I'm not convinced everyone is taking the 1% cut in rents year-on-year for social housing seriously enough. I've heard people referring to revaluations, moving to target for new tenants etc. etc.
The plain answer is NO! READ THE BILL, paragraph 19.
Whether or not you agree with the rent cuts the legislation is a masterpiece of tight drafting. The key to it all is 8 July 2015. Once you sift through the legal language what is it saying very simply is: the starting point is what rent you were charging on each and every property individually as at 8 July 2015. You can't change that because it's been and gone. It is a matter of history and record. As this is the starting point rent from 1 April 2016 is the 8 July 2015 rent figure less 1%. FULL STOP, END OF STORY! There is no wriggle room!
Even if you have a new tenant the starting point for the new tenant is what the old tenant was paying...err... on 8 July 2015. THERE IS NO MOVING THE RENT UP TO TARGET WITH NEW TENANTS!
The other old chestnut I've heard is "the Chancellor meant everyone has to set a rent increase 1% less than what they would have set", again, "Absolute Rubbish!"
Whether or not you agree with what the Chancellor's done, as far as the draft legislation goes it couldn't have been any clearer - or more tightly worded.
Monday, 20 July 2015
Friday, 9 January 2015
those who find it hardest to pay for home contents insurance can least afford to go without it
Wolverhampton Homes offer incredibly cheap home contents insurance to its customers.
Quite honestly, it is half what l pay personally. If l was offered a similar deal myself I'd have someone's arm off to get it!
understandably, for people with restricted incomes you need to think very carefully about what you spend. On occasions people on a budget say they can't afford insurance - or they'll get around to it if their circumstances improve.
In reality, it is those who can least afford to buy home contents insurance who need it the most.
Perversley, if someone is in a position that they have so much money they don't even have to think about what home contents insurance costs them they need it the least.
The question is: if you lost everything could you afford to replace the essentials? If the answer isn 'no', then you really need home contents cover -whatever the cost!
as an important footnote please don't get a false sense of security that tenants in the UK are automatically covered by their landlord for leaks.
Who ever the landlord is, what a lot of people don't realise is that for example just because a pipe leaks and a tenant's property is damaged, it does not mean the landlord is legally liable. The law says pipes leak. Landlords cannot be expected to routinely check pipes and be responsible if they fail. Courts recognise that this kind of incident is predictable and the market offers insurance to tenants so they can protect themselves from the consequences. As harsh as it may seem, as far as the courts are concerned if someone chooses not to insure, and suffers a loss as a result they only have themselves to blame.
Again, l come back to my main point, those who can least afford to pay for home contents insurance are the ones who can't afford to go without it (because they are the ones who can least afford to replace their contents themselves).
Quite honestly, it is half what l pay personally. If l was offered a similar deal myself I'd have someone's arm off to get it!
understandably, for people with restricted incomes you need to think very carefully about what you spend. On occasions people on a budget say they can't afford insurance - or they'll get around to it if their circumstances improve.
In reality, it is those who can least afford to buy home contents insurance who need it the most.
Perversley, if someone is in a position that they have so much money they don't even have to think about what home contents insurance costs them they need it the least.
The question is: if you lost everything could you afford to replace the essentials? If the answer isn 'no', then you really need home contents cover -whatever the cost!
as an important footnote please don't get a false sense of security that tenants in the UK are automatically covered by their landlord for leaks.
Who ever the landlord is, what a lot of people don't realise is that for example just because a pipe leaks and a tenant's property is damaged, it does not mean the landlord is legally liable. The law says pipes leak. Landlords cannot be expected to routinely check pipes and be responsible if they fail. Courts recognise that this kind of incident is predictable and the market offers insurance to tenants so they can protect themselves from the consequences. As harsh as it may seem, as far as the courts are concerned if someone chooses not to insure, and suffers a loss as a result they only have themselves to blame.
Again, l come back to my main point, those who can least afford to pay for home contents insurance are the ones who can't afford to go without it (because they are the ones who can least afford to replace their contents themselves).
Wednesday, 7 January 2015
How happy are Wolverhampton Homes Tenants?
We're still working through the data on our recent customer satisfaction survey on Wolverhampton Homes services to tenants (leaseholders have thier own survey). It is too early to say anything on this, but there was one very interesting result on the issue of happiness in general.
As part of our recent customer satisfaction survey, tenants who were surveyed were asked to rate their satisfaction with their life nowadays on a scale of 0 to 10.
The scale was based on a 0 if people felt 'not at all satisfied ' to 10 for 'completely satisfied'.
Interestingly the most common single response was 10 out of 10 given by 26% of tenants!
If those who gave a rating of 7 or more out of 10 are considered to be satisfied, 64% of Wolverhampton Home tenants fall within this category.
Defining dissatisfied as those giving a rating of 0-3, 8% of tenants are dissatisfied with their life nowadays.
The reason why we asked this question was to put a bit of mood music in the background to the survey. Generally if people are feeling upbeat they're more likely to ignore faults with a service overall. Similarly if they're feeling downbeat there more likely to find fault.
My idea was that if we had a satisfaction with life score everytime we did a survey it would give us some context.
If customer satisfaction went up, but people were generally feeling more satisfied with life anyway, it probably indicated that the improved satisfaction wasn't all down to us. On the otherhand if satisfaction went up against a background of generally increased dissatisfaction - then chances are we had really improved the service.
As this was the first time we'd asked the question we had no benchmark to compare to from the 2012 satisfaction survey. We asked a supplimentary question this time about how happy people felt now compared to 2012.
Compared to two years ago, almost two thirds (63%) of tenants think they would have given the same rating to their satisfaction with life. Among the remainder, equal proportions say their rating would have been higher (19%) or lower (18%). On this basis, although a simplistic measure, these results suggest that there has been no obvious shift in contentment within the Wolverhampton Homes customer base in either direction that could account for changes in perceptions since 2012.
The result surprised me. As an accountant l believe to a great extent money makes people happy(er). I would have thought that 5 years of austerity would mean people were less happy now than in the recent past. On reflection though, I'm not sure if l could answer the question of how happy am l now compared to 2 years ago terribly well myself. I might remember what l was doing two years, but I'm not sure l could say accurately how happy l was. If other people are like me it could explain why most people said they felt the same level of happiness now as in 2012. I look forward to seeing if the 6.4 happiness score has gone up or down next time we ask the question!
As part of our recent customer satisfaction survey, tenants who were surveyed were asked to rate their satisfaction with their life nowadays on a scale of 0 to 10.
The scale was based on a 0 if people felt 'not at all satisfied ' to 10 for 'completely satisfied'.
Interestingly the most common single response was 10 out of 10 given by 26% of tenants!
If those who gave a rating of 7 or more out of 10 are considered to be satisfied, 64% of Wolverhampton Home tenants fall within this category.
Defining dissatisfied as those giving a rating of 0-3, 8% of tenants are dissatisfied with their life nowadays.
The reason why we asked this question was to put a bit of mood music in the background to the survey. Generally if people are feeling upbeat they're more likely to ignore faults with a service overall. Similarly if they're feeling downbeat there more likely to find fault.
My idea was that if we had a satisfaction with life score everytime we did a survey it would give us some context.
If customer satisfaction went up, but people were generally feeling more satisfied with life anyway, it probably indicated that the improved satisfaction wasn't all down to us. On the otherhand if satisfaction went up against a background of generally increased dissatisfaction - then chances are we had really improved the service.
As this was the first time we'd asked the question we had no benchmark to compare to from the 2012 satisfaction survey. We asked a supplimentary question this time about how happy people felt now compared to 2012.
Compared to two years ago, almost two thirds (63%) of tenants think they would have given the same rating to their satisfaction with life. Among the remainder, equal proportions say their rating would have been higher (19%) or lower (18%). On this basis, although a simplistic measure, these results suggest that there has been no obvious shift in contentment within the Wolverhampton Homes customer base in either direction that could account for changes in perceptions since 2012.
The result surprised me. As an accountant l believe to a great extent money makes people happy(er). I would have thought that 5 years of austerity would mean people were less happy now than in the recent past. On reflection though, I'm not sure if l could answer the question of how happy am l now compared to 2 years ago terribly well myself. I might remember what l was doing two years, but I'm not sure l could say accurately how happy l was. If other people are like me it could explain why most people said they felt the same level of happiness now as in 2012. I look forward to seeing if the 6.4 happiness score has gone up or down next time we ask the question!
Monday, 22 December 2014
What a taste of fuel poverty has felt like
I've now begun week 2 now with no heating.
It wasn't simply about getting a gas fitter. Once l got one he spent two days trying different bits in the boiler but finished by wrapping black and yellow tape all over it and danger signs. (My kitchen now now looks like a CSI crime scene. I feel guilty that my wife and l have done something wrong every time l go in the kitchen.)
Last year colleagues spent a night in cardboard boxes outdoors to highlight homelessness. I think what I'm going through with no heating for 2 weeks so far, and possibly nothing until early 2015 is a very different experience.
I feel that l have a better understanding now of fuel poverty. My admiration for people who deal with this as part of their daily lives has gone up considerably over the last fortnight.
We've finding we are living in just the one room and feel decreasingly like doing anything apart from keeping warm. We can only keep one room warm enough to use. We're still washing but this is a deeply unpleasant experience in the cold. What must it be like if you can't afford hot water on a regular basis?
Getting out of bed is harder. you know it is going to be unpleasant. Again, living with this would be hard.
Pyscologically, what is debilitating is not knowing an end date for your suffering - again part of the issue for many people in fuel poverty on a daily basis.
A night out doors in a cardboard box is a tough test - and a window on homelessness. If you want to get an idea of fuel poverty try pulling the fuse out of your heating system for a week in December.
It wasn't simply about getting a gas fitter. Once l got one he spent two days trying different bits in the boiler but finished by wrapping black and yellow tape all over it and danger signs. (My kitchen now now looks like a CSI crime scene. I feel guilty that my wife and l have done something wrong every time l go in the kitchen.)
Last year colleagues spent a night in cardboard boxes outdoors to highlight homelessness. I think what I'm going through with no heating for 2 weeks so far, and possibly nothing until early 2015 is a very different experience.
I feel that l have a better understanding now of fuel poverty. My admiration for people who deal with this as part of their daily lives has gone up considerably over the last fortnight.
We've finding we are living in just the one room and feel decreasingly like doing anything apart from keeping warm. We can only keep one room warm enough to use. We're still washing but this is a deeply unpleasant experience in the cold. What must it be like if you can't afford hot water on a regular basis?
Getting out of bed is harder. you know it is going to be unpleasant. Again, living with this would be hard.
Pyscologically, what is debilitating is not knowing an end date for your suffering - again part of the issue for many people in fuel poverty on a daily basis.
A night out doors in a cardboard box is a tough test - and a window on homelessness. If you want to get an idea of fuel poverty try pulling the fuse out of your heating system for a week in December.
Monday, 15 December 2014
central heating charge spares you that cold service feeling
I've spent a lot of time over the years discussing the central heating charge. This is a charge that used to be £3 per week, but was reduced to £2 per week a couple of years ago. Essentially, not all properties have central heating - although Decent Homes has given the vast majority this facility. Unlike in some other places, central heating is not included in the rent, so there is a charge to cover the extra cost of providing this as a service.
What's made me reflect more over the last few days on the central heating charge is that I've had no heating at home since last Tuesday. I've got my fingers crossed for tomorrow, but Wednesday is probably more likely for getting things working again. The novelty of going to bed in gloves and a woolly hat is beginning to wear off.
When you're not a council tenant it feels a bit like being thrown to the wolves when it comes to central heating. You're faced with a list of small adds for gas repairs and it is pot luck whether you get a good one, a bad one or a rip off merchant.
Out of despairation on Friday night l even phoned British Gas. Up to last week l was thinking BG users had to have more money than sense - but after 3 days with no heating l was beginning to break down myself.
British Gas said they'd charge £220 fixed price for a one off repair. This is hardly 'emergency' treatment. They said their target was 48 hours to come and have a look. If parts were needed they'd have to book a return visit. It wasn't going to be £220 to get it sorted immediately. It was £220 to get it sorted some time. In terms of a cost comparision I was pretty sure it was an ignition problem (£100 all in was my guess using an independent guy).
When it came to it, l never found out how long it would have taken with BG, they never even bothered to phone me back with a likely appointment time - so much for service.
I must say BG didn't excite me. Their all in charge was £240 per year. However, 'all in' wouldn't replace the heating system or necessarily pay for all parts. If you read the small print as well the £240 is a 'from £240' price. This can go higher dependent on repairs history. In other words they could bump up your charge next year if you call them out!
All in all:
What's made me reflect more over the last few days on the central heating charge is that I've had no heating at home since last Tuesday. I've got my fingers crossed for tomorrow, but Wednesday is probably more likely for getting things working again. The novelty of going to bed in gloves and a woolly hat is beginning to wear off.
When you're not a council tenant it feels a bit like being thrown to the wolves when it comes to central heating. You're faced with a list of small adds for gas repairs and it is pot luck whether you get a good one, a bad one or a rip off merchant.
Out of despairation on Friday night l even phoned British Gas. Up to last week l was thinking BG users had to have more money than sense - but after 3 days with no heating l was beginning to break down myself.
British Gas said they'd charge £220 fixed price for a one off repair. This is hardly 'emergency' treatment. They said their target was 48 hours to come and have a look. If parts were needed they'd have to book a return visit. It wasn't going to be £220 to get it sorted immediately. It was £220 to get it sorted some time. In terms of a cost comparision I was pretty sure it was an ignition problem (£100 all in was my guess using an independent guy).
When it came to it, l never found out how long it would have taken with BG, they never even bothered to phone me back with a likely appointment time - so much for service.
I must say BG didn't excite me. Their all in charge was £240 per year. However, 'all in' wouldn't replace the heating system or necessarily pay for all parts. If you read the small print as well the £240 is a 'from £240' price. This can go higher dependent on repairs history. In other words they could bump up your charge next year if you call them out!
All in all:
- independent gas fitters are cheaper but it comes at a price - you could wait a long time (like l'm doing at the moment, and it isn't fixed yet).
- a BG contract could involve paying £240 per year just for a service and nothing else
- If you actually have things go wrong if you have a BG contract they can always bump up your charge next year.
Tuesday, 18 November 2014
Do we need a national reasonable rents policy for social housing?
I was talking to colleagues last week about affordable social rents; the issue was that in some areas in the UK they're not affordable! An affordable rent can be a misnoma. An affordable rent is 80% of a market rent. A market rent in central London for example might be way beyond the reach of the average social tenant. Just because the affordable rent is 80% of market doesn't make it automatically affordable.
It is an interesting point that there is a lack of a debate about what social housing rents should really be. Although there is a national model it is based on relative rather than absolute rents. What l mean by this is that we take into account average incomes in an area compared to the UK as a whole to have a relative benchmark across the country. We combine this with average property values to get parity across even smaller areas. The latter means that when a housing provider sets its rent increase all the properties are proportionately charged the right rent RELATIVE to each other.
However...the ABSOLUTE level of rent (i.e. what is going to be charged next year on average compared to this year), isn't driven by a model that considers what the right rent should be.
Registered Providers and Councils have a model based on what they need to get in to provide a service. Although everyone is thinking very seriously about what their tenants can afford there is no over-arching national model to refer to for guidance on what is a reasonable rent.
What would be helpful going forward is a debate about what rents should be relative to say local wages or benefit levels. That way, for example, we could have guidlines about rents that rose no more than wages or benefits; or have a policy that rents should be no more than x% of the average wage.
However, this all ties back for local authorities to the HRA model and debt burdens. If a national model meant some rents in some areas were deemed too high, then the Council would be in a Catch 22 if it had to drop the rent but still service the old level of debt. The debt has to be paid for - so the service would suffer. If we ever had a national model for 'reasonable' rents it would need linking in to a review of how much debt Councils were given to service when the self-financing model kicked off. Without this the 'reasonable' rents might be affordable in a real sense to tenants, but not to the Housing Revenue Account!
It is an interesting point that there is a lack of a debate about what social housing rents should really be. Although there is a national model it is based on relative rather than absolute rents. What l mean by this is that we take into account average incomes in an area compared to the UK as a whole to have a relative benchmark across the country. We combine this with average property values to get parity across even smaller areas. The latter means that when a housing provider sets its rent increase all the properties are proportionately charged the right rent RELATIVE to each other.
However...the ABSOLUTE level of rent (i.e. what is going to be charged next year on average compared to this year), isn't driven by a model that considers what the right rent should be.
Registered Providers and Councils have a model based on what they need to get in to provide a service. Although everyone is thinking very seriously about what their tenants can afford there is no over-arching national model to refer to for guidance on what is a reasonable rent.
What would be helpful going forward is a debate about what rents should be relative to say local wages or benefit levels. That way, for example, we could have guidlines about rents that rose no more than wages or benefits; or have a policy that rents should be no more than x% of the average wage.
However, this all ties back for local authorities to the HRA model and debt burdens. If a national model meant some rents in some areas were deemed too high, then the Council would be in a Catch 22 if it had to drop the rent but still service the old level of debt. The debt has to be paid for - so the service would suffer. If we ever had a national model for 'reasonable' rents it would need linking in to a review of how much debt Councils were given to service when the self-financing model kicked off. Without this the 'reasonable' rents might be affordable in a real sense to tenants, but not to the Housing Revenue Account!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)