£10.5 million in unpaid Sheffield Homes rent is not a problem

[Narden Dee 10]

i did all that,i spoke to the main boss in charge of the heating dpt and he sent out the same engineer to do the job that he cant do,and as for the new boilers the immigrants got are u calling me a liar or something else.

 

OK i take it you got this persons name why dont you make a complaint about the service you've received to his gaffer

 

ok the immigrents were in there new flats.they had there old boilers taken out becouse like mine it didnt work.they got new boilers i and other tennants cant have a new boiler unles it blows up wich has happend on several occasions then we get new boilers.how can this be justified:confused:

 

i think you may be exaggerating as im sure we would have heard about boilers constantly blowing up, i would suggest that you ring 2735555 and request an inspector to come and look at your boiler as you are not happy with it constantly breaking down,

 

incidently Sheffield Homes dont just put boilers in for immigrants they are only replaced if it beyond repair or is obselete

[Ms Macbeth 75]

Here's a response in the Star to their article as linked in the OP: http://www.thestar.co.uk/letters/Our-record-on-rents.6489057.jp

 

The Star failed to mention that the £10.5million rent arrears has been reduced from the £16m it was in 2004. Comments?

Edited August 26, 2010 by Ms Macbeth

[Metroidx 10]

we pay fortnightly burt sheffield homes are that daft they never right it down and send nasty letters even though i have told them .Ended up in a massive argument with a women she didnt take to knidly telling her she couldnt do her job .

 

You may find that this is due to how the computer systems that Sheffield Homes use are set up. Rent is charged on a weekly basis not fortnightly even though this is how you have elected to pay. Therefore, when the computer recognises that a tenant has not paid rent for two weeks or longer it will send out a system generated letter which you have no doubt received. If you speak to someone in the rents team im sure they will apologise for the letters and ask that you ignore them as they are happy for you to pay fortnightly.

 

These letters are designed to start the long legal process of regaining possession of a property where a tenant is not paying their rent therefore reducing the level of unpaid rent this very thread is discussing.

[MeMyself&I 10]

As someone who lives in the still occupied part of Park Hill, I quite agree with the OP that £10 million is peanuts compared to the money being spent alone on Parkhill. It's hardly enough to build a good terrace of low-rise housing. As one of those honest tenants currently in debt and paying back rent arrears under an 'agreement', I would imagine that a lot of the missing £10 million is due to tenants who have come over from E. Europe in recent years going back home after being laid off; I really hope that the council can succeed in getting most of that money owed back at minimal hassle, as they will need every penny of it to stave off the worst spending cuts...

 

Council's had tennants not paying rent long before the Eastern European influx - it's usually the very small percentage of dobbers who expect a free ride in life who have created this very British problem

 

(ps if it wasn't for Polish pilots you'd have German as your first language)

[chem1st 10]

Here's a response in the Star to their article as linked in the OP: http://www.thestar.co.uk/letters/Our-record-on-rents.6489057.jp

 

The Star failed to mention that the £10.5million rent arrears has been reduced from the £16m it was in 2004. Comments?

 

It's a problem that is decreasing and compared to the other losses, it's peanuts.

 

By the time they've finished putting cladding on parkhill, they'll have lost £16M+ in rent. Since they started with parkhill, they've also sold or demolished another 3K properties over a decade and will lose £45M+ rent there. In total a minimum amount of £60M to the economy and maybe £20M in council tax. Presuming they don't lose anymore properties via right to buy and demolition that is.

 

The unpaid rent is an insignificant problem when you compare it to the loss of stock and the money it generated for Sheffield Homes, the city council, the government and the local economy.

 

We will have gained nothing from the loss of stock, except for a field on Arbourthorne and coloured panels on the side of Parkhill. The only people to profit will be the developers whom received subsidy and subsequently sell the flats for a profit. And the smaller developments where social housing once stood.

 

How much is it going to cost to replace 4000 units of housing, how much more potential rent will be lost?

[Ms Macbeth 75]

It's a problem that is decreasing and compared to the other losses, it's peanuts.

 

By the time they've finished putting cladding on parkhill, they'll have lost £16M+ in rent. Since they started with parkhill, they've also sold or demolished another 3K properties over a decade and will lose £45M+ rent there. In total a minimum amount of £60M to the economy and maybe £20M in council tax. Presuming they don't lose anymore properties via right to buy and demolition that is.

 

The unpaid rent is an insignificant problem when you compare it to the loss of stock and the money it generated for Sheffield Homes, the city council, the government and the local economy.

 

We will have gained nothing from the loss of stock, except for a field on Arbourthorne and coloured panels on the side of Parkhill. The only people to profit will be the developers whom received subsidy and subsequently sell the flats for a profit. And the smaller developments where social housing once stood.

 

How much is it going to cost to replace 4000 units of housing, how much more potential rent will be lost?

 

The council wasn't renting out much of Parkhill - people didn't want to live in it. Plus, it needed serious money spending on it to bring it up to acceptable standards, and the council didn't have the money required. Lets hope people want to live in it when the work is completed.

 

I'm no expert on costs, but even I know that many of the original properties marked for demolition were costly to refurbish, so demolition must have been at least a reasonable option. If they were unfit to live in - no rent. The last government, who politically should have been more against the right to buy, reduced the discounts, but thats all. So I have no reason to think this government will do any more. Having said that, if councils do start building new social rented homes again, I hope they don't come with the rtb, otherwise its a pointless exercise.

 

You can't say the council have lost X amount in rent without qualifying it by showing how much Y costs, Y being the maintainance, repairs, and estate management costs. And, at the risk of repeating myself, when the decision to demolish was taken, the council was losing huge amounts of rent because of all its empty properties. People had got on the owner/occupation bandwagon because properties here in the North were cheap. Once the property boom pushed up prices, it was too late. Demolition was already underway.

[Gordonb 11]

I see reference to Park Hill in this thread. Could someone fill me in on the current situation with regard to Park Hill. I was under the impression that the council/Sheffield Homes had washed their hands of Park Hill and handed it over to Urban splash or someone so that they could be renovated and rented out with some being "Social Housing". The last time that I was in that area prior to the works starting most seemed to be boarded up which I assume was partly because of the renovation and partly because no-one wanted to live there. Ahh! post number 30 has appeared since I started this message and appears to answer some of my questions.

[Ms Macbeth 75]

Here's the latest on Parkhill and how people can either rent or buy flats when its completed. http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/regeneration/housing-regeneration/south-sheffield-regeneration/park-hill#howdoigetanewhomeatparkhill