The meeting was requested by Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, and was attended by affected homeowners and elected representatives, including Cllr William Keough and MP Brian Leishman. Council representatives included Council Leader Cllr Ellen Forson, Cllr Jane McTaggart, Director of Place & Economy Kevin Wells, Head of Housing Caroline Rodgers, and housing team leaders Sandy MacKintosh and Marie Komorowska.
The discussion exposed a recurring problem running through the RAAC crisis in Clackmannanshire: homeowners say they have repeatedly been asked to make major financial decisions while the information available to them has changed, arrived late or remained unclear.
For families deciding whether to repair their properties, accept a Council offer, sell their homes or continue seeking financial assistance, those uncertainties have real consequences.
Homeowners have been “clinging on to hope”
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council apologised for delays in responding to homeowners and for deadlines that had not been met.
Chowdhry argued that an apology alone could not address the financial consequences homeowners say they have suffered.
The Council's approach has changed significantly during the course of the crisis, leaving homeowners attempting to make major financial decisions against a constantly shifting backdrop. The initial direction centred on a voluntary acquisition process, with affected properties potentially being acquired and demolished. Homeowners therefore had to consider whether to surrender homes they had bought in good faith, often at substantial personal loss. The Council subsequently moved away from demolition as its principal solution and towards remedial works, requiring residents to reassess whether they could afford to remain in and repair their properties. But even that option has not provided the certainty homeowners needed. According to the campaign group's account, the indicative cost of the remedial works has changed three times as economic conditions and projected construction costs changed, meaning residents considering whether to proceed have repeatedly had to revisit their finances. A further complication arose over VAT, with figures having been discussed or presented without residents initially having a clear understanding of the additional tax liability. At the latest meeting, one maximum figure discussed was £21,800 plus £4,360 VAT, bringing the potential total to £26,160. The proposed specification has also changed. Residents were initially presented with a remedial solution involving external render, before an option emerged not to have the render, only for that flexibility subsequently to be removed in connection with the Council's application to the Affordable Homes Supply Programme. For homeowners, these have not been minor technical adjustments. Each change has potentially altered the amount they would need to find, the work carried out to their homes and the calculation they must make between accepting an acquisition offer, paying for remediation or continuing to wait in the hope that further financial assistance will become available. Against that history, campaigners argue that delays and changing information have had a measurable financial impact, particularly as construction prices have risen while homeowners have waited for a definitive solution.
Against that background, Chowdhry told the meeting that homeowners had been “clinging on to hope.”
That hope, he argued, has had consequences. Residents have had to decide whether to commit significant sums of money, accept offers for their properties or wait for the possibility of further assistance.
The meeting heard concerns that correspondence has sometimes provided acknowledgements without the substantive answers required, while information requested months earlier has taken considerable time to emerge.
There was therefore strong support for verbal statements made during important meetings to be followed by clear written confirmation.
What happened to the prospect of £10,000–£15,000?
One of the most contentious discussions concerned the prospect of additional financial assistance for homeowners.
Kevin Wells told the meeting that, when he returned from holiday in January, there had been no guarantee that further funding would become available. His position was that if additional funding did become available, it would be “passported” to homeowners, and residents had therefore been encouraged to continue progressing the offers already available to them.
However, Chowdhry challenged that account.
The question of the potential £10,000–£15,000 payment became one of the most contested parts of the meeting because campaigners said it had not emerged as a vague possibility only recently. Their account was that expectations of additional assistance had developed over a period of months and against the background of earlier discussions about the Council's funding application. At a meeting in October 2025 attended by the Housing Minister, the Council had indicated that the grant it was pursuing would ultimately result in financial support for homeowners. Campaigners understood that this did not necessarily mean the grant itself would simply be divided up and paid directly to residents; rather, a successful award could enable the Council to use or release money from elsewhere to provide additional assistance, an approach homeowners believed had parallels with the intervention in Aberdeen.
According to Chowdhry's account, that expectation became considerably more concrete at the conclusion of the October meeting. He said that Kevin Wells told Fiona Crichton and Wilson Chowdhry that homeowners would not receive the full amount they wanted, but that they would receive “something for definite.” The significance of that statement, campaigners argue, was that residents were no longer simply hearing that officials would investigate whether assistance might theoretically be possible; they were being given reason to believe that some additional financial support would ultimately materialise.
That expectation was reinforced, according to Chowdhry, during a telephone conversation with Wells in February 2026. Chowdhry's account is that Wells spoke specifically about looking to provide homeowners with a fixed payment of between £10,000 and £15,000. For residents already trying to decide whether to accept acquisition offers or commit substantial personal funds towards remedial works, a payment of that size was potentially significant. It could materially change the amount a household would have to find itself and therefore influence whether remediation appeared financially achievable.
The position became more contentious after an approximately £880,000 grant was confirmed. Campaigners say that no corresponding additional payment was made to homeowners and that communication with Chowdhry and affected residents subsequently diminished. When the issue was challenged at the latest meeting, Wells gave a different explanation of the £10,000–£15,000 discussions. According to the campaign group's account, he said he had been referring to separate funding applications seeking sums in that region, which had ultimately been unsuccessful, rather than committing to a payment from other Council resources. Chowdhry disputed that recollection and maintained that the earlier discussion had concerned finding money from other available Council funding pots. Cllr Jane McTaggart also stated during the meeting that the Council had looked at other pots within its existing budgets, although she confirmed that no money had ultimately been found.
Council Leader Ellen Forson indicated that approximately 70–80% of Council funding is ring-fenced, illustrating the restrictions within which the authority says it must operate.
However, homeowners and campaigners want considerably more detail.
The distinction is crucial. There is an obvious difference between an officer saying that the Council will apply for funding that might become available and telling homeowners that officials are looking to provide a fixed payment of £10,000–£15,000. Equally, the campaign group accepts that a discussion about prospective assistance is not necessarily the same thing as a legally binding or formally approved guarantee. The issue that now needs resolving is exactly what was communicated, what funding mechanism was envisaged at the time, and whether homeowners reasonably relied upon those representations when making decisions about their properties and finances.
That is why campaigners are seeking more than a general assurance that alternative funding was explored. They want a written chronology showing what funding was being considered following the October 2025 meeting; what was meant when homeowners were told they would receive “something for definite”; what Wells was referring to during the February 2026 telephone conversation; whether the proposed £10,000–£15,000 was expected to come from a new application or existing Council resources; what applications or internal funding options were subsequently pursued; when they were rejected or ruled out; and when those changes were communicated to homeowners. Without that record, residents are left with sharply differing recollections of discussions that may have influenced decisions involving tens of thousands of pounds.
The dispute is important because it goes beyond whether a formal guarantee existed.
The central question is what homeowners could reasonably have understood from what they were being told at the time — and whether that understanding influenced decisions involving tens of thousands of pounds.
Why can't Scotland establish a dedicated RAAC fund?
The meeting also raised the wider question of Scottish Government responsibility.
Housing is devolved, and campaigners questioned why Scotland could not establish a dedicated RAAC grant or other financial mechanism if the political will existed to do so.
For affected homeowners, arguments about which existing funding programme can or cannot be used risk obscuring a much simpler reality: they did not create the RAAC crisis.
Many bought their homes in good faith and now face potentially enormous repair bills, impaired property values and decisions that could affect mortgages, savings and retirement plans.
The campaign group's position is that residents need clarity about who will take responsibility rather than finding themselves caught between local and national government funding rules.
Aberdeen remains the obvious comparison
Voluntary acquisition process comes under scrutiny
Residents still need to know the true cost of repairs
Questions also remain over the final cost of remedial works.
The meeting discussed VAT, discrepancies between previously supplied figures, the complete cost of remediation and whether prices could be frozen to protect homeowners from further increases.
Wells told those present: “I should be able to find out the figures by tomorrow.”
One calculation put forward by Kevin Wells suggested a maximum remedial cost of £21,800. The figure raised eyebrows around the room, as homeowners had previously been provided with estimates exceeding £30,000 for remedial works. With £4,360 in VAT added, Wells's figure would produce a total cost of £26,160.
The revelation was particularly significant because homeowners had already been making life-changing decisions based on the considerably higher figures previously provided to them. Several residents told the meeting that they would not have sold their homes had they known remediation could potentially cost as little as £26,160. Others said that, if this was now the correct figure, they would no longer consider selling at the amounts being offered and would instead prefer to proceed with remedial works.
Yet further uncertainty emerged over VAT. Despite the Council having engaged a tax expert, housing officers — working alongside colleagues in finance and legal services — were unable to confirm during the meeting exactly how much VAT homeowners would ultimately be required to pay.
Council Leader Cllr Ellen Forson appeared taken aback by the lack of a definitive answer and insisted that accurate figures be obtained. With homeowners being asked to choose between selling their properties and committing to substantial remedial works, she made clear that they needed reliable, final costs in order to make the decision that was right for their individual circumstances.
For affected homeowners, the episode reinforced a central concern running throughout the meeting: how can residents be expected to make irreversible financial decisions when the figures on which those decisions depend remain uncertain or continue to change?
For homeowners, certainty over those figures is essential.
Nobody can make a rational decision about whether to proceed with remediation without knowing the final amount they will actually be expected to pay.
Why was nobody formally taking minutes?
Another issue highlighted an underlying problem with the way the RAAC discussions have been documented.
Despite the significance of the meeting, no formal Council minute-taking appeared to be taking place.
Chowdhry raised the issue during the meeting, and MP Brian Leishman later questioned whether verbal information and commitments would subsequently be properly recorded and confirmed in writing.
After further discussion, Forson committed to ensuring that future meetings she attends will have a minute-taker present. She also indicated that she would raise the wider issue within the Council and advocate for meetings of this nature to be formally minuted.
Chowdhry also sought a commitment that formal minute-taking for meetings of this importance would be considered when the Council next reviews its Standing Orders. No such commitment was given, with Forson instead suggesting that homeowners approach their local councillors and ask them to pursue the matter.
Given the disputes over what was previously promised, suggested or understood, proper records are more than an administrative nicety.
Important commitments should be documented. Actions should identify who is responsible and when they are expected to be completed. Financial statements affecting homeowners should be confirmed in writing.
Without that basic audit trail, the same arguments about what was or was not said risk recurring.
