Support our campaign crowdfund (click here) Or donate direct to the UK RAAC Campaign Group using these details: SC: 20-29-24 ACCT No: 03355349
In public sector housing crises such as those involving RAAC-affected properties, communication is not a courtesy—it is part of the system that holds everything together. When residents are dealing with displacement, financial uncertainty, and the loss of their homes, clarity and follow-through are not optional extras. They are essential.
Two recent strands of correspondence illustrate a growing concern among affected homeowners: not only delays in updates, but a widening gap between reassurance, expectation, and delivery.
A Reassuring Start on Advance Payments
In an initial response to homeowners, Stephen Booth, Chief Officer – Corporate Landlord at Aberdeen City Council, stated:
“Officers have however now received a number of requests for early payments and are currently considering the practicalities and process to enable an advance payment of a percentage of the agreed offer on the conclusion of formal missives. We hope to be in a position to provide more details in coming days. In the meantime we will continue to work with each homeowner on a case-by-case basis.”
For many residents, this was a significant moment. The idea that advance payments were being actively considered offered genuine relief at a time of intense financial pressure.
However, that reassurance came with a clear expectation: further details would follow within “coming days.”
Four Weeks Later: No Update
When no further communication was received, a follow-up email sent by Wilson Chowdhry, Chair of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, noted:
“I have now allowed four weeks for an update, but have yet to receive any further information.”
This is not an unreasonable concern. Where a timeframe is given—especially in relation to financial processes affecting displaced households—it becomes part of the expectation set. When that timeframe passes without explanation or update, it naturally begins to erode confidence in the process.
The follow-up also requested clarity on whether the issue would be taken to a Council meeting, and asked for information on deputation arrangements so that homeowners could engage directly in decision-making.
Professional Fees: Policy Assurance vs Practice
A second issue raises a deeper concern around the consistency between policy assurances and operational reality.
In earlier correspondence, Stephen Booth stated:
“The Council can meet the costs of solicitors and surveyors reasonable fees direct, or provide assurance to solicitors and surveyors that fees will be covered. We are not aware of any solicitors or surveyors requiring up front fees.”
On paper, this suggests a clear safeguard: homeowners should not be required to fund professional fees upfront.
However, correspondence from a surveyor at a council-recommended firm appears to describe a different practical experience:
“So far, we have not required to meet or negotiate with the DV. They have accepted our report format and figures.
If we are also required to meet with the DV we would require to charge an hourly rate of £250 + VAT. We however hope this is not required.
In terms of fee we have always invoiced the customer however you may be able to recover these fees from ACC.”
This highlights an important distinction between principle and practice. While the Council’s position suggests fees are covered or guaranteed, the operational reality described here indicates that homeowners may still be receiving invoices directly, with reimbursement expected later.
For families already dealing with displacement, mortgage pressures, and uncertainty over their housing future, this gap is not simply administrative. It is financial exposure at a time when many are least able to absorb it.
This raises a further question about how clearly these arrangements are communicated to homeowners in practice, and whether the intended process is consistently understood by all parties involved.
Tone, Engagement, and Follow-Through
The communication issue is further complicated by the tone of engagement in follow-up correspondence.
After a recent meeting, Stephen Booth wrote:
“Thank you both very much for taking the time to meet with me recently. I really appreciate your input and the valuable discussion we had. Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you.
I’ve attached a summary of the main points we covered during our conversation for your reference. If there’s anything you’d like to add or clarify, please do let me know.”
On the surface, this is courteous and collaborative. It signals openness and continued dialogue.
However, when placed alongside unanswered follow-up questions on advance payments, timelines, Council meeting scheduling, and professional fee arrangements, a different picture emerges: one where engagement is acknowledged in tone, but not consistently followed through in substance.
The concern is not about politeness. It is about whether detailed questions raised in response to these invitations for clarification are receiving timely and substantive answers.
The Communication Gap
Taken together, these issues point to a broader pattern:
- Promised updates given within short timeframes that are not met
- Policy assurances that do not always align clearly with operational practice
- Invitations for further clarification that are not consistently followed by detailed responses
Individually, each issue might be explained as delay or administrative pressure. But collectively, they create a growing gap between expectation and experience.
Why This Matters
For RAAC-affected homeowners, uncertainty is not theoretical. It affects where they live, how they pay for accommodation, how they plan their futures, and whether they can move forward at all.
In that context, communication is not just about providing information—it is about maintaining trust in a process that directly shapes people’s lives.
Where reassurance is given, but not followed by timely detail, uncertainty expands. Where policy assurances are not clearly reflected in practice, confidence weakens. And where follow-up questions remain unanswered, the sense of distance between decision-makers and affected residents inevitably grows.
Closing Reflection
The issue at the heart of these exchanges is not simply speed of response or tone of communication. It is the alignment between what is said, what is promised, and what is delivered.
In crises like RAAC remediation, that alignment is everything. Without it, even well-intentioned engagement risks feeling incomplete.
The RAAC crisis is not just about concrete—it is about accountability.
And we are far from finished.
📧 Email: wilson@aasecurity.co.uk
📢 Twitter/X: https://x.com/WilsonChowdhry
#RAACScandal #Petition2113 #ScottishParliament #SupportRAACVictims #EndTheSilence
