Issues With Stafford & Rural Homes

[arthur]

All the articles in the press are about how wonderful they are and how much they have achieved.and the acknowledgement that they sometimes get things wrong is soooooooooooooooo patronizing
They involve their tenants because it gives them a better performance rating with the housing associations governing body not because the want to do something good. Getting a three star rating and now they are maybe aiming for four or five is the only thing that matters to them. And we all now how customer satisfaction surveys can be manipulated.

 

[Alee]

I think the main problem is communication issues between sarh and their contractors. IV had workmen turn up twice and tell me they will come back in an hour because they need to get supplies and just not bother. Instead they markk the work as completed. Some times they do a really good job. iv had a few jobs done I i cannot fault.
I had one guy get white sealant allover my black carpet then hide it with my table , not impressed.

 

[kyoto49]

Not wishing to inflame the fire, but I have noticed that all the SARH houses near me have had both new double glazing and complete new roofs recently, that doesn't sound like a company that doesn't care at all. I mean, I'd love someone to come and fit double glazing all through and a new roof to my house free of charge !!!!

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

Not wishing to inflame the fire, but I have noticed that all the SARH houses near me have had both new double glazing and complete new roofs recently, that doesn't sound like a company that doesn't care at all. I mean, I'd love someone to come and fit double glazing all through and a new roof to my house free of charge !!!!

They pay rent - this is what pays for SARH to keep the homes in good condition, which they often don't...

 

[Alee]

They gave me a new bathroom 2 years ago , im still waiting for the electrician to change some sockets ....

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

They gave me a new bathroom 2 years ago , im still waiting for the electrician to change some sockets ....

Yeah, they're great as long as your home is in perfect condition and you never have any kind of financial problem etc.

 

[tek-monkey]

The gov should make social housing energy efficient because it aids the poorest, but that doesn't help their mates get $. In my eyes all social housing should have solar panels where possible, you could reduce benefits in line with a better performing home and the feed in tariff would be a tax generator. But they prefer private housing, because their mates make a packet from sub standard housing that nobody would put up with unless it was rent free and they get to demonise the unemployed despite penisoners accounting for 4/5 of the benefit outlay. Of course that wouldn't be an issue if brown hadn't spent the pension funds, cock.

 

[arthur]

There is a decent homes standard that all registered social landlords now have to adhere to, it’s not like the council housing back in the day before they stock transferred all the housing stock to SRH. Meeting the decent homes standard is also a performance indicator to give them a rating on their company.

Double glazing and central heating is what most people would expect a home to have these days. The tenants pay a rent that reflects their property and housing association rents are not cheap, although they are supposed to be affordable – but this would rather depend on a person’s income.

Housing associations can borrow from banks in a way that councils never could. So with the money borrowed and the rental income I would expect them to provide decent housing and build new housing which again is something that councils could not do. But SRH is a business not a caring institution and they are clearly in it for the praise and the self-appreciation - not for the good of the tenants. They get tenants involved but this again is because tenant involvement is a performance indicator with the housing associations governing body and they get a three star rating or a four star rating if they meet the key performance indicators.

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

There is a decent homes standard that all registered social landlords now have to adhere to, it’s not like the council housing back in the day before they stock transferred all the housing stock to SRH. Meeting the decent homes standard is also a performance indicator to give them a rating on their company.

Double glazing and central heating is what most people would expect a home to have these days. The tenants pay a rent that reflects their property and housing association rents are not cheap, although they are supposed to be affordable – but this would rather depend on a person’s income.

Housing associations can borrow from banks in a way that councils never could. So with the money borrowed and the rental income I would expect them to provide decent housing and build new housing which again is something that councils could not do. But SRH is a business not a caring institution and they are clearly in it for the praise and the self-appreciation - not for the good of the tenants. They get tenants involved but this again is because tenant involvement is a performance indicator with the housing associations governing body and they get a three star rating or a four star rating if they meet the key performance indicators.

They only put central heating in my dad's house after we'd moved out...

Also, I think the storage heater in this flat is far more suited to a studio flat than the central heating in my old SARH studio flat - I had real problems getting it warm whereas here it's much better (although the south facing windows no doubt have something to do with it).

 

[kyoto49]

I don't wish to be funny, but if people are so unhappy with SARH why don't they move out; either rent privately or buy a house...............?? What am I missing?

 

[tek-monkey]

I don't wish to be funny, but if people are so unhappy with SARH why don't they move out; either rent privately or buy a house...............?? What am I missing?

Cost, SARH are supposed to be affordable housing and you have to fulfil certain criteria to get a place. If you are on benefits chances are you can't afford a private let anymore.

 

[proactive]

Cost, SARH are supposed to be affordable housing and you have to fulfil certain criteria to get a place. If you are on benefits chances are you can't afford a private let anymore.

Besides more and more private lets simply won't entertain the idea of someone on benefits.

 

[Alee]

Not everyone who rentsoff sarh is poor or claiming benefits. Im not on benefits . I stay with sarh simply for the security . In the past 10 years of living in stafford I've moved house 13 times, all except 4 being because the owner was selling. I need stability for my kids.
I cant afford a house so renting is my only option.
sarh aren't the best , but they are far better than most of the private landlords I've had. What annoys me is the fact they rate themselves so high and almost seem to brag whilst there's some tenants who have serious problems with their homes and just get swept under the carpet. For most people who are on low income \ benefits they are pretty much stuck with sarh. Private rent can be up to double of what you would pay sarh .then you've got admin fees to worry about .

 

[kyoto49]

Cost, SARH are supposed to be affordable housing and you have to fulfil certain criteria to get a place. If you are on benefits chances are you can't afford a private let anymore.

So for people on unemployment they should be grateful to SARH. There houses are so terrible it should be a motivator to get a job............thereby gaining yourself the chance to rent privately or even own a home

 

[tek-monkey]

I thought the best way to get people off unemployment was to charge them to go to uni to get a degree that is devalued by the amount of people getting it, at great personal expense/debt?

 

[ChrisRisingBrook]

I suspect you are just being provocative because nobody can really ask that question seriously can they?

I do own my flat but SARH are the leaseholder so any issues with the building means they are responsible. Every time anything needs doing it is a protracted fight. I've been lied to, fobbed off and treated atrociously every time. as an example. I am just having a repair done 12 months after first reporting it.

I have another issue in progress where I am going through the same crap again

there is no doubt that their primary focus is the public image, not customer satisfaction. hilariously, the Chief Exec has a sign in her office saying "Failure is not an Option" but it is clearly an organizational culture.

They used to hold leaseholder forums but no longer, or at least they don't invite me anymore.

I have a meeting with an SARH director on Monday and will be sure to raise the issues raised here and in the other threads with him so if you have any questions for him, please post them

 

[Alee]

So for people on unemployment they should be grateful to SARH. There houses are so terrible it should be a motivator to get a job............thereby gaining yourself the chance to rent privately or even own a home

its highly unlikly that that someone just starting new employment is going to be able to earn enough money to privatly rent or even buy their own home . Most jobs are minimum wage with not alot of hours. So unless these people can whip a few grand out of their arse to cover fees\deposites they will be saving for quite a long time.,especially if they want to buy.
tenants have a right to complain . All have a tenancy agreement and its Clearly states who is responsible for repairs. Tenants have to stick their side of the bargain with paying rent so sarh should do what they agreed to do and fix repairs in a timely fashion.

 

[kyoto49]

its highly unlikly that that someone just starting new employment is going to be able to earn enough money to privatly rent or even buy their own home . Most jobs are minimum wage with not alot of hours. So unless these people can whip a few grand out of their arse to cover fees\deposites they will be saving for quite a long time.,especially if they want to buy.
tenants have a right to complain . All have a tenancy agreement and its Clearly states who is responsible for repairs. Tenants have to stick their side of the bargain with paying rent so sarh should do what they agreed to do and fix repairs in a timely fashion.

I get all that, and I agree that SAHR should fulfil their responsibilities, but this is the sort of thing that should motivate people to get a better job so that they could give themselves a choice on where they lived I know that there are a minority of people with disabilities who are unable to work and improve their situation, but it's not that hard to get a better job............bear with me .............

I worked in a shop, crap job, boring, treated appalingly by managers and customers, minimum wage pits of the earth job really. It was hindering my life choices, where I could live, holidays, the money I had in my pocket. So I went to college in the evenings, then to university, and got myself an education. I now work in IT getting good money that allows me have holidays and buy my own house. It can be done, good jobs earning good money are out there for people who start with no education. I'm a single parent, I had no support, no help from family, and it was bloody hard work but I was determined to better my life, and I have.

I'm not trying to be confrontational or hijack the thread, but if SAHR are so bad, there are alternatives, given they take a few years, but it is possible to get an education and a better job, to get on the housing ladder, particularly as Stafford is so cheap, relatively speaking, for houses. For less than 100K, you'd probably only need to earn 25 - 30K a year as a single person to get a mortgage. You don't get free double glazing, central heating or a new roof when you own though

 

[tek-monkey]

Whilst I agree that bettering yourself is the best option I still think SARH should fulfill their contractual obligations, which they don't appear to be doing very well.

 

[sarsaparilla]

Very interesting thread. All I know about SARH is that I went for an interview there a couple of years ago and, at 53 years of age and a wealth of experience in an administrative capacity, I was treated by the 2 women interviewers (plastic personalities) like a 16 year old junior. I didn't get the job and wouldn't have taken it anyway - I just did not like the feel of the place at all.