We are all accustomed to the cry that your custom matters and almost everywhere we go we are invited to fill in a customer feedback or customer comment card. The idea is that we can influence the delivery of services.
In the the area that Gateshead Council have designated for 440 house demolitions the pressure is on to get positive customer feedback and praise for Gateshead Council's individual care and attention to residents needs. A worthy objective.
Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association are constantly receiving complaints about the lack of information and poor service received by Gateshead Council. On the other hand Gateshead Council claim that they only receive praise for their delicate handling of moving people out of their own homes and businesses.
Recently a shop threatened with demolition on Saltwell Road was relocated. So council officer Deborah Mckenna popped down to do some customer feedback on the process. Ms Mckenna introduced herself and explained she was there to get customer feedback. Just to help out before she came to visit she had filled in the answers and all she needed was a signature.
Curious to as to what the questions and answers were the bemused shopkeeper asked the council official to read out the questions and the proposed "answers". It quickly became apparent that the shopkeeper was being asked to sign up for uncritical feedback full of praise for Gateshead Council. The shopkeeper then explained she couldn't agree with any of it. In fact she had received no help from the council and re-located the business on her own losing her flat in the process.
Ms McKenna suggested that perhaps a complaints form was more appropriate. Ms McKenna and her assistant were last seen retreating to the nearest pub. The complaints form has yet to materialise.
While we salute the attempt to save time by filling in feedback forms BEFORE they get the feedback. Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association would rather the council collected feedback in a more honest way perhaps actually giving the chance of residents to give their true feelings about demolition.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Council terror campaign continues
As Gateshead Council continues buying up houses in Armstrong Street they are now predicting July 2008 when the bulldozers move in. Only one house in Armstrong Street remains to be bought.
The council have never really explained how their purchasing started in 2002, some three years BEFORE residents were "consulted" about the future of their community. Perhaps the answer comes from the council officials who arrive with customer satisfaction survey forms already filled in with answers favourable to the council. Council officials know residents like demolition so much they help them fill in their satisfaction surveys before they even get to speak to the resident in question! Talk about service - no wonder local councillors think the whole process is going smoothly.
Council demolition hit man David Franklin turns up with photographer in tow to get the latest "satisfied customer" pictures for BridgingNewcastleGateshead's glossy promotional leaflet. Of course the resident has provided no consent to be photographed. This little legal detail wont stop Gateshead Council getting the photograph for their glossy promotional leaflets.
What more do you need to promote the perfect satisfied customer. Satisfaction is guaranteed in Gateshead!
When people talked of public-private partnerships some years ago we all imagined some kind of benign service agreement. Gateshead Council's definition of this policy is an alliance with millionaire property developers to evict local families from their own homes to balance the books at the Civic Centre. Many people find this an obscene mis-use of local government.
The council have never really explained how their purchasing started in 2002, some three years BEFORE residents were "consulted" about the future of their community. Perhaps the answer comes from the council officials who arrive with customer satisfaction survey forms already filled in with answers favourable to the council. Council officials know residents like demolition so much they help them fill in their satisfaction surveys before they even get to speak to the resident in question! Talk about service - no wonder local councillors think the whole process is going smoothly.
Council demolition hit man David Franklin turns up with photographer in tow to get the latest "satisfied customer" pictures for BridgingNewcastleGateshead's glossy promotional leaflet. Of course the resident has provided no consent to be photographed. This little legal detail wont stop Gateshead Council getting the photograph for their glossy promotional leaflets.
What more do you need to promote the perfect satisfied customer. Satisfaction is guaranteed in Gateshead!
When people talked of public-private partnerships some years ago we all imagined some kind of benign service agreement. Gateshead Council's definition of this policy is an alliance with millionaire property developers to evict local families from their own homes to balance the books at the Civic Centre. Many people find this an obscene mis-use of local government.
Friday, April 13, 2007
National Audit Office to investigate pathfinder
According to Inside Housing (see link) the National Audit Office is to investigate whether pathfinder is value for money. The controversial housing renewal programme has been widely criticised for mass demolitions in the north of england at a time when the economic revival of the north is revitalising areas.
Not surprisingly the heads of pathfinders have said that the schemes are wonderful value and they need even more cash to complete their work. Pathfinder has spawned a sub-industry of highly paid quangos with no democratic scrutiny, highly paid consultants, and huge payouts to millionaire property developers. Meanwhile residents are left as much as £35,000 out of pocket when property is demolished according to last years' Rowntree Trust report.
The question is really whether the NAO can be convinced of the value of mass demolition.
Link
Inside Housing
Not surprisingly the heads of pathfinders have said that the schemes are wonderful value and they need even more cash to complete their work. Pathfinder has spawned a sub-industry of highly paid quangos with no democratic scrutiny, highly paid consultants, and huge payouts to millionaire property developers. Meanwhile residents are left as much as £35,000 out of pocket when property is demolished according to last years' Rowntree Trust report.
The question is really whether the NAO can be convinced of the value of mass demolition.
Link
Inside Housing
Ruth Kelly - more dangerous than the Luftwaffe
Could a government minister be more threat to Liverpool than Hitler's might airforce. Apparently yes according to the Daily Telegraph.
In an editorial the paper explains that after two defeats in the courts the hapless government minister is still trying to demolish more property in Liverpool than the Luftwaffe did during world war two. During Liverpool's "City of Culture" year she has said it's OK to knock down more than 6,000 homes in Liverpool - many of the properties reflecting the cultural heritage of the city.
There is somewhat an ironic role reversal involved in the process. Kelly, a member of a political movement created to defend ordinary working people, now finds herself demolishing demolishing hard working families' homes and defending millionaire property developers. Meanwhile the Daily Telegraph, often regarded as the house journal of top toffs in the Conservative Party, finds itself defending the rights of ordinary home owners in the north.
Kelly is also well-known as a member of Opus-Dei - the catholic sect famous for self-harm to show their devotion to God. Arguably avocating demolishing homes in regions that vote Labour is an extension of Opus-Dei philosophy into the political arena engaging in self-harm of her own party's electoral prospects.
Link
Daily Telegraph
In an editorial the paper explains that after two defeats in the courts the hapless government minister is still trying to demolish more property in Liverpool than the Luftwaffe did during world war two. During Liverpool's "City of Culture" year she has said it's OK to knock down more than 6,000 homes in Liverpool - many of the properties reflecting the cultural heritage of the city.
There is somewhat an ironic role reversal involved in the process. Kelly, a member of a political movement created to defend ordinary working people, now finds herself demolishing demolishing hard working families' homes and defending millionaire property developers. Meanwhile the Daily Telegraph, often regarded as the house journal of top toffs in the Conservative Party, finds itself defending the rights of ordinary home owners in the north.
Kelly is also well-known as a member of Opus-Dei - the catholic sect famous for self-harm to show their devotion to God. Arguably avocating demolishing homes in regions that vote Labour is an extension of Opus-Dei philosophy into the political arena engaging in self-harm of her own party's electoral prospects.
Link
Daily Telegraph
Monday, April 09, 2007
Ally of Gordon Brown demands pathfinder rethink
As the housing crisis in Britain increases many hard to let properties are filling up fast. Take a 14 storey block of council owned flats in Walker, Newcastle. When pathfinder moved into the north east it was one of the many properties labelled "abandoned" with 25% of flats not being occupied. Just two years later and only 6% of the flats remain empty.
As reported by the Newcastle Journal on 7/4/2007 this situation is facing a rethink by the Liberal Democrat led council. Council Leader John Shipley was quoted as saying "We have a monitoring process and if it's demonstrated that the voids level is right down and the dwellings are needed it would be foolish to proceed with demolition".
Local MP Nick Brown, a close ally of the Chancellor, is quoted as saying that demolitions should not go ahead until there is enough replacement housing in the area. Brown seemingly feeling the cold wind of the electoral consequences of demolishing his constituents homes.
Meanwhile in Gateshead there are no plans to review a policy of mass demolition that will see 440 residents lose their homes. Empty property in Saltwell and Bensham has never been 25% and the "high" rates of 7% - 9% used to justify pathfinder by Gateshead Council were little more than the effect of being a student area. Its a shame that Gateshead Council has not reviewed the changes in the housing market.
As reported by the Newcastle Journal on 7/4/2007 this situation is facing a rethink by the Liberal Democrat led council. Council Leader John Shipley was quoted as saying "We have a monitoring process and if it's demonstrated that the voids level is right down and the dwellings are needed it would be foolish to proceed with demolition".
Local MP Nick Brown, a close ally of the Chancellor, is quoted as saying that demolitions should not go ahead until there is enough replacement housing in the area. Brown seemingly feeling the cold wind of the electoral consequences of demolishing his constituents homes.
Meanwhile in Gateshead there are no plans to review a policy of mass demolition that will see 440 residents lose their homes. Empty property in Saltwell and Bensham has never been 25% and the "high" rates of 7% - 9% used to justify pathfinder by Gateshead Council were little more than the effect of being a student area. Its a shame that Gateshead Council has not reviewed the changes in the housing market.
Gateshead Council gives an answer - but only to the Secretary of State
A few months ago you heard about Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association trying to use the 1980 Housing Act to prevent demolition. This involved writing to the Secretary of State for Communities via Government Office North East to find out if Gateshead Council had definite plans for the homes they were buying.
Just last week we got a letter saying that the Secretary of State was satisfied that Gateshead Council had a plan because they (Gateshead Council) had told the Secretary of State.
This is news for residents. Until now despite "extensive consultations" (the words of Gateshead Council) no-one really had a clue what was happening. Much of the confusion being generated by Gateshead Council itself by making highly generalised statements in favour of "family homes" and stating that "every resident" would notice improvements.
Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association have been putting questions to the council about their intentions. Questions they have evaded, dodged or simply refused to answer by making long rambling incoherent statements that were hostile to community involvement.
So now we know. There is a plan. The only problem is that Gateshead Council have only told the Secretary of State what it is. Now we have to follow up with a Freedom of Information request to find out from the Government what is the plan for our community that Gateshead Council prefer to keep secret.
Just last week we got a letter saying that the Secretary of State was satisfied that Gateshead Council had a plan because they (Gateshead Council) had told the Secretary of State.
This is news for residents. Until now despite "extensive consultations" (the words of Gateshead Council) no-one really had a clue what was happening. Much of the confusion being generated by Gateshead Council itself by making highly generalised statements in favour of "family homes" and stating that "every resident" would notice improvements.
Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association have been putting questions to the council about their intentions. Questions they have evaded, dodged or simply refused to answer by making long rambling incoherent statements that were hostile to community involvement.
So now we know. There is a plan. The only problem is that Gateshead Council have only told the Secretary of State what it is. Now we have to follow up with a Freedom of Information request to find out from the Government what is the plan for our community that Gateshead Council prefer to keep secret.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
The Spin Machine
Gateshead Council produces very optimistic newsletters. In every one there are smiling residents delighted that their old house has been demolished and that they have been moved out. The suggestion being that they have been "rescued" by an enlightened council.
Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association receive the calls from fearful residents who are suffering anxiety and breakdown because of the proposals to demolish 440 homes. They tell horrific stories of the system failing. Take Mrs X, who refuses to allow her real identity to be written down. She was very ill and agreed to sell her house to Gateshead Council. They agreed. She moved out and waited for the cash. Over eight months have gone by and not a penny has been paid. Meanwhile she has been paying rent at her new property as well as mortgage at her old house.
Since she left prices on her street have been rising. To buy her property on the same street today might cost £25,000 more than Gateshead's offer. Mrs X is now out of pocket in every sense having trusted Gateshead to make a prompt payment for her home.
When you start offering cash for homes you better pay up quickly because you are dealing with lives and futures. Prices are rising fast in these so called "abandoned" areas. This is not because of pathfinder but because of market forces in an area that has trailed average prices but has never been a failed housing market. The Gateshead Council spin machine is trying to to create good news stories from people losing their homes. We wish Gateshead Council would just pay up quickly to avoid further financial misery for those who volunteer their house for purchase.
We would have advised Mrs X to hold on because Gateshead Council's market value undervalues property and in this case saved the council £20,000. Yet another resident loses out in the battle where bureaucrats and millionaire property developers are trying to force ordinary working people to sell their homes for a song.
Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association receive the calls from fearful residents who are suffering anxiety and breakdown because of the proposals to demolish 440 homes. They tell horrific stories of the system failing. Take Mrs X, who refuses to allow her real identity to be written down. She was very ill and agreed to sell her house to Gateshead Council. They agreed. She moved out and waited for the cash. Over eight months have gone by and not a penny has been paid. Meanwhile she has been paying rent at her new property as well as mortgage at her old house.
Since she left prices on her street have been rising. To buy her property on the same street today might cost £25,000 more than Gateshead's offer. Mrs X is now out of pocket in every sense having trusted Gateshead to make a prompt payment for her home.
When you start offering cash for homes you better pay up quickly because you are dealing with lives and futures. Prices are rising fast in these so called "abandoned" areas. This is not because of pathfinder but because of market forces in an area that has trailed average prices but has never been a failed housing market. The Gateshead Council spin machine is trying to to create good news stories from people losing their homes. We wish Gateshead Council would just pay up quickly to avoid further financial misery for those who volunteer their house for purchase.
We would have advised Mrs X to hold on because Gateshead Council's market value undervalues property and in this case saved the council £20,000. Yet another resident loses out in the battle where bureaucrats and millionaire property developers are trying to force ordinary working people to sell their homes for a song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)