A WAR of words has broken out in advance of the impending tenants' ballot over transfer of Waverley's council housing stock to registered social landlord Weyfold Community Homes. The pressure group TenantsWATCH, which is lobbying for a "no" vote, was accused in a Waverley Council meeting last week of "creating confusion and concern" among tenants and distributing "misleading and inaccurate" information. The claim was swiftly reiterated in a letter sent out to tenants by Kathryn Williams, the director of the independent tenants' advisers TACT@DOME. "All information material in relation to the proposed transfer circulated by the council or us at TACT@DOME has to be checked and approved by the government's Community Housing task force before being published. "This is to ensure that all material is truthful and accurate. Unfortunately material from other groups and individuals is not subject to such rigorous tests," stated the letter, advising tenants who wished to check the facts to contact the free impartial advice service on 0800 919994. TenantsWATCH has alleged that Waverley is using figures for a "luxury" standard of home improvements to show that it cannot afford to meet the government's Decent Homes standard and therefore should transfer the stock. But according to Ms Williams, the standard being applied is the standard that tenants have indicated they want. "Other facts about transfer are that rents would be broadly the same whether tenants stay with the council or transfer to Weyfold," she said. "Tenants who transfer would have a new tenancy agreement and retain their key rights such as the Right to Buy. They also gain an extra right to pass on their tenancy to a family member who lives with them. Tenants would still have security of tenure as Weyfold would have no extra grounds for eviction of tenants." In response to the DOME letter, Jerry Hyman, TenantsWATCH co-ordinator, has accused the council and their consultants of "piling up a bonfire beneath themselves and now frantically pouring petrol on the blue touchpaper that our leaflet has ignited". He said the council had instructed its sheltered housing wardens to stop him getting the message across to their residents and had refused to let TenantsWATCH know where the 5,100 tenants live. "Thus we have a few hundred leaflets left over. If anyone knows of people we've missed, please phone 01252 724664." Mr Hyman, whose advice to tenants has been "better the devil you know", claimed to have the council over a barrel and said it was unable to pinpoint any statement in the TenantsWATCH leaflet that was untrue. But Waverley's director of housing, David January, told The Herald: "Unfortunately Mr Hyman is not a professional in his understanding of the issues," and proceeded to highlight a number of statements in the leaflet that he viewed as inaccurate. The leaflet opened by referring to the transfer of homes "to a private sector landlord, Weyfold Limited". "That's not what is proposed at all," said David January. "It will be a registered social landlord, probably with charitable status with the Housing Commission." He tackled Mr Hyman on his figures, including an allegation that "£12m of housing revenue account capital receipts have been kept quiet, perhaps because if we transfer the council could use this for other projects". Mr January agreed that the council did have unused capital receipts, but pointed out these had been included in the £33m it had available for improvements. Regarding the allegation that Waverley had exagerated the amount of money needed for improvements, he explained: "We are not going for the luxury standard, but the standard that tenants have indicated they want - they've said they'd quite like to have double glazed windows and doors, which are not included in the Decent Homes standard." Turning to rents, he denied that these would go up for any improvements that are undertaken. "The government rules do not say that." In a long list of other alleged inaccuracies, he countered claims about the loss of secure tenancies, accountability questions, the standard of improvements proposed and the 350 affordable homes that the council has promised to build through the proceeds of the homes sell-off, and which will be in the hands of a registered social landlord. Another opponent of housing transfer, Farnham tenant Donald Simpson, this week called on tenants to "call the government's bluff" and oppose transfer. "If the tenants vote no, the government cannot see widows and single mums go without the repairs and improvements to their homes and will have to change the rules." And he claimed it was because Waverley had not kept its homes up to scratch that it could not afford the Decent Homes standard now. "Nearby authorities have done a wonderful job," he said, referring to Woking and Guildford where the councils are hanging on to their housing stock. But David January stressed that the government had already indicated that it would not change its mind on the funding issue. To call its bluff would leave Waverley's tenants in a very difficult position. He said Waverley's financial position was more challenging than Guildford's or Woking's, in part because of the housing situation it inherited from four different councils when the borough was formed in 1974. And he pointed to other councils in the area - including Chichester, East Hampshire and Surrey Heath - where stock had been transferred and was being managed by good and successful housing associations.
