apelike   10 #13 Posted June 25, 2015 Just to clear this up a bit, Mr Perks will also have to pay an extra 10% on top of his £2,438 share of the cost of repairs to the block of flats, as he owns his property. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ricoblade   10 #14 Posted June 25, 2015 Just to clear this up a bit, Mr Perks will also have to pay an extra 10% on top of his £2,438 share of the cost of repairs to the block of flats, as he owns his property.  No - he owns his property and is responsible for 10% of the roof costs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
apelike   10 #15 Posted June 25, 2015 No - he owns his property and is responsible for 10% of the roof costs.  Yes because there are 10 flats so his 10% share of the total cost is £2,438 plus an additional 10% on top for SCC admin charges. His total to pay is therefore £2,681.8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Narden Dee   10 #16 Posted June 25, 2015 Just to clear this up a bit, Mr Perks will also have to pay an extra 10% on top of his £2,438 share of the cost of repairs to the block of flats, as he owns his property.  but also bought their property at a significant discount and was aware that this may happening when buying said property so should have budgeted accordingly.  if you feel its not fair then you are entitled to go down the relavant routes available to leaseholders Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Mr Bloke   1,445 #17 Posted June 25, 2015 Yes because there are 10 flats so his 10% share of the total cost is £2,438 plus an additional 10% on top for SCC admin charges. His total to pay is therefore £2,681.8 Where does it say that?  The report says  Mr Perks will also have to pay 10 per cent of the £2,438 cost of repairs to his block of flats, as he owns his property. Is the real cost of the repairs £25k then? Is this bad reporting again? Surely not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
apelike   10 #18 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Is the real cost of the repairs £25k then? Yes it is.  Is this bad reporting again? Surely not?  Just typical Star reporting, also notice how this negative SCC article is no longer on the front Star web page. Edited June 25, 2015 by apelike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mike84 Â Â 10 #19 Posted June 25, 2015 The council housing stock has to be kept in a good standard of repair. Repairing and replacing the roofs is an expensive business. The council investing in the housing stock is a good thing. Once done, the new roofs should last 40+ years the same as the ones that are being replaced. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Plain Talker   11 #20 Posted June 25, 2015 I think you will find the vast majority are , even if it's just tax credits!! Having a council house is a benefit in itself. I have nothing against benefits I've claimed myself in between jobs- my point is aimed at the council  Mod Hat off  I think you'll find that you are more than a little wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
apelike   10 #21 Posted June 25, 2015 The council housing stock has to be kept in a good standard of repair. Repairing and replacing the roofs is an expensive business. The council investing in the housing stock is a good thing. Once done, the new roofs should last 40+ years the same as the ones that are being replaced.  In most cases the roof that is already on is still in good condition and its not necessary to replace it. The same also goes for also upgrading the buildings to the new fire standards as again money is being spent when its not necessary.  Nothing against investment by in my opinion the £60 million over 5 years would be better spent on building more council homes to replace the ones that were knocked down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mike84   10 #22 Posted June 25, 2015 In most cases the roof that is already on is still in good condition and its not necessary to replace it. The same also goes for also upgrading the buildings to the new fire standards as again money is being spent when its not necessary. Nothing against investment by in my opinion the £60 million over 5 years would be better spent on building more council homes to replace the ones that were knocked down.  There are plans in place to re-build houses that were knocked down in some areas. Can I ask how you know the roof replacements aren't required? are you a specialist? have you inspected the roofs? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Vague_Boy   10 #23 Posted June 26, 2015 People who have council owned homes are having a nice shiny new roof done for free, out of our pockets.  "council owned homes". Exactly.  The council is putting a new roof on it's properties. The tenants will only benefit insofar as the roof will meet the required standards. Or would you rather the council didn't bother to maintain its housing stock?   In most cases the roof that is already on is still in good condition and its not necessary to replace it.  Have you personally surveyed each and every roof in order to determine this. If so, how long did it take you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
max   13 #24 Posted June 27, 2015 Just typical Star reporting, also notice how this negative SCC article is no longer on the front Star web page.  Might be because it's a story from last October. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...