Thread: *IMPORTANT* Post-service Housing

The information from the DCLG turned up today. It has lots of black pen through it, but I have noticed by some of the information that there is a consensus there needs to be changes made. Its been down to all of you that have taken part, and, I hope continue to take part in this campaign, that will force those in power to amend the legislation in due course. We all require to continue to send emails to our MPs asking them why 199(2)and (3) is so important now days, is it correct that the Imigrations Department should be permitted to take 10% of Social Housing stock. This stock is in great need for those people already resident in this country?

Regards

Hitback

P.S Some of the information I received is from web site forums.

THE RAF AND NAVY DONT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HOUSING WHEN LEAVING THE FORCES. :bootyshake:


As you will see from the following information there are moves a foot, however the time scale is very slow. At least someone understands that local areas with a military presents do benefit from their locations. The data that was being put together was being limited to the following locations; Aldershot (Army), Brize Norton (RAF), Catterick (Army), Colchester (Army) Plymouth (Royal Navy),, Tidworth (Army), Warminster (Army). The following location have been dispensed with; Brize Norton, Lineham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, HMS Collingwood. Their understanding is this is not such an issue with the RAF and the Royal Navy. I beg to differ, this issue affects all service personnel? They were also looking for more locations to exclude from the data being requested. Once again we see the government trying to paste over the cracks. Its very important at this early stage, that the correct number of service personnel and families being discriminated by Housing Association etc is formulated correctly, must include all locations. The other point I would like to make is, What about future locations for Super Garrisons. The local infranstructors will become hugh all built up by service families and single personnel!

Its the legislation that requires to change not pep talks to some HAs and Councils.

Plymouth has by all accounts included in the data but I'm not sure. None of the data has come with this FOI from the DCLG.

THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE TO BE ACTIVE ON THIS CAMAPIGN. AS MINISTERS SEEM TO BELIEVE THE RAF AND NAVY ARE OK. :banghead:


Regards

Hiback

I have 96 pages of information from the DCLG. The following is of interest and looks at the wording of the Homelessness Legislation. The first entry by the JSHAO sums up the lack of knowledge service personnel have about their future housing needs in civvie street. It would be interesting to know the % of service personnel that aren't getting out of the forces that attend the Housing Options briefings. These briefings are mostly attended by service leavers, aren't they?

That's why I believe it's very important to have a greater spread of briefings at all military locations. As said before, they could be attached to the CDT Teams that visit all military location at least once a year.

Regards

Hitback

P.S You can still sign the Petition by using the link at the bottom. Thank you.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 Nov 06

We come across lots of people that are under the misapprehension that Time in Service Accommodation establishes a local connection particularly at our Housing Options briefings.

This is further complicated by the fact that a minority of local authorities do acknowledge that lengthy periods in the same location qualify or at least accumulate points on Housing Needs Registers. Some will recognise time spent in SFA but only as an irregular and normally only if you have been an IO for more than 6 months.

The irony is of course that with key worker status an individual could now establish a local connection and purchase a property through NewBuild HomeBuy. A colleague who could not afford HomeBuy would leave without a local connection.

I do however have a great deal of sympathy with local authorities. The rules as they stand at present (first promulgated in DE circular 14/93) are designed to spread the load - the alternative would put huge demands on what in some cases are small local authorities

I think we should tread carefully, we run the risk of upsetting some local authorities big time and losing what little good will we currently have.

OIC JSHAO
HQ Land Command
Wilton
Salisbury
Tel: 01722'


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H6@defence.gsi.gov.uk> 30/11/06 10:28:41 >»

I am currently gathering evidence for you , but in the interim have a look at xxxxxx attached email . It articulates the peculiarities that exist with eligibility of granting Key Worker Status that I previously discussed with you. By simple default of KW status eligibility - local connection has already been established. So I am really confused as to why accruing local connection points whilst living in an area whilst still serving, is so difficult to sustain with DCLG.

Not withstanding xxxxxxx other comments about flooding local authorities - I come back to the same point that I made during our first meeting in that this is about parity of treatment - regardless of how long somebody has to wait for accommodation to become available when they leave the Services, they should start as equal to the rest of society. In other words create a level playing field before personnel leave the Armed forces.
Suggest we meet to see how we can take this forward. What is your diary like for the 14 Dec?


AD Housing 020

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frances Walker

Sent: 10 January 2007 17:38

Subject: Re: Local conection

Thanks for your email and sorry to take a while to get back to you. I am afraid that I did not pick up till now your offer to meet in December. I did not mean to be rude and am certainly very happy to do so now, if this would be helpful. My diary is relatively free at the moment.
I wonder whether it would help if I try to clarify the position on the allocation of social housing and local connection. I am not sure whether we are at cross-purposes to some extent.

When it comes to letting social rented housing, local authorities (LAs) must comply with part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. This was revised by the Homelessness Act 2002 -which came into effect in Jan 2003. Prior to the 2002 Act amendments, LAs could decide who qualified to go on their register. They would often impose residency qualifications, or a local connection.

As a result of the 2002 Act amendments, LAs can no longer set their own qualification criteria. Anyone is eligible to go on the housing waiting list, except certain persons from abroad and people guilty of unacceptable behaviour. However, the allocation legislation allows but does not require LAs to take into account certain factors in determining between people in the "reasonable preference" categories. The reasonable preference categories are those people who should be given priority for social housing. The allocation legislation gives examples of the sort of factors which could be taken into account, including -

"any local connection (within the meaning of section 199 [of the 1996 Act]) which exists between a person and the authority's district".

Section 199 is part of the homelessness legislation and provides -

"(1) A person has a local connection with the district of a local housing authority if he has a connnection with it -

(a) because he is, or in the past was, normally resident there, and that residence is or was of his own choice,

(b) because he is employed there

-------I believe some information may have been removed from here?

(2) A person is not employed in a district if he is serving in the regular armed forces of the Crown.

(3) Residence in a district is not of a person's own choice if -

(a) he becomes resident there because he, or a person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him, is serving in the regular armed forces of the Crown

------- I believe some information may have been removed from here?

I thought it might be worth setting out the above, so that you are clear that the definition of "local connection" in the allocations context is set out in statute - it is not simply a matter of what DCLG can or cannot sustain. This provides that service personnel do not have a local connection through employment or residence of choice, where they are serving in the armed forces. If the Government wanted to change this, a change to the primary legislation would be required.

Having said that, LAs do not have to take into account local connection in determining priorities. Where they do so, this will have to be clearly stated in their allocation scheme. Also, even if they do take into account local connection, the fact that a serviceman or woman may not be able to demonstrate that he has one -

- will not make him/her ineligible
- will not necessarily mean that he/she has no priority.

It will simply mean that he has less priority than someone who does have a local connection. However, clearly in very high demand areas this could mean that he/she has little chance of being housed until he/she has acquired such a connection (in other words until he/she has found other employment or lived there for a certain amount of time after leaving the armed forces).

I have just written to the LAs which house the larger military establishments (you kindly sent me the list) to try to find out what their allocation scheme provides, and for any data they can give me about service personnel on the waiting list and/or allocated accommodation. I am attaching copy of the letter. Hopefully, this may give some idea of the extent of the issue.

suggests in his email, there is a sound policy rationale for the local connection provisions as they relate to servicemen. In the allocations context, this is to avoid creating disproportionate pressure on waiting lists in those districts which host military bases and at the expense of other residents of the district. Any proposal to change the legislation in the allocations context could well generate strong localised opposition.

I am afraid that I am a little bit puzzled by the reference to key worker status and NewBuild HomeBuy. I am not sure how someone would establish a "local connection" in this context and, even if this were a relevant for NB HB, what effect this would have on the statutory provisions which govern local connection in the allocations context. Could you explain a bit more? I am probably being a bit dim.

Sorry for the length of this email. Look forward to hearing from you.

Frances

Frances
Social Housing Management Branch
DCLG
020

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Jan 07


Frances

Thank you for this. Your email confirms my understanding of the housing Act. It is item 2 of Section'199 that I am wanting to remove. Service families can be posted into an area for virtually the whole of their career so from their perspective they are fundamentally contributing to the community - Council tax , supporting and contributing towards the local economy , spouse employment, dependants in education etc. I just want a level playing field for them to accrue points as everybody else who resides and works in that locality.

I have also been collecting data which I will send later. This will give an indication of likely numbers and geographical spread.
think it would be useful for us to speak , I am free 23, 25,26 Jan

AD Housing
SpPol 020721M

The EDM has now got 215 MPs pledged to it. The last group of five are Labour MPs! Seeing as they are in power lets hope they do something about this disgraceful legislation.

It's all down to the pressure brought to bear on our political masters by all of you that have emailed their MPs. If you haven't read the start of this issue then here is a quick synopsis;

The current Homelessness Legislation discriminates against service personnel and their families. It puts us at a distinct disadvantage when competing with civilians for Social Housing /Housing Associations. An early day motion is currently being signed by MPs which if carried, will help change this legislation, but we need more of them to sign it if we are to get the government to take notice. We now need your support to get this through. Go to the link at the bottom to send a Royal British Legion pre-written email to your MP asking them to support our armed forces.

If you wish to read the EDM and view which MPs have already signed, then go to the first link at the bottom of my threads.

Thank you for all your support.

Regards

Hitback

If you have two minutes to spare please go to the link at the bottom of this thread. It's a link thats been set up by the Royal British Legion, there is a message already done and it will be emailed to your MP asking them to support EDM 288.

Thank you for your time.

Regards

Hitback

The following letter has been sent to my MP Mrs Nadine Dorries Mid Beds. I shall keep this site and all the others updated on it outcome.

Hitback



Dear Nadine,

I am writing to you to ask if you could organise a meeting with myself and Mr Cameron. I would like to discuss with him the problems en-counted by service leavers under the current Homelessness Legislation 199(2)and (3). As your EDM 288 points out it has an averse affect on those that have served their country and that's not acceptable. The information I received from the DCLG and the MoD shows this issue does have an adverse affect and should be addressed, however, they are also playing with words and not doing anything to move forward.

The armed forces are feeling betrayed by our politicians at present and the covenant has been broken between those that serve and the countries people. As you are aware I have already spoken with Mark Harper MP about this but I believe it requires to be addressed by the leader of his party and I hope the future leader of this country. The website I've been running this issue on have had about 200,000 pings and service news letters have been covering it as well. I talk with many service personnel and their families as well TA soldiers and they feel that the current legislation is a disgraceful act by a countries government.

I also understand that Mr Cameron is a very busy person with lots to cover as the opposition party leader, but this is an issue that affects many service leavers and their families which requires his time and up most attention. I believe those that serve in Her Majesty's Armed Forces will see his support a good reason for electing his party in the next general election.

If more information is required on this issue then please email me or Peter could back brief on whats been going on and the issue in general.

Kind Regards

Hitback

Has anyone on RearParty had a reply from their MP about supporting EDM 288? My understanding is, from other site users, their MPs are now ignoring their request to support the EDM. I have told them to put pen to paper and post a letter to their MP asking why they are failing in their duties to represent and support their constituents.

Hitback

This is some MPs from my list that have not signed EDM 288. If we could send an email to as many as possible that would be great. I will place another list up here next week.

If you get a reply or notice one of the names below on the EDM them please inform us on the site.

To get an idea of what EDM 288 is about, please click on the link at the bottom of this entry.

Regards

Hitback

Smith, Ms Angela C. (Lab) * Sheffield, Hillsborough http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/586.html

Smith, Angela E. (Lab/Co-op) Basildon http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/189.html

Stunell, Andrew (LD) Hazel Grove http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/498.html

Simmonds, Mark (Con) Boston & Skegness http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/473.html

Sheridan, Jim (Lab) Paisley & Renfrewshire North http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/835.html

Sheerman, Mr Barry (Lab/Co-op) Huddersfield http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/399.html

Shaw, Jonathan (Lab) Chatham & Aylesford http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/229.html

Swinson, Jo (LD) * East Dunbartonshire http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/830.html

Teather, Sarah (LD) Brent East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/303.html

Williams, Stephen (LD) * Bristol West http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/114.html

Younger-Ross, Richard (LD) Teignbridge http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/326.html

Reid, Mr Alan (LD) Argyll & Bute http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/822.html

Rennie, Willie (LD) * Dunfermline & West Fife http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/821.html

Robathan, Mr Andrew (Con) Blaby http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/460.html (Ex Army)

Ruddock, Joan (Lab) Lewisham, Deptford http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/604.html

Ruane, Chris (Lab) Vale of Clwyd http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/175.html

Ryan, Joan (Lab) Enfield North http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/319.html

Roy, Mr Frank (Lab) Motherwell & Wishaw http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/836.html

Rammell, Bill (Lab) Harlow http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/185.html

Randall, Mr John (Con) Uxbridge http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/396.html

Redwood, Rt Hon John (Con) Wokingham http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/571.html

Plaskitt, Mr James (Lab) Warwick & Leamington http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/35.html

Pope, Mr Greg (Lab) Hyndburn http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/59.html

Prentice, Bridget (Lab) Lewisham East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/105.html

Purchase, Mr Ken (Lab/Co-op) Wolverhampton North East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/655.html

Purnell, James (Lab) Stalybridge & Hyde http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/547.html

Osborne, Mr George (Con) Tatton http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/221.html

O'Brien, Mr Stephen (Con) Eddisbury http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/172.html

O'Brien, Mr Mike (Lab) North Warwickshire
http://www.mikeobrien.org.uk/ Please call his main office.

Munn, Meg (Lab/Co-op) Sheffield, Heeley http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/583.html

McNulty, Mr Tony (Lab) Harrow East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/393.html

McDonnell, John (Lab) Hayes & Harlington http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/643.html

McCabe, Stephen (Lab) Birmingham, Hall Green http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/24.html

Lammy, Mr David (Lab) Tottenham http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/513.html

Lewis, Mr Ivan (Lab) Bury South http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/88.html

Ladyman, Dr Stephen (Lab) South Thanet http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/204.html

Luff, Peter (Con) Mid Worcestershire http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/38.html

Lucas, Ian (Lab) Wrexham http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/465.html

Love, Mr Andy (Lab/Co-op) Edmonton http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/320.html

Lloyd, Tony (Lab) Manchester Central http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/483.html

Linton, Martin (Lab) Battersea http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/623.html

Levitt, Tom (Lab) High Peak http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/588.html

Hunter, Mark (LD) * Cheadle http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/494.html

Howells, Dr Kim (Lab) Pontypridd http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/160.html

Hope, Phil (Lab/Co-op) Corby http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/463.html

Harris, Mr Tom (Lab) Glasgow South http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/832.html

Hague, Rt Hon William (Con) Richmond (Yorks) http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/261.html (He has refused to sign, RAF constituenets have asked him)

Hall, Patrick (Lab) Bedford http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/508.html

Goggins, Paul (Lab) Wythenshawe & Sale East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/493.html

Gidley, Sandra (LD) Romsey http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/576.html

Follett, Barbara (Lab) Stevenage http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/16.html

Flynn, Paul (Lab) Newport West http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/155.html

Eagle, Angela (Lab) Wallasey http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/177.html

Eagle, Maria (Lab) Liverpool, Garston http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/446.html

Ennis, Jeff (Lab) Barnsley East & Mexborough http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/268.html

Davey, Mr Edward (LD) Kingston & Surbiton http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/429.html

Read their reply to our Petition

We received a petition asking:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to change current housing legislation to stop the discrimination against service personnel when they retire from the armed forces."

Details of petition:

"Housing associations and the Government should review housing allocation policy in respect of establishing local connections to ensure that former members of the armed forces are not discriminated against when applying for housing. This in part would acknowledge the important contribution made by Her Majesty's Armed Forces in defending the United Kingdom's national interests; recognise their commitment and professionalism in the service of the country both at home and abroad and further recognises that following the end of their careers in the armed forces many servicemen and women and their families face considerable difficulties in securing housing appropriate to their needs as civilians."

10 Downing Street Reply to Petition

The Government acknowledges the important contribution made by Her Majesty's Armed Forces in defending the United Kingdom's national interests and recognises their commitment and professionalism in the service of the country, both at home and abroad.

The Government is aware that there is widespread concern that the local connection provision in the housing legislation may be making it more difficult for service personnel and those leaving the armed forces to access social housing. The Secretary of State for Communities, Ruth Kelly, has launched a debate about the future role of social housing in England which, amongst other things, will be looking at issues around access to social housing. The issue of local connection for members of the armed forces will be considered as an important part of this work.

The Government is doing all we can to assist Service personnel into affordable home ownership during their career. We announced last year that Service personnel would have priority access to our New Build HomeBuy programme (previously known as shared ownership) alongside other key workers. This allows eligible individuals to buy a newly built home, paying a minimum 25 per cent of the price and a reduced rent on the remaining cost of the home. By allowing service personnel priority access to low cost home ownership while they are serving, we hope to be able to avert housing problems for them later on down the line in addition to addressing recruitment and retention issues in the Armed Forces.

The Ministry of Defence provides assistance and support in several ways to help personnel in their transition to civilian life. It has set up the Joint Service Housing Advice Office (JSHAO), which offers advice and guidance in sourcing accommodation, both while in Service and after leaving the Armed Forces.

The following is the reply I got back from Mr Camerons PA. I have phoned his office in the HoC and asked about a meeting on this issue as well as send some questions that I would like some answers to. The questions are directly below.


Regards

Hitback

Questions

a. What happened to the 2.6 billion from the sale of SFA to Annington Homes Plc?
b. Why is the profit shared agreement lining the pockets of the exchequer, when service personnel only get 1% for every full 10 years served?
c. What amendments will his party carry out on the Homelessness Legislation 199(2)and(3) if they become the government of the day?



Dear Nick,



Thank you for writing to David Cameron – I am replying on his behalf.



We are grateful to you for taking the time to email regarding the housing and welfare of service leavers. We have carefully noted your concerns and have taken on board the points that you have made.



This is an issue the Conservative Party take very seriously indeed. Both David and members of the Shadow Defence Team have spoken out about this and David has Brize Norton in his constituency which means he has a particular interest in the welfare of forces personnel and families.



David has promised to draw up a special manifesto for Britain ’s Armed Forces families in order to support people “who do so much for us”. For more information please visit the following link; http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...&obj_id=136244



Once again, thank you for your email.



Yours sincerely,

One more to add to the list. :wink:

Dear Hitback

Peter has asked me to thank you for drawing EDM 288 to his attention to which he is more than happy to add his name and lend his support.


Kind regards,

Thomas Lyon

Parliamentary Researcher to Peter Luff MP (Mid Worcestershire)

Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee

House of Commons

London SW1A 0AA

READ, READ and be shocked. :evil: GREEDY GITS

I found this whilst re-searching for the Social Housing Campaign. I know its very long winded but it must be read. The points being made about Annington as well service accommodation is a little shocking. An example is some SFA is being done up to hand back to Annington Homes Plc to a higher standard than some Service Families are living in. The issue of service personnel getting first refusal on property is contradicted throughout this House of Commons minutes of evidence. Taken Before Defence Committee. The Work of Defence Estates Tuesday 15 May 2007.


http://www.publications.parliament.u...er_first_match

Regards

Hitback

I now have a reply from Mr Camerons office about a meeting.


Dear Hitback,

Many thanks for your further email. Sadly David’s diary is incredibly busy over the forthcoming months and unfortunately he is unable to meet everyone he would like to.


I will however forward your email on to Mark Harper MP, Shadow Defence Minister and ask him to get in touch with you about this.



Regards,


Axxx Bxxxx

Correspondence Secretary

David Cameron's Office

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

The simple fact that only 9% of other ranks 18% and of officers own their own property. This should be a good sign there is an issue to be addressed.

May be better education on their future housing needs outside the forces, if thats by the JSHAO or by other means, I don't care. However it requires to be done sooner rather than later.

The whole point of this campaign is to change the Homelessness Legislation, it currently discriminates against those that have served their country by being in the Armed Forces.

The point made about arguing between his or her's home location for attaining a "Local Connections" is not correct. There are some Districts that wipe their hands of people that have been away for some time. (Posted personnel also included).

In a Continuous Attitude Survey 37% of responding Officers were either fairly or very disatisfied with the prospects for buying or even renting a house. This rose to 42% for other ranks. There are some service families leaving and going into Hostel Accommodation for some time. In some areas this could be up to 2 years.

Hitback

This is my recent reply from another MP. As you can see it does work, all you have to do is contact them and ask them to support EDM 288.

Dear Hitback,



Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I appreciate your concern at the difficulties faced by those leaving the armed forces in obtaining social housing, and I understand your wish to see action taken by the Government to address this issue.



You are right in saying that I do not need to be your MP in order to sign Early Day Motion 288 if I agree with the contents of this, and I am pleased to inform that I have indeed added my signature to this motion, to note the important contribution of the armed forces and to raise my concerns about the housing problems many servicemen and women and their families are experiencing.



You can view the motion, currently signed by 221 MPs, by following this link http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDe...05&SESSION=885 and my signature should appear on this following the current Parliamentary recess. I will encourage my colleagues to add their signatures and I hope that the motion will continue to gain support and prompt the Government to action to review housing allocation policy to address the problems faced by former members of the armed forces.



Thank you again for getting in touch, and I hope that you will receive useful responses from the other Members you have contacted in connection with this issue.



Yours sincerely,



Jo Swinson MP







Jo Swinson MP

East Dunbartonshire

Tel: 0141

Fax: 0141

Email: swinsonj@parliament.uk

Web: www.joswinson.org.uk

This is some MPs from my list that have not signed EDM 288. If we could send an email to as many as possible that would be great. I will place another list up here next week.

If you get a reply or notice one of the names below on the EDM then please inform us on the site.

To get an idea of what EDM 288 is about, please click on the link at the bottom of this entry.

Regards

Hitback



Smith, Ms Angela C. (Lab) * Sheffield, Hillsborough http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/586.html

Smith, Angela E. (Lab/Co-op) Basildon http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/189.html

Stunell, Andrew (LD) Hazel Grove http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/498.html

Simmonds, Mark (Con) Boston & Skegness http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/473.html

Sheridan, Jim (Lab) Paisley & Renfrewshire North http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/835.html

Sheerman, Mr Barry (Lab/Co-op) Huddersfield http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/399.html

Shaw, Jonathan (Lab) Chatham & Aylesford http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/229.html

Teather, Sarah (LD) Brent East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/303.html

Williams, Stephen (LD) * Bristol West http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/114.html

Younger-Ross, Richard (LD) Teignbridge http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/326.html

Reid, Mr Alan (LD) Argyll & Bute http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/822.html

Rennie, Willie (LD) * Dunfermline & West Fife http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/821.html

Robathan, Mr Andrew (Con) Blaby http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/460.html (Ex Army)

Ruddock, Joan (Lab) Lewisham, Deptford http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/604.html

Ruane, Chris (Lab) Vale of Clwyd http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/175.html

Ryan, Joan (Lab) Enfield North http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/319.html

Roy, Mr Frank (Lab) Motherwell & Wishaw http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/836.html

Rammell, Bill (Lab) Harlow http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/185.html

Randall, Mr John (Con) Uxbridge http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/396.html

Redwood, Rt Hon John (Con) Wokingham http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/571.html

Plaskitt, Mr James (Lab) Warwick & Leamington http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/35.html

Pope, Mr Greg (Lab) Hyndburn http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/59.html

Prentice, Bridget (Lab) Lewisham East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/105.html

Purchase, Mr Ken (Lab/Co-op) Wolverhampton North East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/655.html

Purnell, James (Lab) Stalybridge & Hyde http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/547.html

Osborne, Mr George (Con) Tatton http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/221.html

O'Brien, Mr Stephen (Con) Eddisbury http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/172.html

O'Brien, Mr Mike (Lab) North Warwickshire
http://www.mikeobrien.org.uk/ Please call his main office.

Munn, Meg (Lab/Co-op) Sheffield, Heeley http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/583.html

McNulty, Mr Tony (Lab) Harrow East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/393.html

McDonnell, John (Lab) Hayes & Harlington http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/643.html

McCabe, Stephen (Lab) Birmingham, Hall Green http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/24.html

Lammy, Mr David (Lab) Tottenham http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/513.html

Lewis, Mr Ivan (Lab) Bury South http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/88.html

Ladyman, Dr Stephen (Lab) South Thanet http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/204.html

Lucas, Ian (Lab) Wrexham http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/465.html

Love, Mr Andy (Lab/Co-op) Edmonton http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/320.html

Lloyd, Tony (Lab) Manchester Central http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/483.html

Linton, Martin (Lab) Battersea http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/623.html

Levitt, Tom (Lab) High Peak http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/588.html

Hunter, Mark (LD) * Cheadle http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/494.html

Howells, Dr Kim (Lab) Pontypridd http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/160.html

Hope, Phil (Lab/Co-op) Corby http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/463.html

Harris, Mr Tom (Lab) Glasgow South http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/832.html

Hague, Rt Hon William (Con) Richmond (Yorks) http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/261.html (He has refused to sign, RAF constituenets have asked him)

Hall, Patrick (Lab) Bedford http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/508.html

Goggins, Paul (Lab) Wythenshawe & Sale East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/493.html

Gidley, Sandra (LD) Romsey http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/576.html

Follett, Barbara (Lab) Stevenage http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/16.html

Flynn, Paul (Lab) Newport West http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/155.html

Eagle, Angela (Lab) Wallasey http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/177.html

Eagle, Maria (Lab) Liverpool, Garston http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/446.html

Ennis, Jeff (Lab) Barnsley East & Mexborough http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/268.html

Davey, Mr Edward (LD) Kingston & Surbiton http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/429.html

My email to Mr Cameron and his office's response. I believe what they are saying to me is; This is a very small issue so please don't bother the leader of the Party! :roll:



Dear Mr Cameron,



I telephoned your office in London on the 8th May and asked if Mr Cameron would please reply to my email. I was informed by a member of his staff that his office would give me an answer to the meeting.



I served 23 years in Her Majesty's' Armed Forces and I can safely say that all of us that served under a Conservative Party had it a lot better than under the Labour Party. The only real mistake was selling on the SFA to Annington Homes Plc, but the profit shared agreement that still stands could and should be addressed by his party. The exchequer between 1997 and 2004 made over 100 million pounds, whilst those that lived and wished to buy old SFA were given a meagre 1% for ever full ten years served. This I find a disgrace and believe should be corrected in line with current house prices.



On my visit to Ten Downing Street two years ago, I was ignored and my request to see senior members of the government such as the PM, DPM and the housing minister were shunned. I did manage to talk in depth with Mark Harper MP at the House of Commons and the department he works with did release an interesting paper on or around this issue. However TA soldiers and their needs were missing.



I look forward to his response.

Kind regards

Hitback



REPLY


Dear Mr Hitback,

Thank you for emailing David Cameron – I am replying on his behalf.

Thank you for taking the trouble to write. I believe that you are regular contact with Mark Harper's office and they are aware of some of the issues you raise. Please do keep in touch with them on these matters and thank you again for your email.

Yours sincerely,



Dxxxx Bxxxx

Correspondence Secretary

David Cameron's Office

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

Originally Posted by hitback

READ, READ and be shocked. :evil: GREEDY GITS

I found this whilst re-searching for the Social Housing Campaign. I know its very long winded but it must be read. The points being made about Annington as well service accommodation is a little shocking. An example is some SFA is being done up to hand back to Annington Homes Plc to a higher standard than some Service Families are living in. The issue of service personnel getting first refusal on property is contradicted throughout this House of Commons minutes of evidence. Taken Before Defence Committee. The Work of Defence Estates Tuesday 15 May 2007.


http://www.publications.parliament.u...er_first_match

Regards

Hitback

I currently live on a patch in which a proportion of the properties have been handed back to Annington. Before the properties were handed back a huge amount of money was spent on them to get them up to an acceptable standard. Naturally, all the other properties in which service personnel reside have been left to rot. Damp growing up the walls in the bedrooms, mould growing on the kids toys in cupboards etc, fences hanging off and flapping in the wind. The list is endless.

With regard to service personnel receiving first refusal to purchase Annington properties, that didn't happen in our area (not that I'd touch these piles of rubble with a barge pole) because it's within the M25 and the rules are different. What they mean is that there's too much cash to be made to give a small discount to military and they want to be able to flog them at the highest possible price.

Hmm, so in short DE shafted the service tenants to make the properties nice and comfortable for the prospective civilian purchasers. Great!

In that link I gave it states in there that,"if they didn't do up the properties they would be fined" Maybe what they meant to say was, the exchequer woudn't get his profits from the sale. The Coservative Party have been very coy about the original agreement signed with Annington Homes Plc. in fact one person that works for the shadow Defence Team said he would love to see the document. I have suggested he looks in the Parliamentary archives.

I'm not trying to Piss these people off, i just want to see them support our Armed Forces for once.


Hitback

The EDM now has an extra three MPs signed up, taking the total to 224 and put us in 13 place from the top of all the EDMs. Please keep on emailing your MPs asking them to sign EDM 288.

Hitback