Tenants living in council houses in Caerphilly County Borough have voted ‘no’ in the ballot to transfer their homes to a housing association.
In the secret ballot, 66.7% of tenants voted, 65.2% were against and 34.8% in favour of the transfer proposal.
The vote follows the council’s consultation on a proposal for the homes to transfer to the new, not-for-profit, Community Housing Mutual, Castell Mynydd.
Council tenants were asked to use their vote and have their say on the proposal in the ballot which ran from January 21 to February 17.
Voting on the plan to transfer the council’s 10,980 houses had been due to take place in November 2011 but was delayed.
In October 2011, Caerphilly County Borough Council revealed that it could match the £173 million needed to upgrade and maintain its properties to the Welsh Housing Quality Standard.
It had previously stated the only way to get the housing to the WHQS was to transfer the stock to a new social landlord to release Government funding.
The revelation that the council could afford the changes to its homes was forced by Labour councillors, who entered into a political row with the leading Plaid Cymru group over the issue.
Transfer could only go ahead if the majority of tenants who voted in the ballot, voted in favour of the proposal. The result means the ownership and management of the homes will stay with Caerphilly County Borough Council.
Councillor Gerald Jones, Labour’s deputy leader and spokesman for finance, said the extra information that was revealed was crucial in the final outcome.
He said: “Up to as late as October, all of the information going out to tenants, in my opinion, was very one-sided and all about what the registered social landlord could provide. Tenants were under the impression that the council couldn’t meet the WHQS.
“It was really important to get that additional information into the public domain.
“The tenants have had their say and their voice has been heard loud and clear.”
Cllr Jones also added that another significant factor may have been tenants’ uneasiness at giving up a direct link to the council on housing issues affecting them.
Tenants will receive further information in the coming months as the Council’s plans develop for taking forward the investment to achieve the Welsh Housing Quality Standard.
If tenants have any questions they can contact the Council’s Freephone Information line on 0800 141 2834. Or they can ring the Independent Adviser, PS Consultants, on Freephone 0800 088 4194.
I am really disappointed with the no vote.having seen the show homes and weighing up the benefits I was looking forward to the change
Whatever your views on the stock transfer one thing can be read from reading this result loud and clear. The people of this borough have emphatically rejected the stock transfer. Credit goes to the Labour group on forcing Plaid Cymru to delay the vote until all council tenants had the relevant information to make an informed decision. If the eligible electorate didn't have all the facts in front of them then I strongly doubt that the turnout of 66.7% would have been anything like as high. With plaid nailing themselves clearly in favour of the stock transfer it demonstrates that they are out of touch with public opinion and in my view have lost their mandate to govern.
This is the best news since the William Beverage report.
Council tenants did not ask for it, they did not vote for it, and at the ballot made the right decision.
Housing Associations, in general, have no proper processes of accountability, and no processes of transparency in relation to the way they conduct their business, for instance, they broke their necks to prevent themselves falling under the Freedom of Information legislation, they hold no statutory responsibility to anyone except themselves and they are more interested in other ` project` and are losing sight of the reasons they were first established.Much of their current funds are used on sycophantic pet projects which advantage them politically.
It is great news to see that Caerphilly County borough council still retain its responsibility to the citizens of the borough in respect to social housing provision, they now have to get on with the job of bringing Council housing up to an acceptable 21st century standard, for the benefit of, not just the current tenants but those who follow in years to come.
To put the record straight the situation of a ballot was forced upon all authorities under financial penalty from the Welsh Government. The fact that Plaid was prepared to offer the residents a democratic means of deciding their future is to be applauded.
The question that allowed Plaid to offer an alternative route, unheard of in the ballot process, came from a representative of the Tenants panel, who, once the Council was able to confirm attainment of Welsh House Quality Standard by an additional 2 years did not want the question put.
The result I would say is an overwhelming endorsement of the Plaid led CCBC, allowing the tenants their right to choose their housing future and knowing it's in safe hands.
The ballot result means that the housing will remain in the ownership of Caerphilly CBC and will therefore still be subject to the local authority finance regime. These financial rules will require the local authority to pay negative subsidy to the Westminster Government. This amounts to over £9 million per year. In effect the no vote means that Caerphilly CBC will hand over £13 per tenant, per week to Westminster. A housing association does not have to do this and can keep 100% of the rent paid by tenants. This means that Castell Mynydd would have had £90 million more than CCBC to invest in the houses over the next 10 years. This extra money would have been invested in the houses and housing service and would have also benefitted the local economy. I feel it’s a real shame this extra investment has been lost, a real loss to the tenants and to the County Borough.
Sarah Thomas argument is bound by a desire to have seen the Caerphilly Council dispose of the ` family silver` to an undemocratic, unaccountable, and inaccessable `Private Landlord`, because, that is what Housing Association are, you can call them what you like they all wear the same uniform.
Housing Associations of course have an appalling record of spending rent revenue on things other than reinvesting in its housing stock,reinvesting in catering for the needs of an increasing aged population who may want to access its product, and, catering for the immediate, changing, housing needs of its disabled and aged tenants, particularly those Associations who serve Caerphilly Borough, and nobody has published anything which demonstrated that this new `Quango` established for the purpose would have been any different, so its consignment to the bin is the best news news possible, it is time now for those who were vested with money from the public purse to promote this daft scheme to move on to pastures new, and for those tenants who were active in promoting these unacceptable changes re grouped behind the Caerphilly council to work to bring ` OUR` civic housing stock up to a 21st century standard.
The Caerphilly Council housing stock is the property of every citizen of the Caerphilly Borough, not just for current tenants, it is for generations to come who may have the need to utilise it, so in that respect the current tenants NO vote is the best news in this debacle, good on them.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Nationalist Group on Caerphilly Council held a ballot of tenants through any love of, or comitment to democracy. They were forced to do so by law. If that was not the case, do you think foir one moment that taxpayers miney would have been spent on a ballot? No we woild have been presented with a gecision to hand the taxpayers owned assets to a private and unaccountabe assosciation.
What makes this ballot so remarkable was the decision of the voters to vote NO despite the massive ammount of money spent by the council to obtain a yes vote. Yet again Plaid spin and propaganda was paid for by all the residents of Caerphilly.
By way of contrast I eas asked to cost and facilitate the printing of the Labour Parties leaflet on the subject. I will not be breaking any confidences by pointing out that our print costs were less than £80.00. Money that came from our own resources and not the Council Taxpayer,
Gareth Williams
Hello Gareth, No public money was spent on obtaining a Yes or a No vote.
Only Welsh Government money was used in both preparing literature and ballot papers to inform and advise the tenants of the process that was forced upon the Council, and was dealt with by Plaid whilst the opposition wanted to block at all times a democratic process which is the right of all our residents.
Hello James,
I am reliably informed you are incorrect on the issue of money spent, by Caerphilly council, on this entire process.
I am informed that the shadow Quango established by our Plaid Cymru Council to take over our civic housing stock have, indeed, themselves been able to claim funds from the public purse for promoting this failed scheme, a scheme which was misguided in the first place, I also would have expected those Councillors appointed to that `Board` by Caerphilly council to also claim expenses from the public purse to work on this disfunctional, now defunct, Quango, consigned by the electorate to the bin, that`s not to consider the administrative costs associated in establishing that extinct group. So all in all James, the ratepayers of the Borough would have borne the costs of this process. In fairness to Plaid Cymru I also understand that the entire process was, however, proposed and enforced upon the Council by the Assembly.
The fact that they so enthusiastically embraced it is however not good news for Caerphilly council`s Plaid Cymru group of elected Councillors.
"No public money was spent on obtaining a Yes or a No vote.
Only Welsh Government money was used" James Fussel. So Welsh government money is not public money then?
Its great that some people cannot accept that money has to be spent to get the job done and such an excercise as putting out a ballot for housing stock transfer was never going to be done without cost.
What I point out that no finance was given to supporting a Yes or No vote.
Quango, there never was. The Tenant panel was voted for by the tenants.
Expenses were paid for transport to meetings.
What I will reaffirm is that the tenants voted in favour of the Council remaining as landlord and not the alternative Castell Mynydd.
So, Councillor James Fussell, Cabinet Member Caerphilly Council now agrees have said it had not, that public money was wasted on this pointless Assembly inspired move which was so roundly rejected by the voters in this ballot.
Councillor Fussell says "Guango, there never was", well for his information a `guango` is `a non-governmental organisation performing governmental functions`, and the Plaid established, now defuct, Castell Mynydd Housing mutual sits very well within that definition, being set up to manage the current function performed by Caerphilly Council.
So James Fussell is incorrect on both counts.