Homeowners Slam Council Over “Engineered” Costs and False Promises in RAAC Crisis
Homeowners in Tillicoultry affected by the RAAC crisis are reeling from what many are calling an engineered attempt by Clackmannanshire Council to exploit their vulnerable position. Despite early assurances, recent documents and proposals reveal a strategy that could leave residents burdened with astronomical costs, zero equity in their properties, and paltry offers in what is being dressed up as a “voluntary” acquisition process.
What Changed?
In an April meeting with RAAC homeowners, Council officials were clear: the cost estimates for remedial works would include a levy for unforeseen expenses. Yet, the newly published breakdown (see document excerpt above) now explicitly states that a 15–20% contingency is not included in the current costings. This means residents are being primed for even higher bills than initially suggested.
Further confusion and frustration stem from the June 16th meeting with contractor McConnell. At this meeting, homeowners were categorically assured that all costs presented included VAT. Gary Morrison even asked for specific clarification on this point. James Flynn, representing the contractor, confirmed that VAT was included.
Following the meeting, a lengthy conversation was held with council officer Kim Grieve to explore whether further VAT exemptions could be applied—particularly for environmentally beneficial products and retrofits. Additional discussions with James Flynn have since raised the possibility that exemptions may also apply to:
Homeowners over the age of 60
Empty properties
Works commissioned by the Council (subject to further review)
Kim Grieve was to investigate these options, as well as possible VAT discounts for Clackmannanshire Council itself.
A “Kick in the Teeth”: VAT Now Being Added
Despite these assurances and ongoing discussions, the options report going to councillors on 26th June now states that VAT is in addition to the original price—and that Mr Flynn had been mistaken in claiming it was included. This is a shocking reversal and represents a £10,000 increase for some residents—on top of already unmanageable costs.
Residents are demanding:
A definitive statement before the Council meeting on VAT inclusion/exemption
Clear explanation on how VAT will be invoiced
Justification for estimating VAT across the whole project when products were supposedly priced with VAT already included
They are also calling on the experienced estimators at McConnell’s to:
Conduct a thorough review of whether VAT exemptions or reductions are achievable under current HMRC guidance
Work with Clackmannanshire Council to explore a shared contract model between homeowners and the Council, but only if it improves the likelihood of qualifying for VAT exemptions
Sky-High Costs, Zero Equity
The revised project costs are staggering:
£41,626.80 per property for Park Street and High Street residents (roof and wall render works)
£44,202.24 for Chapelle Crescent residents
To make matters worse, the Council is applying a “nil market value” for these properties. Their options report claims that after repairs, the properties will be worth around £65,000, leaving an apparent equity of around £21,000—before legal and administrative deductions.
This does not reflect reality. Many homeowners hold pre-RAAC valuations—some over six years old—that far exceed this figure. Moreover, as leaseholders, they retain a share in the land, an asset the Council has entirely ignored.
A Strategy to Force Sales on the Cheap?
Residents are now questioning the Council’s motives. They believe this pricing and valuation structure has been designed to:
Deny sundry debt loans, by claiming residents lack enough equity
Pressure owners into “voluntary” sales, where the Council acquires homes cheaply
The report openly states:
“Officers be authorised to negotiate individually with the owners to voluntarily acquire their property… [which] currently hold a ‘nil’ market value…”
Local landlord Grant Kerr, who owns two affected properties, stated:
“It’s clear the Council has engineered this entire process to pressure owners into selling. I believe they’ve wanted my properties back from the start, and have now constructed a valuation model that allows them to make rock-bottom offers while maintaining the illusion of fairness. In 2023, they had already approached me with a buy-back proposal—this now feels like a cynical attempt to achieve that same goal by other means.”
Additional Confusion: Unoccupied Property Reductions
In the options report, the Council also refers to possible cost reductions, stating:
"A reduction may also be applicable given the period of time that the properties have been unoccupied."
Homeowners now seek immediate clarity on:
How will this reduction manifest?
Will it apply as a percentage, a flat fee, or be calculated per property?
Will all affected homes qualify?
Wilson Chowdhry Responds
Wilson Chowdhry, Chair of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, condemned the Council’s approach:
“The Council’s actions are disgraceful. They are exploiting homeowners who have already suffered months of displacement and uncertainty. Not a single other council has applied a ‘zero market value’ approach. It’s an unprecedented and cynical move to acquire private homes for social housing at the lowest possible cost. We will challenge this injustice through every legal and political route available.”
Homeowners Demand Accountability Now
RAAC-affected homeowners are demanding immediate and transparent action from Clackmannanshire Council. Their key calls include:
A fully independent investigation into how costings and valuations were derived.
A detailed, itemised breakdown of VAT charges, including any potential exemptions or reductions that could be applied.
If VAT is to be imposed, the right to pursue a competitive tender process under Scottish public procurement rules.
An urgent reassessment of the “nil market value” model, which fails to reflect historic valuations and land ownership.
A formal and written response before 26th June, clarifying VAT status, valuation methodology, and the feasibility of shared contract arrangements that may reduce costs for homeowners.
This fight is about more than just financial figures. It’s about justice, transparency, and the basic right to be treated fairly in your own home.
No comments:
Post a Comment