerned.
What has happened the the GP? It used to be a moderate local paper with fair reporting – now they appear to be on a witch hunt for anything that can discredit the public sector. Why don’t they say something positive for a change?
Report abuse
It makes me laugh how people can judge people by them appearing in the LOCAL paper, its local not national news so stop saying it’s a waste of paper to print “these stories” local stories go into the local paper, surprising I know!
Report abuse
Over the past few months, I’ve been noticing what seems like a bit of a trend in the Press. Perhaps I’m mistaken here, but there does seem to have been quite a growth in articles centering on the theme of “taxpayers’ money gone to waste”.
I wonder if the GP is following the national UK trend to focus on the same issue (after the Telegraph’s classic “duck island” MP expenses articles). I can just imagine an editorial meeting not long after that story broke – “what are we doing to report on the same thing here? Look at the impact of that story! We could do the same”.
Not a conspiracy as such – it’s a natural thing for a newspaper to want to do. But worth considering before coming to a conclusion that the whole of our government is wasteful and uncaring.
Report abuse
I propose a form to be submitted at the same time as your tax return on what you want your tax money spent on, mine will look something like this
Mobile Phone for slacker mum- No bloody chance
Office in brussels- Not for me thanks, the finance sector can pay for that.
Marijuana for dole head- No
Carpets for Granny- Yes
Incinerator- No
Boat for Bernie to leave on- All of it, you can even have some more tax if needed.
Report abuse
Having read this nonsensical so called story again I will respond as follows taking it apart paragraph by paragraph.
“A GREAT-grandmother initially given two weeks to move house by the States has been saddled with four-figure bills”
DJ
It is not the Housing department or the Guernsey Housing association who have saddled this lady with “four-figure bills” Any additional costs are related to the fact that she has moved and of course she could have with the help of those who moved her taken her curtains and carpets with her and had them refitted.
“The 79-year-old, who asked not to be named, lived in her States home for more than 15 years”
DJ
I struggle to see what the point of this sentence is, many people have moved from family homes into housing better suited to there needs after 15, 20, 25 years it is not an unusual occurrence.
“She received a letter from the Housing Department at the beginning of September asking her to view a flat in the new Hougue a la Perre estate, Grand Bouet. Within a week she was asked to accept the tenancy and was expected to move within just 11 days. After relatives stepped in, however, the woman was given three weeks from viewing to moving in.”
DJ
The GHA need a fairly swift decision after a viewing has taken place as there are several other people who would be delighted to occupy one of these new apartments.
“The department insists it has acted within guidelines.”
DJ
That goes without saying
“Nevertheless, the woman’s family is outraged. A daughter acting as spokesman said: ‘I can understand the Housing Department wanting to free up three-bedroomed properties for families and I am pleased that they have new purpose-built blocks to rehouse people”.
DJ
First of all the Chief executive of the GHA spoke to the daughter and she told him that she never once used the word outraged and this was a fabrication by the press. The lady’s daughter also said she understood the Housing policy of moving those who are under occupying family homes which will allow a family on our waiting list to move into the larger property and she was delighted with her mother’s new apartment.
“But I just cannot get my head around the way they work the system.”
DJ
I cannot comment on that statement as I have no knowledge of whether it was said or not.
“The States told the OAP she had to buy her own carpets and curtain fittings for the new flat, which cost her £2,000, and remove floor coverings from her old home”.
DJ
I have covered this point at the beginning of this response. Although I might add it is not the taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for curtains or carpets except in exceptional circumstances and n any event that would be the responsibility of the social security department not Housing through their grants scheme.
As a result, the pensioner moved in such a hurry that she did not have time to organise a phone connection.
DJ
I have spoken to the phone company and they will always try and connect people as soon as possible especially if the person is elderly or has special needs. However the GHA or Housing cannot be held responsible for the workload of the phone company.
“Her daughter said her mother was lucky to have the support of her family, or the upheaval could have had terrible consequences had she been on her own”.
DJ
I thought that goes without saying, in cases where elderly people don’t have family to help the GHA or Housing will always give assistance where necessary.
“A Housing spokesman said: ‘The department writes to the tenant as soon as a suitable property becomes available and invites them to view it”.
DJ
What else would we do and the system works very well, out of the hundreds of families and couples who have been moved since this massive redevelopment programme started I cannot think of another complaint if indeed you could count this non article as a complaint.
‘The viewing usually takes place within a week. If they accept the property – and there are certain circumstances where they can turn it down – they are given an average of one to two weeks to organise removals etc.
DJ
This lady was given three weeks to move into her new property, if their had been any problems we would have extended it a few days, we have to give some sort of deadline otherwise people could take months to move if they chose to and that doesn’t help anyone.
Report abuse
Deputy Jones for once I think everyone is agreed that Housing has acted fairly towards this lady and that any complaint by the lady’s family is excessive and unjustified.
Moving house is never pleasant and always hard work, but we all have to put up with it and hope that the move will be worth it when we end up in more suitable accommodation.
Report abuse
dave jones,
you’ve been spending far too much time on this site. I thought deputies had no spare time. you have the floor of the states of deliberation to debate issues like this please leave this site to the folks who pay your wages. you throw people out of states houses and push them into the private sector when really your department should be providing more accomodation. your department evicted loads of tenants then said oops! and put the threshold for eviction up. I can quote one landlord who said you were the best thing to happen to private landlords in Guernsey thats when he put the rent up to £1200 per month.Thankfully i got a flat which ties me to my job which i can just about afford.
Report abuse
Time 5.34 pm
Actually Kevin I spend very little time as I answer most of these questions, or comment on current topics either before I go to work at FH or during lunch or after normal working hours. My working day starts about 6 am and will often go on late into the night. If I am working from home I will respond from there but I can assure you I work many more hours wherever I am, than you pay me for.
Now to the real reason for your obvious wrath. First of all we do not throw people out of their States houses, we do however ask people who are earning significant sums above the set threshold for social need housing to either adopt a partial ownership/shared equity scheme or to move into the 25% of accommodation the GHA has, that is not reserved for social housing applicants or of course the private sector in order to allow those on low or fixed incomes to come into social need housing. The thresholds are as follows, for a family the rate is set at £785 per week or £3, 140 per month or £40,872 per year, for a couple it would be £524 per week or £2,096 per month or £27,248 per year. We do not take the earnings of other adults into account who may occupy the house, except that is for a small charge on working dependants. These thresholds are reviewed every two years and there are several people who think they are already too high I personally don’t. Our department, working closely with the Guernsey Housing Association has spent the last few years providing more accommodation than ever, on every site redeveloped we have made housing gains, the latest development at Hougue de la Perre is a complete addition to Guernsey’s social housing stock with 77 brand new units of accommodation including homes for disabled residents. Incidentally one comment that was made to Steve Williams the head of the GHA on a recent open day at this new development came from a private landlord who complained that all this new affordable housing was killing his business. So there is always more than one private landlord who is willing to make a comment.
Of course I cannot comment on individual cases but I will give you a break down of the policy. The Tenancy Review policy although unpopular with those it effects is nevertheless an important part of the housing strategy, whereby The States Housing Department can monitor those who live in social need housing, in order to ensure that the people occupying these homes, are in real social need. People, who apply and subsequently qualify in the first instance, then come into States Housing, receiving essential help from the States at a time when their circumstances and their incomes make it difficult for them to access other housing options across the island and that is absolutely as it should be.
We make sure that once accepted, those on low incomes have their rents controlled these rents are heavily rebated in order that we take no more than 25% of the household income in rent. Within those rebates, we include a small child allowance for each child of school age, also the standard rent for the property includes un-metered water and refuse rates.
Given that the rents for these States properties are heavily subsidised in the first place, it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect, that as time moves on and people’s financial circumstances improve significantly, that they consider moving out of subsidised States Housing into the private sector, or take up some of the other housing options that are now available through GHA non social rental accommodation or the partial ownership/shared equity scheme. Often the misunderstanding of those affected by this policy is that they believe that having secured a States tenancy for life. That has never been the case and as incomes across the island have improved, the numbers of high earners remaining in States properties increased year on year, while those on the waiting list continued to wait to be housed, which was and still is manifestly unfair.
The States of course are perfectly happy to support for however long, those who need and will continue to need social housing and those families or elderly residents on low incomes will not be affected by the Tenancy Review Policy.
I am not pretending for a moment that it is not difficult to leave a home you have occupied in some cases for many years, which is why the decision of the Housing Department can be tested on appeal and an independent panel will decide whether to recommend that the Housing Department look at the tenants individual circumstances again. This policy has been one of the most difficult policies that our board have had to deal with and it may seem unduly harsh but if you have people whose earnings are significantly above the thresholds, some as high as £600 per month above. Put that together with the fact that they are already paying a rent heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, then there is no option of people on this level of earnings staying in social rental housing. For those who ask why we don’t just charge a much higher rent to these people? Well the answer is simple; nobody should have a right to buy a States tenancy in social rental housing just because they can afford to do so, what about all those on the waiting lists who don’t have the money to do the same. Social rental housing is not sold to the highest bidder but is only available to those in need. It is not the taxpayer’s duty to fund life style choices and people have to choose what they spend their money on but we cannot have a situation where people stay in much needed States housing when they could well afford to live in the private sector. My last point is this, you clearly are very annoyed with me personally and as I have very thick skin indeed I will have to live with that but I would remind you that these decisions are not taken by one man, they are board policies supported by T&R and passed by 47 members of the States. There have been over 100 high earning tenants who have moved on which means that there is 100 homes that we don’t have to build which would not be the case if we had decided too leave people in states social need housing regardless of what the earned.
Now you see that didn’t take long as I only had to cut and paste from the many articles and papers I have written on this subject before.
Time finished 5.55 pm
Report abuse
dave jones
£524 per week per couple is that gross or nett pay? If it is gross that couple would take home £465 per week give or take. rents for liveable accomodation are roughly £1000 per month leaving £215 for a couple to live on.I think your department are just moving relative poverty around I would not wish to have to pay for food,clothes,transport,heating e.t.c and put something away for my retirement whenever that may be on a budget of £215 per week. I also feel that many of the folks you put into states housing are probably left with more than £215 per week to live on after rent. You have continually refered to the tax payer well i pay a lot of tax and I would rather my tax susidise(your words) hard working lower paid people. Of course there are people who are genuinly in hard times who need social housing but there are also people who do not wish to work or have very large families e.t.c.who get states houses at next to no rent. Those that do work overtime for instance are penalised for doing so by your department. Some states house tennants take on extra work to make their lives better its called getting off your backside and this results in more social insurance and tax for the states. and you are forcing these people to work harder do more hours take two jobs perhaps just to put that money into the pockets of greedy landlords. you are very crafty with your replies to posts and you play the “Tax payer” card very well. you also use lots of figures when it suits so would you like to tell us hard pressed tax payers how many states house tennants are paying less than £40 per week rent for instance.
By the way I did not ask or expect you to comment on individual cases and further I have nothing against you personnaly I just don’t like your politics or your policies. I feel that you are in charge of housing and should stop hiding behind your department I suggest that housing policy is driven by you and the buck stops with you.
Report abuse
Kevin
Many of us enjoy reading D Jones comments, so why should he stop posting on here?. He also puts many things into context which informs a lot of readers.
As for kicking out people earning to much to be in states houses then i say good job.
Report abuse
Kevin it is gross, the same as everything in life, taxes, mortgages, social security, bank loans. I also think you are forgetting one thing and that is that all rent levels are set at a maximum of 25% of income. Your point on overtime is one that is often made, the reality is that if it is not frequent overtime in other words not on a weekly bases which then becomes part of the regular weekly wage it will not be taken into consideration. There are some firms who have compulsory overtime written into their employee’s contracts, which clearly IS part of a regular wage. Also The housing department do not ask for all of the overtime payments to be paid in extra rent, only a fraction of it where a rent rebate is paid to the tenant. You can’t have a situation where a large part of someone’s regular income is listed as overtime and therefore not taken into account, while at the same time the taxpayer is paying out rent subsidies to people who clearly could contribute more to the standard rent for their home, reducing the level of that rebate. Your request to publish the amount of rents paid by tenants is not something I can do, as that is confidential information pertaining to individual tenants and families but I can tell you this Kevin, we know we have the right people occupying our houses by the number of rebates we pay out which indicates that we are catering for some of the very poorest people in our community. Playing the taxpayer card is all I can do, the States don’t have any money it all comes from the taxpayers of Guernsey, it is my job as head of the department is to make sure that those who can pay more do, reducing the amount the taxpayer has to find. Your last point takes us to the argument about executive powers of Ministers which we don’t have, my board in the first instance formulates policy with the guidance of senior staff. It doesn’t end there, it then goes to the States of deliberation where a decision is taken on whether the policy is adopted at that point 47 members examine the policy and vote on it. I am happy to defend the decisions of my board and the States on housing matters, as that is my job, and anyone who knows anything about me at all knows that I do not hide behind anything, if I did I would not be on here debating these issues with you.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
You know as well as I do that you are just keeping one group of people in relative poverty and storing up problems for later on when you will probably be no longer in the states.
Here is the Dave Jones model.
A couple live in a states house with two kids, the old man has a job but doesn’t really earn great money. The wife stays at home to look after the kids and cuts the cloth accordingly. When the kids are old enough they move out, the wife takes a part time job to use the money for dare I say it, a holiday or to be able to afford better things.The couple now pay more tax and social insurance.A mistake has been made . If the wife had not got a job the couple would be able to live in the states house. States housing comes along and says you are now earning too much please leave. The couple move out and find rented accomodation which is 50-60% of their earnings. The bank will not look at them for a mortgage as they don’t earn any where near enough and they are too old anyway.This couple are now working to basically put a roof over their heads. there is very little left for luxuries and nothing to put away for retirement. When the couple reach retirement age, housing via the tax payer will either have to re-house the couple or pay the rent on their accomodation this could easily be in excess of £1000 per month. If the couple live for another twenty years the states will have to pay £240,000 assisting this couple with rent. fantastic economics and symptomatic of the way states members think. I feel that there are many examples of the above couple.
Now lets clear something up once and for all. Of course we have to house our poorest people I have not said we should not so I don’t know why you mention it. What I am saying is states housing under your leadership are punishing the next socio economic group up to cover for the fact that housing has not built enough suitable housing to add to it’s stock. In my opinion you are a classic example of a politicion who is always in charge but never responsible.What I will say is that your answers to my posts are an example to any budding politician in how to avoid answering simple questions by turning your replies into speeches which never answer questions.
bcb would you like to find yourself in the position detailed above? perhaps you should do some research before you post crass statements like “kicking people out who earn too much” as it depends on what you think is too much.
By the way your post does a passible imitation of Harry Enfields character Tory Boy.
Finally I must say that I have never lived in a states house as an adult and have owned my own home mortgage free for some years now but i do know people (not high earners) who are suffering as a result of the Dave Jones led Housing department.This is my last post on this subject.
Report abuse
Kevin
Ah now you see i am in probably a much worse situation than many of those in states houses. I have a mortgage to pay, am a single parent, work my butt off to earn enough to be able to sustain my existence in this great island. If i worked less i`m sure under my circumstances i would get a states house too. There are some in these states houses who make sure they just do a little less to be able to stay there. And yes if there are some earning to much to be taking hand outs from the tax payers then kick them out and let someone in who needs it, i`m not talking about the needy. D Jones has done a lot more for housing than i suspect you could ever do. The couple in your example will be working just to keep a roof over their heads? well thats what i`m doing as are many others (welcome to the real world) and i don`t complain about it.
Id love a holiday :)
Report abuse
Firstly this Rent Review policy would have been introduced whether I had joined the States or not T&R insisted upon it. Secondly Housing is doing everything it can to help those in relative poverty by making available affordable accommodation and rebating rents for those who cannot afford the standard rents for States housing. However there are limits, the first part of your post is asking the taxpayer to help fund peoples lifestyles, are you for instance suggesting that people who could work to improve there situation don’t do so, just so they can continue to live in subsidised social need housing forever? And moving to the private sector is not the only option; people who might find it difficult to get a full blown mortgage can now opt for the Partial Ownership /Shared equity scheme, even if they are over 50. I keep trying to impress on people that States housing is not there from the cradle to the grave, it is there to help families and older couples when they need it and for as long as they need it for, However when their financial situation improves over the years we ask them to do more to help themselves, as they become pensioners and are in need again of our help when their income dramatically falls, then they can come back under the protection of social housing, so the benefits system will NOT be paying £1,000 per month in rents as you allege. One of the points you make is about disposable income as if people paying mortgages have huge amounts of disposable income for luxuries and holidays; if you believe that then you are wrong. The point bcb is trying to make. Also when your earnings increase everybody pays more tax and insurance contributions so States house tenants are not being singled out in that regard. Having said that, I would support a tax credit scheme to help the low paid which may negate us having to have the rent rebate scheme in the first place and who knows maybe we will have one when the benefit system and tax reforms eventually come in. Your last point directed towards me is odd as I have answered all the questions you have put to me and we are not punishing any “socio economic group” We are asking people who earn above the thresholds to consider the other options. Try listening to those on our waiting list who earn a fraction of what some of those we have asked to move on earned, people waiting months for affordable housing while some were quite happy to sit tight on subsidized rents knowing full well that they could well afford to move on for a few years.
Report abuse
bcb you are a hero after all!
the difference is you will have a house which you own eventually, those booted out by Dave Jones and his cohorts will not. Welcome to the real world.
Report abuse
Thanks Kevin for the compliment. But it`s just i feel that it is for me to fend for myself and my daughter till she is old enough to take care of herself, because i can just about afford to do it why should i be taking from someone who is no better off than myself?. There are plenty in states houses who could do like wise and they know who they are and believe me i know a good few who are far better of than they make out.
Yes i will be 65+ by the time i finish paying for my house then happy days eh, life can be tough mate unless you play the system and get some other sucker to make it easy for you.
Those who need help are welcome to it.
Well done for owning your own place.
Report abuse
dave jones
I have never before seen a reply to one of my posts that has been twisted and spun like yours you haven’t answered any of my questions just droned on and on. for instance where did i mention anything about people with mortgages having lots of disposable income.where did I say that housing was singling out tennants to pay more tax. If this is the best you can do god help us all. I’ll leave the readers to decide what they think of your replies seems to me “tory boy” bcb is your only ally. he can’t even see that the reason he has a mortgage to pay is that he is earning enough money to get a mortgage.
Report abuse
Good on you Kevin! For once someone without dust between the ears! Fair play to you for all your comments. I used to live in a states house, was on a list for an EXTREMELY long time to get moved, my mother and i were in a 3 bedroom house, we never got moved instead received a letter saying thanks for working and being a decent person now pack up your stuff and get out! Thankfully we are much better off now, my mothers rent was close to £1000 disgusting! A person i know with 4 children never worked a day in her life and probably never will work has a lovely states house, and pays all of around £14 a week rent ahhh its a hard life for those people eh!! Good to know where all my money is going!
Report abuse
Kevin
Nice one mate, so now we`ve arrived at name calling and cheap shots?
Tory boy tut tut, i suggest you grow up a bit or maybe you just don`t like having your opinion questioned?
You say
he can’t even see that the reason he has a mortgage to pay is that he is earning enough money to get a mortgage.
Yes i can, and so can some of those in states houses but you can`t even see thats exactly the ones i`m talking about.
Report abuse
bcb
never said in any of my posts that no one should be moved out of states houses just said that some people wll face years of hardship lining the pockets of greedy landlords because of dave jone’s housing dept.perhaps if you look back at your posts on this subject you will see that some of your posts are ill thought out rants you appear to have a chip on your shoulder about buying your own house how would you like it if other folks were asking for you to be booted out of your home for whatever reason. it is your inability to see things from someone elses side that lead me to calling you tory boy if the cap fits…. if you had stuck to facts I may not have had any amunition to have a laugh at your expense.this is a debating website and you have to take the rough with the smooth
Report abuse
Dave Jones
Why are only 69 out of 1800 States Housing Tenants paying full rent? Why are so many only paying £20 per week? Some are paying less! I know someone who has always worked full time, from the age of 14 I might add, managed to sort out childcare and always paid full rent and is still doing so even though this amounts to 80% of their wage.
How can this be allowed?
Report abuse
The answer is simple and that is because the majority of our tenants are entitled to rent rebates, that shows us two things, first that we are dealing with the poorest section of our community and secondly the high percentages of rebates show that we have the right people occupying States housing, people who are in real social need. It is true there are several people living in private rental who pay disgustingly high rents couples and families in this situation are free to apply for social housing if they meet the criteria and paying a disproportionate amount of your income in rent is something we take into account and will help your case for application.
Report abuse
tory boy, sorry bcb
you don’t know for sure if there are any states house tennants who can afford a mortgage do you.
bearing in mind your political god dave Jones says any one earning £27,248 per year must move out of a states house can you please let me know of any lending agency that would give a mortgage to someone on that income i could do with a holiday home in spain. by the way have a look in the g.e.p. today and see if you could afford the rents for properties to let.
Report abuse
dave jones
some questions for you
please supply me with a list of lenders who will give me a mortgage on gross earnings of £27248 per year.
if cheesed off is accurate and there are many folks paying £20 or less rent for states houses are you saying you have lots of tennants with an income of £80 or less per week after all you say you take 25% of income as rent.
please tell the public what the average rental for property in the g.e.p. was today.
no speeches just straight answers please
Report abuse
First of all Kevin it is not my job to research mortgage rates for people, most mortgages only become affordable with two people contributing and in any event our tenancy review policy is not based on whether someone can afford a mortgage or not it is based on whether someone earns to much as to be considered to be in need of social need housing or whether they can stand on their own two feet in the private sector without relying on subsidies from the taxpayer. On your second point you are assuming that what Cheesed off is saying is true, I will say it again no states tenants pay more than 25% of their income in rents, that is the policy and there will be some pensioners for instance who’s incomes will be very low indeed and will subsequently pay very low rents
Report abuse
So Dave Jones.
Correct me if I’m wrong but 80% is greater than 25% is it not? At least it was when I was at school.
As I have already said I am aware of a States Housing Tenant paying full rent at 80% of their income……
Report abuse
dave jones
firstly it is your job to back up what you say as a deputy with facts, you have failed to do so yet again.
I take it you will be pushing for the tax payer subsidy of mortgage interest tax relief to end after all you say that if you are earning jointly( thats two people contributing if my english language skills are still up to it.) £27248 you can stand on your own two feet.
second point, wrong again if you read my post correctly you will see that I said “if cheesed off is accurate….” the word “if” infers an element of doubt so i’m not assuming cheesed off is correct. I believe you are creating a class of people caught between a rock and a hard place. they earn too much(but that is a matter of opinion) to occupy a states house but not enough to buy their own home. the only alternative is to rent from the greedy landlords that the department you lead assist with your eviction policy. Not once in any of my posts have I said the poor folks should not be housed yet you always go harping on about the poorest folk needing housing. that is a given. stick to talking about the people your department are evicting because that’s who i’m talking about.The fact is we don’t have enough state owned housing stock and as a fair proportion of our states of deliberation are landlords non of them are interested in controling what private landlords charge in rent. you and i have debated this long and hard and we will never agree but two wrongs have never made a right. I’ll leave it there.
Report abuse
Kevin
You said
Finally I must say that I have never lived in a states house as an adult and have owned my own home mortgage free for some years now.
And
Thankfully i got a flat which ties me to my job which i can just about afford.
Are you sure your not the one with a chip on your shoulder? living in a states house earning just over the limit and been asked to move?
I dont always agree with D Jones but on this i think he is doing pretty well, you seem to have a problem with anything he says so i suggest you give us the answers were all looking for.
Anyway your starting to bore me now so cheerio
p.s. Dont be sorry for calling me tory boy as i`m getting to like the new name it also gives me the impression that you are really angry which gives me a good laugh at your expense.
Report abuse
bcb
check your facts,
on other subjects I have albiet reluctantly agreed with deputy jones.
just so you can sleep at night i bought my house in 1983(maybe before dave jones even came to guernsey). probably while you were still at school and sometimes was paying 14% interest. funny you didn’t challenge anything in my last post. whilst i don’t agree with dave jones on everything, you do (i haven’t notice when youve crossed him). As you’ve probably guessed I know people who the likes of you and dave jones have clamoured to be thrown out of their homes and it’s not funny. you actually haven’t said anything that would lead me to believe you want answers all you’ve said is you want people kicked out of their homes. you haven’t questioned if the thresholds are correct or anything you’ve just given the impression of being a Deputy Jones lacky. i feel the housing dept should either invest in increasing their housing stock after all those homes will always be an asset or bring proposals to the states to control rents charged in the private sector preferably both. I employ a lot of people and have experience of them asking for more hours at work because they have been asked to leave their states homes and every penny they take home goes into the back pocket of a greedy landlord.We are not going to agree so i will agree to disagree with you
Report abuse
Kevin
Firstly I don’t need reminding what my job is but I repeat, it is certainly not to do your research for you. Secondly it would seem that when you don’t get the answer you want, you counter by saying that I have avoided the question; we must leave it for others to decide whether that is a correct assumption. On your point about joint earnings I was talking about two people each earning the amount you quoted or similar amounts, a couple pooling their incomes to get on the mortgage ladder. For high earning tenants they can opt for partial ownership/ shared equity scheme which is a fantastic scheme aimed specifically at those people who may be caught in the middle. I agree we need more Social need Housing, which is why I and the previous Housing boards working with the GHA started the biggest construction program the island has seen in 40 years. The building programme given continued States support will continue certainly for the next 10 years. You are right we do not control the private rental sector and I am uncertain in any event how we could intervene in what landlords charge, we can introduce minimum standard and prevent those landlords who fall below those standards from renting property to the general public and we are also working through the landlords association to improve standards in terms of things like deposits and standard leases, we will be bringing in legislation on minimum standards for guest worker accommodation first and if SOME of the islands landlords (they are small in number) fail to improve standards in some private rental, then we WILL extend legislation to cover them. We at present do not want to bring in draconian legislation which would affect everyone who rents out property just to catch a handful of the worst offenders. If by legislation we drive out of business people who rent out good quality property because of government interference then it will make the housing situation in Guernsey worse, not better. We already have Environmental Health laws that can close down accommodation that is unfit for habitation and they have done so when required.
Report abuse
Kevin
Lets clear a few things up here because you do like to ASSUME things.
I used to live in a states house myself, i am 45 so was not at school in 1983. Whats the point of trying to challengs you as you just cant see there are people who earn to much to be states housed and yes i do know some. Re your cant get a mortgage, so you are saying only the ones who can get a mortgage should be asked to move? one guy i know and worked with spent most of his life in states houseing and earned a very good wage, he was asked to move and did nothing but moan about it but is now private renting, his only complaint now is he cant afford to go to the pub everyday.
I have not always agreed with Dave Jones in fact i posted a message on another forum about the old boys sticking together esp about the Flouquet joke and many others.
You tell me to check my facts?
I said you seem to have a problem with anything he says then you say ” on other subjects I have albiet reluctantly agreed with deputy jones”. Sort of proves my point i think.
I am tired of repeating myself but i`ll try once more. People who earn to much which in my view can either get a mortgage or rent private should not be in states housing, so if someone can afford either of these things then they earn to much and their the ones that should get out ok?.
What do you think of a guy earning £500 per week and the wife not working because if she does they will be asked to move? that house could be freed up for a person that needs help which i would hope you support. As for the houseing stock i am not in control of the budget and niether are you so how do we know that everything that can be built isn`t?.
Report abuse
What on earth are you talking about? investing money in States houses, over the last ten years we have invested millions in refurbishments and grant funding new rebuilds through the GHA. in fact by 2011 all of our existing stock that we intend to keep will all be up to modern standards, all homes outstanding completely rewired, new roofs, guttering and fascias, new windows and doors, new staircases where required, redecorating inside and out, central heating, cavity wall insulation where possible, loft insulation, up to date bathrooms and kitchens, small extensions where gardens permit for more open plan living, better car parking facilities, new drainage, new fencing, the list is endless. I believe that is a hell of an achievement on behalf of the States who have fully supported the Corporate Housing Programme. Kevin I don’t mind you having a go at me but at least do your homework. As for controlling rents in the private sector, what are you going to do with those landlords who say I am better off selling these rental properties for private homes and investing the profits in something else that will give me a better return? The maintenance of property costs a fortune and if rents are to be controlled leaving what is left to just about cover the costs of maintenance and insurance they will be asking “what’s the Point”
Report abuse
dave jones
for goodness sake stop making speeches!
you know full well that when i said invest in states houses i meant new ones. your list of improvements is impressive but these things are what landlords are supposed to do we do not live in a banana republic. As i have said before there are too many landlords in the states(i hope your not one of them because that would really devalue what you’ve said in your posts)to intervene in the private rental sector. there is nothing wrong with making an honest profit out of renting property but local rents are excessive. the landlords make a great return on the value of their property rising as well you know.As far as controlling rents “where there’s a will there’s a way.
as for bcb you asked me for answers i gave them to you. and as i’m one of dave jones’s hard pressed tax payers i am helping to subsidise your mortgage through tax relief on interest. i am entitled to my opinion but both bcb and dave jones seem to ignore any points made which they might struggle to answer.
Report abuse
so dave jones reckons controlling rents would drive landlords out of rental properties does he?
lets have alook at why what he is saying is rubbish.
example a
a load of apartments are built on the edge of town the apartments are first time buyer homes but blocks of four , six or whatever are sold to buy to let investors. someone buys six for £690,000 less than a decade later those proprties are worth £1,350,000. give or take a few grand.meanwhile in eight years these flats have been rented out for £552,960. now I would humbly suggest that this is one hell of a return and leaves some leeway for a method of state control.
example b
A guy buys some land next to his house he builds a nice house on it costing some £250,000
the house is rented out for £1,450 per month or £17,400 per year six years later the house is worth £575,000 and the rent is now £19,500 per year again a great return.
In 1979 I rented a one bedroom flat in town for £12 per week in 1981 i rented a three bedroom flat with parking and a garden for £32 per week, along time ago granted, judging from what’s in the paper the first flat rent would have gone up by a factor of 62.5 (you’d be paying 62.5 times the rent now) the second flat by 34.37 again agreat market for investors to be in.
of course there are costs involved in renting out property but the returns are very, very good indeed. and I can’t think of a better investment to make. All i’m saying is that rents are too high escpecially with the housing department supplying a ready made stream of clients for the rental market by their evictions.
one final thought a couple who both work full time living in a states house would have to earn the princely sum of £6.55 per hour to be evicted (or asked to move on dave jones’s words) from their states house. I humbly suggest that the earnings threshold for occupying a states house is too low which has been my point all along.this is my very last post on this subject so fire away deputy jones i’ll even give you the last word!
Report abuse
Kevin – if you think Dave Jones is doing such a bad job, I would love to know what you would do if you were in his shoes? Deputy Jones keeps responding to your ridiculous emails and you’re still slating him. He is answering the questions you put before him but you are moaning that he is making ‘speeches’, or is it perhaps that you don’t understand the answers?
Report abuse
Dave Jones is a success at Housing.
It’s the extremist language he uses on Europe that is at odds with the current needs.
Report abuse
BCB – “What do you think of a guy earning £500 per week and the wife not working because if she does they will be asked to move? that house could be freed up for a person that needs help which i would hope you support”
Well, I can’t speak for Kevin, but I for one would lift any restrictions on the first family’s earnings, let the couple remain in their current home, but charge them a bit/ a lot more, until they were paying a full market rate (if not already).
Then I’d use their rent to subsidise the other couple into the “private” sector. They could occupy the same new “private” flat that they’d have given the first couple. (The Housing seem to consider the GHA as private, despite underwriting their mortgage of £millions, giving them money every year and “recommending” tenants.)
Everyone housed, everyone happy, surely?
But too complex for housing who must move two families – one of which doesn’t want to – in order to achieve the same housing result; whilst issuing a licence to someone to do the job that the first couple’s female half could have done under “my” arrangements, but doesn’t want to because of theirs.
Report abuse
Bob
You cannot have a situation that allows you to buy the right to social need housing just because you are a high earner. Social need housing is there for people who are in social need; it is not an auction to the highest bidder and those on our waiting list waiting to come into social housing do not have the earnings to compete if we moved to your way of doing things. We do not give the GHA funding every year; they get a grant for new development plus the site in some casesand thos grants have been falling ,the last one for the development at Victoria Avn was 10% of the total cost of the project, which i think is fantastic value for the taxpayer as on that development we get 100% of the allocations. We have joint waiting lists and all the allocations apart from the 25% of properties in their charge are vetted by the Housing department, all tenants whether in States Housing or the GHA tenanted homes are entitled to a rebate if they are deemed to be eligible. As for rebates to private sector tenants they have tried that in Jersey and it currently costs the States of Jersey the best part of 20 million pounds a year with private rents just as high as they are in Guernsey.It has been a disater for the Jersey taxpayer.
Report abuse
Arnold
I thank you for your comments on my efforts at Housing they are much appreciated. This is really the wrong thread for this but here goes anyway. My views on the EU are not extremist; they are based on factual evidence of the structure and operation of an un-democratic, autocratic regime that has ridden roughshod over the rights and freedoms of millions of people. Most of the member States wanted to trade with Europe not be governed by it, which is what millions of people thought they signed up for in the first place. There are also millions of people across the EU who share my views and every time they have been asked for their opinion on more integration with Europe they have voted NO but as the EU doesn’t do NO, they keep ordering the countries to have further referendums until they eventually get the answer they want, or in the case of France and Holland just ignore the result while at the same time imploring heads of State not to hold any more referendums in the countries that have not yet had one as they are terrified millions of other people will reject what they have to offer. For the 13th year in a row the EU auditors have refused to sign off the accounts due to billions of Euros that are unaccounted for.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
Audited sign offs of EU wide accounts is probably one of the most ambitious audits of all time. It requires each member state to have compatible standards, having had thenm signed off individually.
Do you think our accounts and Jersey’s would be easy to concatenate?
Then there are the realisations of ‘corruption’ and the remit of the audit is tougher than for those in member states.
It simply cannot be used as a stick because everyone knows the problems, hence the work in progress.
As for democracy. As was explained on the radio, we all live in some sort of deferred representation. I did not vote for you, yet you could affect my life.
I didn’t vote for Lyndon Trott. He’s cost me £4,700 and counting, notwithstandsing the service cuts, the pension cuts, the tax rises, the cost of living rises; a future based on dredging the less pleasant aspects of human greed in order to ‘meet targets’ for bonuses.
Presumably social housing budgets are slashed, despite the £10M rebate weight addition.
But without it, those guys would be on the street.
I’m sure this lady is doing just fine, now, after the natural disorientation of unfamiliar surroundings.
Report abuse
Arnold
I am not sure that much of your last post has anything to do with the insidious nature of the EU and its unelected commission.
Report abuse
Dave Jones – Rubbish. You entirely missed the point, as usual. No one’s suggesting social housing goes to the highest earners, but that higher earners in social housing can be used to subsidise more social housing rather than be given the boot.
In my response to bcb, it does not matter which house/flat family B live in, they just want to be housed; but it does matter to family A. Family A want to stay put, so why not let them? They’ll be paying family B’s rent for them at no cost to you at housing, and the economy is in better shape all round because Mrs. A is then feels able to work, particularly if it’s only temporary work.
Who mentioned private tenant rebates? All I suggested was taking one rent and directly subsidising another to save one family moving against their will.
Report abuse
Bob
I will try again, high earners should not be in social housing in the first place, we had people earning sums that would have prevented them from being considered for our Housing in the first place which left us in a ridiculous situation where people were applying for social need housing being turned down while tenants who earned much more than those applying were permitted to stay. We don’t want cross subsidies from high earning tenants, we would much rather have those in real social need in these properties and there are plenty of suitable applicants. You say that given your example there would be no cost to us at housing, of course there would, if we allow high earners to stay then we will have to build more housing to house our waiting list and others who require social need accommodation. We have moved on about 100 high earning tenants which is a 100 homes we don’t have to find or build, all those people have been either housed in the private sector or have gone into GHA’s 25% of accommodation not controlled by Housing or even better they have gone for the Partial ownership scheme and we have several letters from past high earning tenants thanking us for giving them the push they needed, we have also had some tenants who moved on buying properties on the mortgage market another success for them.
Report abuse