Clackmannanshire Council admits failures in five complaint areas but offers no financial redress, leaving homeowners demanding accountability and independent scrutiny.
By Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman, UK RAAC Campaign Group
RAAC-affected homeowners in Tillicoultry have expressed deep disappointment with Clackmannanshire Council's Stage 2 complaint response, which acknowledges multiple failures but offers no additional financial redress to families facing continuing hardship.
The response, dated 20 October 2026, was issued by Lorraine Sanda, Depute Chief Executive and Director of Wellbeing, following a formal complaint submitted by the UK RAAC Campaign Group on 23 September.
The Council upheld one complaint and partially upheld four others, acknowledging shortcomings in its handling of deadlines, funding information, communication and commitments made to residents.
Yet its proposed remedies largely consist of apologies, clearer explanations and further written updates.
For homeowners who have endured prolonged displacement, mounting costs and uncertainty over their futures, this falls far short of what is needed.
Council admits failures in five of eight complaint areas
The Stage 2 investigation reached the following conclusions:
| Complaint area | Council's finding |
|---|---|
| Additional financial assistance | Partially upheld |
| Proposed £5,000 payment | Not upheld |
| January deadline suspension | Upheld |
| VAT on remedial works | Not upheld |
| Render funding | Partially upheld |
| Scottish Government engagement | Not upheld |
| September meeting actions | Partially upheld |
| Communication and transparency | Partially upheld |
These findings confirm that homeowners' concerns about the Council's administration were far from unfounded.
However, the remedies offered do little to address the practical and financial consequences of the shortcomings identified.
The suspended deadline: Council admits homeowners were misled
Perhaps the most significant finding concerns the written instruction issued on 12 January 2026 by Andrew Buchanan, then Interim Senior Manager Housing:
“Please consider the deadline as suspended with further information to follow as soon as we have it.”
At the high-level meeting on 3 September, homeowners were subsequently informed that Mr Buchanan lacked the authority to suspend that deadline.
The Stage 2 investigation upheld this complaint, explicitly acknowledging:
“Homeowners were entitled to understand the written communication as confirmation of suspension.”
It also accepted that the communication created a reasonable expectation that the deadline would not be enforced while further work was completed.
Yet despite apologising, the Council concluded that the communication did not establish entitlement to reimbursement of consequential costs.
This is precisely where the Council's response fails homeowners.
Residents reasonably relied upon a written assurance from a senior officer. During the resulting uncertainty, mortgages, insurance and other costs continued.
The Council has not provided an individual assessment of whether its admitted communication failure caused avoidable financial losses.
If residents suffered additional costs because they relied on the Council's instructions, those consequences deserve proper investigation rather than dismissal.
The £5,000 controversy: Council expenditure is not homeowner compensation
The Council states that approximately £5,000 to £6,000 per owner was spent on emergency arrangements, including removals, storage, security, inspections and valuations.
It argues that this expenditure was not an approved additional cash payment.
However, that does not address the separate discussion at the September meeting, when homeowners indicated that an additional £5,000 payment could potentially help achieve a resolution.
Nor should expenditure incurred by the Council be confused with financial assistance received by individual homeowners.
Several homeowners received no direct benefit from Council-provided storage or temporary accommodation, having made their own arrangements.
It is misleading to present these costs as financial assistance benefiting every homeowner, particularly when some received neither service while continuing to shoulder their own financial burdens.
The Council itself acknowledges that its expenditure does not reimburse wider personal losses.
Additional funding: where is the evidence?
The Council partially upheld the complaint concerning additional financial assistance.
It confirms that Kevin Wells discussed potential funding with the Chief Finance Officer, but says no available budget was identified because of financial pressures and the continuing deficit.
However, homeowners had requested a detailed account of the wider funding exercise discussed at the September meeting in the presence of Council Leader Ellen Forson.
The response does not identify which departmental budgets were examined, when discussions occurred, who participated or which alternatives were ruled out.
The campaign recognises the Council's financial constraints, but a claim that no funding is available should be supported by transparent evidence of what was investigated.
VAT: homeowners still cannot establish their actual repair costs
The Council rejected the VAT complaint despite acknowledging that the final rate depends on qualifying circumstances, the work undertaken and contractual arrangements.
Its estimates assume the maximum potential VAT rate of 20%, while homeowners are advised to make their own enquiries with HMRC or a VAT specialist.
That is an unsatisfactory position for residents facing potentially substantial repair bills.
The campaign has highlighted HMRC provisions under which certain qualifying works to residential properties unoccupied for at least two years may attract a reduced 5% rate, subject to the relevant conditions.
We are not claiming that all RAAC remedial works automatically qualify.
However, the potential difference is financially significant and warrants proper investigation.
The Council should coordinate with its contractor and appropriate tax specialists to establish which elements of the roof and render works attract which VAT rates, what evidence is required and how any reduction would be reflected in homeowners' final costs.
Homeowners should not be expected to make binding financial decisions based solely on worst-case estimates when the actual VAT treatment remains unresolved.
Render funding: homeowners deserve a proper account
The Council partially upheld the complaint concerning render funding, acknowledging that its earlier explanation failed to distinguish adequately between external grants, Housing Revenue Account restrictions and other Council budgets.
However, its response provides no comprehensive record of which external funding schemes were investigated, which organisations were approached or why particular options were rejected.
Instead, it suggests homeowners may independently identify funding sources unknown to the Council.
Residents already dealing with a serious housing crisis should not be left to investigate every potential grant themselves.
The Council should provide a clear record of the funding avenues explored and any options that remain available.
Scottish Government engagement: activity is not the same as results
The Council rejected this complaint, citing regular engagement with the Scottish Government, COSLA, housing bodies and cross-sector working groups.
The campaign acknowledges that discussions and representations have taken place.
However, the response identifies no new financial support secured for affected private homeowners.
Homeowners are entitled to know what tangible progress has resulted, what proposals remain under consideration and what further pressure is being applied for a national support solution.
The Council cannot control Scottish Government funding decisions, but it can demonstrate sustained advocacy and transparent reporting.
September meeting: commitments must be followed through
The Council partially upheld the complaint concerning actions arising from the high-level meeting on 3 September.
Although officers had progressed individual matters, the investigation acknowledged that homeowners had not received a consolidated action log.
That omission made it difficult to establish which commitments had been completed, who was responsible and what remained outstanding.
The Council has now directed that a consolidated written update be provided.
But why did it take a formal complaint to secure such a basic accountability measure?
The Stage 2 response also provides no specific completion dates for its six required remedial actions.
Promises without clear deadlines risk becoming further delays.
Communication and transparency: an apology is not enough
The Council also partially upheld the wider complaint about communication, acknowledging confusion surrounding the suspended deadline, the £5,000 figure, VAT, render funding and discussions with the Chief Finance Officer.
It apologised and promised clearer, more structured updates.
While improved communication is necessary, these problems cannot all be dismissed as failures to explain decisions properly.
Some raise deeper questions about authorisation, governance, financial accountability and the Council's handling of commitments made to residents.
The campaign believes those issues require more than improved correspondence.
Homeowners continue to bear the financial burden
Behind these findings are families whose lives have been disrupted since RAAC was identified in 2023.
Some have been unable to occupy their homes while continuing to meet mortgage payments, insurance premiums and other financial commitments.
They face difficult choices between voluntary acquisition and potentially expensive remedial works, without all the financial information needed to assess those options confidently.
The Council has acknowledged significant practical, emotional and financial pressures, but its Stage 2 response offers no additional financial redress.
The campaign is not suggesting that every cost incurred by homeowners is automatically the Council's responsibility.
However, where the Council has admitted failures, it should examine whether those failures caused identifiable, avoidable losses and consider appropriate remedies.
That is a reasonable expectation of public accountability.
Where is the political leadership? Councillors must do more
The Council's administrative failings are only part of the concern.
Homeowners attended the 3 September meeting alongside Council Leader Councillor Ellen Forson, Councillors Jane McTaggart and William Keough, MP Brian Leishman and senior Council officers.
They expected meaningful progress and political leadership.
Instead, the Council's own investigation has confirmed shortcomings in how actions from that meeting were communicated.
Questions must now be asked about what elected councillors have done to ensure commitments are delivered.
Have they challenged delays? Have they demanded proper financial assessments? Have they pressed for further assistance and held senior officers accountable for admitted failures?
The apparent lack of urgency is particularly troubling following Councillor Denis Coyne's four-word response to correspondence concerning the formal complaint:
“Is this a joke?”
Councillor Coyne should be given the opportunity to explain what he meant.
Nevertheless, the apparent dismissiveness of those words has understandably caused concern among homeowners facing serious financial and emotional pressures.
What exactly was the joke?
Was it the mortgages and insurance bills continuing on homes people cannot occupy?
Was it the unresolved VAT question or the Council's admitted failures?
Or was he referring to something else?
Homeowners deserve an explanation.
The campaign recognises that elected representatives have attended meetings and engaged with residents. However, political leadership must be measured by meaningful action, not simply attendance.
Councillors should be actively scrutinising the Council's response, pressing the Scottish Government for assistance and ensuring that homeowners' concerns receive the urgency they deserve.
What happens next? Independent scrutiny and meaningful remedies
With the Council's Stage 2 procedure concluded, the UK RAAC Campaign Group is now preparing a formal complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO).
The campaign will seek independent scrutiny of the Council's handling of the crisis, the adequacy of its investigation and whether its proposed remedies properly address the administrative failures identified.
We are also calling for:
Financial accountability: An examination of whether the Council's admitted failures, particularly the suspended deadline communication, caused avoidable losses.
Transparent funding decisions: Documentary evidence of the Council budgets, grants and alternative financial assistance options considered.
Clear VAT information: An itemised explanation of the VAT treatment applicable to remedial works, coordinated with the contractor and appropriate specialists.
Render funding transparency: A detailed account of external funding enquiries and the restrictions affecting available options.
Delivery of September commitments: A consolidated action log with named responsibilities, progress updates and firm completion dates.
Political accountability: Stronger intervention by elected councillors, including an explanation of Councillor Coyne's remarks and demonstrable efforts to secure a fair resolution.
The SPSO will independently determine which matters fall within its remit and what remedies, if any, are appropriate.
Wilson Chowdhry: “These families deserve justice, not another apology”
Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, said:
“The Council has admitted failures in five of the eight areas we complained about, including misleading homeowners over a suspended deadline. Yet it has offered no financial redress or proper assessment of whether its mistakes caused avoidable losses.
Apologies don't pay mortgages, insurance bills or put roofs over people's heads.
I am particularly concerned that the Council points to thousands of pounds in its own expenditure when some homeowners received neither temporary accommodation nor storage assistance. That spending cannot be treated as compensation for their personal hardship.
We also remain without definitive VAT figures, full transparency over funding enquiries or clear evidence that commitments made at the September meeting have been delivered.
I am equally disappointed by the apparent apathy of some elected councillors. Families are struggling with their homes and financial futures, yet one councillor responds, ‘Is this a joke?’ I ask Councillor Coyne: what exactly is funny about this situation?
We recognise that the Council faces financial pressures, but those pressures do not excuse poor administration or remove the need to investigate the consequences of its failures.
We are now preparing a formal complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman because these families deserve independent scrutiny, genuine accountability and a fair resolution.
These homeowners did not cause the RAAC crisis, yet they continue to carry its financial burden. They deserve justice, not another apology.”
Wilson Chowdhry
Chairman, UK RAAC Campaign Group
The UK RAAC Campaign Group continues to campaign for fair treatment, transparent decision-making and meaningful support for homeowners affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete across the United Kingdom.
Support our campaign: UK RAAC Campaign Group Crowdfund
This article is a campaign response to Clackmannanshire Council's Stage 2 decision of 20 October 2026. The Council's findings are distinguished from the campaign group's opinions and outstanding questions. Councillor Coyne and the Council's elected leadership should have the opportunity to respond to the criticisms raised.
resolution.
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
