The Reality of Social Housing

Generali

http://www.channel4.com/news/housing-associations-homes-property-bob-blackman-david-orr

Housing associations have delivered just 26,000 net new homes a year between 2000-2014 - half the amount required, writes Channel 4 News Business Correspondent Helia Ebrahimi. That is despite taking £62bn in funding, as well as taxpayer-funded rent drawn from housing benefit, according to a Channel 4 News investigation.

So that's an average cost of £170,000 a house plus the ongoing subsidy from housing benefit.

Surely Housing Associations must be expert at running housing though? I bet they're really efficient.

The official figures, spanning 14 years, also reveal that on average housing associations spend 74p in the £1 on operating costs (see video below). This compares to some of the most efficient operators in the sector, who spend just 57p in the £1 on operating costs, and some of the worse examples, who spend more than 90p in the £1.

Nope!

purch

Generali wrote: »

plus the ongoing subsidy from housing benefit.

You can't always assume that.

Plenty of tenents pay their own rent.

It's funny, I was talking to my Mum on the phone yesterday. A few doors from where she lives is a guy who works for Magna a HA in Somerset. He always brings his transit van home with him in the evenings and weekends, and apparently he has been on holiday for the last 2 weeks and the HA van has been parked outside his house for all that time.

Super efficient businesses these HA's :eek:

ukcarper

purch wrote: »

You can't always assume that.

Plenty of tenents pay their own rent.

It's funny, I was talking to my Mum on the phone yesterday. A few doors from where she lives is a guy who works for Magna a HA in Somerset. He always brings his transit van home with him in the evenings and weekends, and apparently he has been on holiday for the last 2 weeks and the HA van has been parked outside his house for all that time.

Super efficient businesses these HA's :eek:

I'm not sure how that shows that the HA is inefficient.

purch

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure how that shows that the HA is inefficient.

I'm sure you don't.

Graham_Devon

purch wrote: »

I'm sure you don't.

I'm not saying this applies in this case, but my father used to have a company van on behalf of a large building company.

He leased the van from them and then got a travel allowance.

So in essense, he was renting the van - was better value. So the van was basically his while he leased it off the company.

The other option was to take the van back to the depot (which could be miles in the other direction), take out all the tools, pile them in your car and drive home - which just wasn't sensible.

I know for certain that a comms company also operates the same policy as my brother works for them and keeps the van regardless while it's within it's lease and he is leasing it.

Clearly you may think it would be more beneficial to have that van on the road all the time. But that would also involve the inefficiency of paying out for fuel and sometimes overtime making staff drive them back to the depot each and every evening. Theres also the on call aspect to look at. Sure, they are no on call when on holiday, but making everyone give their vans back just while they are on holiday would also be very inefficient.

ukcarper

purch wrote: »

I'm sure you don't.

What do you suggest garage the van somewhere not have a van and use public transport.

purch

It's not the case in this instance. It's a big red van, but not always the same big red van.

I asked the guy a few months ago, "Don't you get a big tax bill for using the van to get to and from work ?" and he said it was because he was "on call (not that I ever get called out)"

A usual on this riidiculous forum a thread get's derailed.......................

purch

ukcarper wrote: »

What do you suggest garage the van somewhere not have a van and use public transport.

I suggest

1. Park the van at the company's HQ along with all the other vans
2. Tax the employee for his personal use
3. Use assets more efficiently

.....I was sure you didn't understand, and as usual I was correct.


It's a shame that when people don't understand the thread they have to insist on derailing it with balalities.

leveller2911

"According to the regulator, management costs have increased in recent years because more staff have been taken on and wages increased. Also, the industry pays a final salary pension scheme, which is expensive to run - and now almost extinct within the private sector".

You would think that Final salary pensions schemes should be a thing of the past but I guess that being "not for profit" organisations they can afford to use grants/loans to top up their pension pot rather than build the houses the country needs..

Bit shocked to find out about their pensions....


I have dealt with a couple of HA on a regular basis over the past 20 years and I've come to the conclusion that ,as a body they are inept and incompetant on a scale with the local Councils of the 70's. The maintenance carried out on their housing stock is dire.They will always go with the lowest quote and send out "surveyors" who have little or no actual knowledge of the construction of houses.

ukcarper

purch wrote: »

I suggest

1. Park the van at the company's HQ along with all the other vans
2. Tax the employee for his personal use
3. Use assets more efficiently

.....I was sure you didn't understand, and as usual I was correct.


It's a shame that when people don't understand the thread they have to insist on derailing it with balalities.

What does parking van achieve if person needs van all the time.

Does he use it for personal use.

Does the HA need the van 24hrs a day.

A lot of private companies find it is more efficient for employees to garage van at home.

Mistermeaner

It's definitely the vans that are the main issue here. Let's talk about those