RAAC Breakthrough: Hannah Chowdhry Finally Set to Leave Burden of Aberdeen Home Behind as Council Delivers £25,400 Advance Payment

Hannah Chowdhry and her father, Wilson Chowdhry, outside Aberdeen City Council headquarters ahead of a proposed meeting with senior Council officer Stephen Booth in 2024.

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  

Aberdeen homeowner’s long RAAC ordeal nears an end as City Council delivers on relocation support — but campaigners say families elsewhere in Scotland are still waiting for comparable solutions

For Hannah Chowdhry, the long and deeply frustrating experience of owning a home affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) is finally approaching its conclusion.

Within a matter of weeks, Hannah is expected to cease being the owner of her Aberdeen property, with its sale to Aberdeen City Council due to complete by 1 October 2026.

It will mark the end of a chapter she never expected when she bought the property — a home she had intended to keep for considerably longer, but which instead became caught up in one of Scotland’s most serious recent housing crises.

There was further significant progress today when Hannah’s solicitors confirmed that £25,400 has been paid to her in advance of completion, providing funds at precisely the stage when homeowners can face substantial costs associated with relocating.

The payment is particularly significant because it follows an issue raised by Hannah’s father, Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, with Aberdeen City Council earlier this year.  Hannah became the first recipient of such a payment.

From Proposal to Payment

In February 2026, Mr Chowdhry contacted senior Council officer Stephen Booth seeking a mechanism through which homeowners could receive part of their acquisition money before completion.

The concern was straightforward: homeowners agreeing to sell could still find themselves unable to move because the money needed for deposits, removals, legal expenses and other relocation costs would normally arrive only when their sale completed.

The matter was subsequently discussed during a meeting on 5 March involving Wilson and Hannah Chowdhry and senior Aberdeen City Council officers.

At that stage, officers indicated that options for releasing a percentage of acquisition funds early were being considered.

For Hannah, that idea has now become a reality.

Her solicitors have confirmed receipt of a 20% of property value, advance payment of £25,400, ahead of the anticipated completion of the Council's acquisition by 1 October.

Hannah Chowdhry, said:

"I first raised the need for advance payments to Stephen Booth, wth my father Wilson Chowdhry, in February because there was an obvious problem. People could agree to sell their homes but still not possess the money required to actually relocate before completion. Today's confirmation that I have received £25,400 demonstrates that the Council listened to that concern and, importantly, turned discussion into action."

The development represents an important practical outcome from discussions that began months earlier and demonstrates how flexibility within an acquisition scheme can make a substantial difference to homeowners attempting to rebuild their lives.

Aberdeen City Council's wider voluntary acquisition arrangements have evolved considerably since the early stages of the crisis. Council documentation published in 2026 records that enhanced offers are now anchored to independent valuations, with additional payments operating within an approved policy and governance framework.

£127,000 Valuation After Negotiations

Hannah’s final agreed valuation was £127,000, secured following three months of detailed negotiations between her father, Wilson Chowdhry, and the District Valuer.

The figure is £7,000 above the price she originally paid for the property. However, the increase largely reflects modernisation and improvements carried out to the home rather than the longer-term increase in market value she might reasonably have hoped to realise had RAAC never been discovered.

The outcome therefore brings mixed emotions.

Hannah has secured a route out of the property and can finally plan her future without the uncertainty created by RAAC, but she is also leaving a home she would otherwise have expected to retain for considerably longer.

Aberdeen City Council has also agreed that Hannah will not have to meet costs associated with furniture remaining in the property.

That flexibility was particularly helpful because Hannah had spent approximately two and a half months in China undertaking an internship with an international law firm, while her father lives in London, making the practical task of clearing the property considerably more difficult.

Hannah has already moved into alternative accommodation while completing her Diploma in Law.

She said:

"Knowing that the sale should finally be completed within the next few weeks gives me a huge sense of relief, but it is also bittersweet. I bought my home expecting to keep it for many years. RAAC completely changed those plans and suddenly decisions about my home and my future were being dictated by something entirely outside my control.

"I am grateful that Aberdeen City Council has listened and shown flexibility, particularly with the, additional fixed payment, advance payment and the furniture remaining in the property. The £25,400 payment means that the proposal we discussed months ago has actually turned into practical help for a homeowner.

"I can now concentrate on completing my Diploma in Law and moving forward with my life. I will be extremely relieved when the sale completes, although it may be quite some time before I feel able to buy another property."

From Protest to Progress

The resolution also represents a remarkable change from the early days of the RAAC crisis, when Hannah and Wilson Chowdhry were among those publicly challenging Aberdeen City Council over the treatment of private homeowners. Hannah, supported by her father, delivered a deputation to the Council’s Communities, Housing and Public Protection Committee as early as March 2024, warning of the financial and human consequences for residents. Over the following two and a half years, 

Mr Chowdhry continued the campaign through meetings, correspondence and several further deputations, repeatedly pressing for fairer valuations and greater financial support for homeowners. 

The wider campaign ultimately coincided with a major change in the resources and assistance available: in autumn 2025 the Scottish Government made £10 million available to support Aberdeen’s response, while Aberdeen City Council agreed an enhanced acquisition package providing current market value, legal and professional fees, and additional payments intended to reflect RAAC’s impact on property values — £44,000 for four-bedroom homes, £37,000 for three-bedroom homes and £20,000 for one-bedroom homes. 

For Hannah and her father, the journey from standing before councillors demanding action to now seeing her own acquisition approaching completion demonstrates just how dramatically the position for Aberdeen’s affected homeowners has changed.

Aberdeen Deserves Credit, Says Campaign Group

The UK RAAC Campaign Group has frequently challenged councils and governments over their treatment of homeowners, but Mr Chowdhry believes it is equally important to acknowledge authorities when meaningful solutions are delivered.

Aberdeen City Council initially faced significant difficulties progressing voluntary acquisitions. In February 2025, the BBC reported that only four of 138 private homeowners had at that stage indicated that they would accept purchase deals.

The position has developed substantially since then, and Mr Chowdhry believes Aberdeen's willingness to adapt its approach deserves recognition.

He said:

"For a campaign group, accountability must work both ways. We have criticised public authorities when we believe homeowners have been treated unfairly, and we should be equally prepared to commend them when they listen and find practical solutions.

"Aberdeen City Council deserves recognition for the package it has developed for RAAC homeowners. From our experience of campaigning across Scotland, we have not seen another local authority come close to providing such a comprehensive and pragmatic solution for affected private homeowners.

The Next Campaign: Restoring First-Time Buyer Status

Hannah's acquisition may be approaching completion, but another financial consequence of the RAAC crisis could remain with her for years.

The UK RAAC Campaign Group has argued that people who lose their homes because of RAAC or comparable serious construction defects should be allowed to regain first-time buyer status when they eventually purchase another home.

The campaign argues that someone forced to dispose of a property because of a structural defect should not necessarily be treated in exactly the same way as somebody who has voluntarily progressed through the housing market.

The proposal has not been adopted by the UK Government.

For younger homeowners such as Hannah, that means losing a home because of RAAC does not reset the financial and tax position associated with having previously owned property.

Mr Chowdhry said the campaign would continue pressing for legislative reform:

"Hannah will shortly be free of her RAAC property, but that does not mean every consequence disappears on completion day. She did not sell because she wanted to leave the housing market. She is selling because a major construction defect fundamentally changed the future of her home.

"We will continue campaigning for a mechanism that restores first-time buyer status to people who have involuntarily lost homes because of RAAC and other serious construction defects. This is not only about RAAC. The principle could apply to homeowners caught in future building failures and to families affected by other structural emergencies, including those confronting housing problems in communities such as Coalsnaughton.

"There should be recognition within the system that losing a home through circumstances of this nature is very different from simply choosing to sell it."

A Very Different Picture in Clackmannanshire

Hannah's approaching resolution also highlights the markedly different experiences of RAAC homeowners elsewhere in Scotland.

In Tillicoultry, Clackmannanshire, three blocks containing 30 homes were declared unsafe following the discovery of RAAC in poor condition. The affected properties are at Chapelle Crescent, Park Street and High Street.

Clackmannanshire Council decided in June 2025 that repairs to the evacuated blocks could proceed. The authority said at the time that some private owners wanted their homes repaired, while others wished to dispose of them, with the Council prepared to negotiate voluntary acquisitions individually.

However, the Scottish Housing Regulator's 2026/27 engagement plan says Clackmannanshire has identified RAAC affecting 73 of its homes and that the regulator is seeking assurance that the Council has a long-term strategy for managing the issue.

The Council's own published RAAC information continues to state that the three evacuated Tillicoultry blocks remain unoccupied because of statutory notices, while work continues towards resolving their future.

Campaigners in Tillicoultry have previously called for pre-RAAC valuations, financial support for costs resulting from the evacuation, a public inquiry and a national financial support fund. A local council petition supporting those demands, written by UK RAAC Campaign Group attracted 252 verified signatures, according to a report to Clackmannanshire Council's Petitions Committee.

The contrast illustrates the wider concern repeatedly raised by the UK RAAC Campaign Group: homeowners affected by essentially the same building defect can experience very different financial outcomes depending on where they live.

From Uncertainty to a Fresh Start

For Hannah, however, 1 October should finally bring certainty.

The property she once expected to retain as a long-term investment and home will pass into Council ownership. The financial outcome cannot recreate the future value the property might have achieved without RAAC, nor erase the disruption of the past few years.

But it will finally remove the burden of owning a RAAC-affected property.

And the £25,400 advance received today carries significance beyond one homeowner. A proposal originally raised because campaigners feared that people could be financially trapped between accepting an acquisition and actually being able to move has, in Hannah's case, become tangible assistance.

Mr Chowdhry concluded:

"There is an important lesson here. Effective campaigning should not simply be about identifying where systems have failed; it should also be about working constructively to find practical and fair solutions.

"Aberdeen City Council listened to the concerns of homeowners and adapted its approach. In Hannah’s case, the Council has provided a substantial £44,000 fixed additional payment designed to offset the impact of RAAC on the value of her home, as well as releasing £25,400 in advance of completion to help her move forward. These are precisely the kinds of practical interventions we have been calling for.

"Hannah’s experience will always be bittersweet. She bought her home expecting to keep it for many years and should never have been forced to give it up because of a construction defect entirely beyond her control. Nevertheless, she can finally see an end to years of uncertainty. On 1 October, if everything proceeds as expected, the burden of owning a RAAC-affected home will finally be behind her.

"But our campaign does not end with Hannah. We will continue pressing for fair treatment and meaningful support until homeowners elsewhere who have been placed in similar circumstances are given a realistic route out and the opportunity to rebuild their lives."

Together, we continue to stand with RAAC families and campaign for a fair resolution.

---

The RAAC crisis is not just about concrete—it is about accountability.

And we are far from finished.

JOIN OUR 'UK RAAC CAMPAIGN GROUP' FB PAGE (HERE)

PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION  (CLICK HERE), 

📧 Email: wilson@aasecurity.co.uk
📢 Twitter/X: https://x.com/WilsonChowdhry

#RAACScandal #Petition2113 #ScottishParliament #SupportRAACVictims #EndTheSilence   

Tillicoultry RAAC Homeowners Lodge Formal Complaint as Council Answers Remain Outstanding

Brian Leishman MP, Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, and RAAC-affected homeowners inside Kilncraigs ahead of their meeting with Clackmannanshire Council.

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  

By Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman, UK RAAC Campaign Group

RAAC homeowners in Tillicoultry are formally complaining to Clackmannanshire Council after continuing uncertainty over VAT, financial assistance, render costs and commitments made during a high-level meeting with Council leaders.

For families who have already endured months of uncertainty, the central question is becoming increasingly simple:

How much longer should homeowners have to wait for answers to questions that directly affect their homes, finances and futures?

Our complaint is being addressed to Kevin Wells, Director of Place and Economy at Clackmannanshire Council, and follows a meeting held at Kilcraigs on 3 September 2026.

The meeting had been requested by me on behalf of the UK RAAC Campaign Group and was attended by affected homeowners alongside elected representatives Cllr William Keough and MP Brian Leishman.

Senior Council representatives were also present, including Council Leader Cllr Ellen Forson, Cllr Jane McTaggart, Kevin Wells, Head of Housing Caroline Rodgers and housing team leaders Sandy MacKintosh and Marie Komorowska.

With that level of senior representation in one room, homeowners reasonably expected decisions to be followed by action.

More than a month later, fundamental questions remain.

What happened to the promised search for additional funding?

One of the important outcomes of the September meeting concerned additional financial assistance for homeowners.

During discussions, it emerged that attempts to identify additional support had largely involved approaches to the Scottish Government.

Kevin Wells explained that he had been working with colleagues to determine whether money could be found elsewhere within Housing. However, it also became apparent during the meeting that a wider exercise involving other Council departments had not been undertaken.

Cllr Ellen Forson indicated that although much of the Council's funding was likely already allocated, a meeting involving senior staff from relevant departments would be arranged to see whether other budgets could provide assistance.

Crucially, homeowners expected transparency about the outcome after receiving an assurance from Cllr Forson, Leader of the Council.

We are therefore asking a straightforward question: Did that meeting happen?

If it did, homeowners should be told when it took place, who attended, which budgets were examined and what was found.

If it did not, homeowners deserve to know why an action discussed in the presence of the Council Leader and senior officers has apparently still not been completed.

The £5,000 discussion cannot be separated from what homeowners have already lost

The question of additional compensation or financial assistance must also be viewed against the extraordinary position in which some homeowners have found themselves.

During the September meeting, homeowners indicated that £5,000 could potentially be accepted as an additional payment in an attempt to finally get matters over the line.

That should not be confused with homeowners saying their losses amount to only £5,000.

Some have continued paying mortgages and insurance on properties they have been unable to occupy. Those costs have continued while homeowners waited for decisions and information from the Council.

And there is a particularly important piece of correspondence in this history.

On 12 January 2026, Andrew Buchanan, then Interim Senior Manager Housing, wrote to me stating:

Good Afternoon Mr Chowdhry, 

Thanks for your email, 

Please consider the deadline as suspended with further information to follow as soon as we have it. 

The date of 12th January was provided previously to allow two things:

The residents group time to progress to consider alternative proposals which the group indicated that they wished to explore and return back to present to the Council, there has to date been nothing forthcoming (that I am aware of). 

The residents to indicate to the Council any willingness to progress sale of their property to the Council or to work with us to undertake roof replacement works. 

At present we are working toward reviewing the offers made to owners (in respect of the options available - point 2) and engaging with the Scottish Governments More Homes Team following the meeting with the Cabinet Secretary in November.  In regards to High Street the information required to be provided to owners is being prepared but not yet issued. 

We will be in touch with further information as soon as we have it, in the meantime Kim Grieve continues to be the main point of contact for resident communication. 

Thanks 

Andrew Buchanan - Interim Senior Manager Housing" 

That could hardly have been clearer to the people receiving it.

Homeowners were told the deadline was suspended and that further information would follow.

At the September meeting, however, we were told that Mr Buchanan did not have the authority to suspend the deadline.

That may explain the Council's internal position, but it does not answer what happened to homeowners who relied upon a written communication from a senior Council housing officer.

How were ordinary residents supposed to know what internal delegated authority an Interim Senior Manager Housing possessed?

If the instruction had been issued without the necessary authority, why were homeowners not immediately told that it was invalid?

And what responsibility does the Council accept for additional mortgage, insurance and other costs incurred while residents waited for the promised further information?

These questions now form part of our formal complaint.

Homeowners still don't know what VAT they will actually pay

Perhaps the most immediately troubling issue concerns homeowners who reject voluntary acquisition and choose the remedial works option.

They need to know what that work will actually cost them.

Yet the VAT position remains unclear.

In response to homeowner and Secretary of the UKRCG, Fiona Crichton, the Council stated:

“The Council has no control over whether VAT reduction is applied, it is the responsibility of the contractor to apply VAT reductions based on qualifying criteria.”

If that is the Council's position, then there is an obvious next step.

Ask the contractor.

The Council should collate the relevant information, obtain permission from homeowners wherever personal information needs to be disclosed, provide the contractor with the necessary facts and ask for a written determination of the VAT treatment that will actually be applied.

This is particularly important because HMRC's published guidance says qualifying renovation or alteration work on eligible residential premises that have not been lived in during the two years immediately before work starts can potentially attract the reduced VAT rate of 5%, subject to the relevant conditions. HMRC also states that qualifying work can include repair, maintenance and improvement, although some services remain standard-rated and apportionment can sometimes be necessary.

That does not mean we are asserting that every element of every Tillicoultry RAAC contract automatically qualifies for 5% VAT.

It means there is a legitimate and potentially financially significant question that needs to be answered properly.

HMRC's guidance also explains that evidence that a property has been empty for two years can include Council Tax records and information from local authority Empty Property Officers.

So why are homeowners still being left without a definitive calculation?

Stop giving homeowners a maximum figure and establish the actual VAT position

Homeowners should not have to make major financial decisions using estimates based upon a maximum 20% VAT calculation if a lower rate may legitimately apply to qualifying elements.

We want the contractor to set out in writing:

• what VAT rate applies to the roof replacement;
• what rate applies to render works;
• which elements qualify for a reduced rate, if any;
• which elements remain at 20%;
• whether costs need to be apportioned;
• what evidence homeowners need to provide; and
• whether the contractual arrangements between McConnells, the Council and private homeowners alter how VAT is charged or recovered.

HMRC's guidance specifically recognises that where services encompass both qualifying and non-qualifying work, charges may in appropriate circumstances be apportioned on a fair and reasonable basis.

These are therefore not unreasonable questions.

They are questions that should be resolved before homeowners commit themselves to potentially substantial expenditure.

We are particularly concerned because Kevin Wells has previously indicated to Fiona Crichton that the Council would seek its own VAT recovery following payment to McConnells.

That makes clarity for private owners even more important.

If the Council understands what happens to its VAT, homeowners deserve an equally clear explanation of what happens to theirs and how collect returned overpayments from McConnells.

What investigation has actually been made into funding for render?

Another response provided to Fiona Crichton stated:

“No grant or other funding is available for the render works.”

Again, that creates another question rather than answering the one homeowners asked.

What was actually investigated before that conclusion was reached?

We want to know which grants and funding programmes were examined, which Scottish Government teams or other organisations were approached, when enquiries were made, what responses were received and which potential funding routes were discounted.

If extensive research has been undertaken and every realistic avenue has been exhausted, the Council should be able to demonstrate that.

If those enquiries have not been undertaken, homeowners should not simply be told as an established fact that no funding exists.

Transparency means showing the work behind the conclusion.

Homeowners were asked to wait

There is a wider pattern here that cannot be ignored.

RAAC homeowners have moved through discussions about voluntary acquisition, remedial works and the possibility of further assistance while the Council pursued the Scottish Government.

The January email explicitly told residents that the deadline was suspended while offers were reviewed and engagement continued with the Scottish Government's More Homes Team.

Homeowners waited.

During that waiting period, bills did not stop.

Mortgages did not stop.

Insurance costs did not stop.

The financial consequences did not stop simply because the Council's decision-making process was continuing.

That history is why the proposed £5,000 additional payment cannot be considered in isolation.

Commitments made in front of the Council Leader must mean something

What makes the present situation particularly disappointing is that the meeting on 3 September was supposed to move matters forward.

The Council Leader was there. Senior officers were there. Councillors, an MP and affected homeowners were there.

Concerns were openly expressed about the quality and clarity of information homeowners had previously received.

Homeowners left that meeting expecting improvement.

Instead, they are still chasing some of the same fundamental answers.

We are therefore requesting a written action log showing every action agreed at the 3 September meeting, who was responsible for it, what deadline was agreed, whether it has been completed and, if not, why it is overdue.

Accountability should not disappear when a meeting ends.

What homeowners are now demanding

Our formal complaint asks Clackmannanshire Council for substantive answers rather than another round of general statements.

We are seeking an update on the promised cross-departmental funding discussions; proper consideration of the proposed £5,000 payment in light of homeowners' losses; an investigation into the January instruction suspending the deadline; a definitive written VAT position from the contractor; clear instructions for homeowners regarding VAT; evidence of the work undertaken to identify funding for render; and an action log covering the commitments made on 3 September.

Where an answer is not yet available, we are asking the Council to identify who is responsible for obtaining it and exactly when homeowners will receive it.

These families need certainty

This dispute ultimately concerns people, not spreadsheets.

Some homeowners have been unable to live in their properties while continuing to carry the financial burden associated with them.

They are now being asked to make enormously important decisions about voluntary acquisition or remedial works.

They cannot make properly informed decisions without knowing what those choices will actually cost.

Nobody should have to sign up to substantial building works without clarity about whether the VAT is 20%, 5%, a mixture of rates, or subject to some other arrangement arising from the contractual structure.

Nobody should be told that no funding exists without being able to establish what attempts were made to find it.

And homeowners who were explicitly told in writing that a deadline had been suspended should not simply be expected to absorb the consequences if the Council subsequently says the officer who wrote that message lacked authority.

The UK RAAC Campaign Group has therefore asked that our correspondence be treated as a formal complaint and formally logged by Clackmannanshire Council.

After everything these homeowners have endured, they are not asking for special treatment.

They are asking for clear figures, documented decisions, transparency and delivery of commitments already made.

The Council now has an opportunity to provide those answers.

Wilson Chowdhry
Chairman
UK RAAC Campaign Group

Together, we continue to stand with RAAC families and campaign for a fair resolution.

---

The RAAC crisis is not just about concrete—it is about accountability.

And we are far from finished.

JOIN OUR 'UK RAAC CAMPAIGN GROUP' FB PAGE (HERE)

PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION  (CLICK HERE), 

📧 Email: wilson@aasecurity.co.uk
📢 Twitter/X: https://x.com/WilsonChowdhry

#RAACScandal #Petition2113 #ScottishParliament #SupportRAACVictims #EndTheSilence   

RAAC Homeowners Demand Answers After Council Meeting Exposes Funding, Communication and Accountability Concerns

Wilson Chowdhry with RAAC-affected homeowners from Tillicoultry ahead of their meeting with Clackmannanshire Council.

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  

A crucial meeting between RAAC-affected homeowners, campaigners, elected representatives and senior officials at Clackmannanshire Council has highlighted continuing concerns over funding, remedial costs, voluntary acquisition and the way information has been communicated to residents.

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.

Brian Leishman MP, Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, and RAAC-affected homeowners inside Kilncraigs ahead of their meeting with Clackmannanshire Council.

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

Aberdeen featured prominently in the discussion.

RAAC homeowners have repeatedly pointed to the intervention there as evidence that a local authority can find ways to provide meaningful financial support when conventional funding mechanisms appear inadequate.

Clackmannanshire Council's response was that the funding provided in Aberdeen was linked to a wider regeneration programme, rather than being a dedicated funding pot established solely to provide direct payments to individual RAAC homeowners.

Kevin Wells suggested that the existence of an established regeneration programme made it easier for Aberdeen City Council to draw upon, redirect or otherwise utilise resources from other budgets.

For campaigners, however, that distinction does not resolve the underlying issue.

The important point, they argue, is that a financial mechanism was found that enabled meaningful intervention. The question for Clackmannanshire should therefore not simply be whether Aberdeen's precise funding or accounting mechanism can be replicated, but what alternative mechanism could be identified to deliver a comparably fair outcome for its own RAAC-affected homeowners.

Towards the end of the discussion, Council Leader Cllr Ellen Forson committed to seeking a meeting involving senior representatives from across Council departments to establish whether any further potential source of funding could be identified.

Chowdhry urged the Council to use that exercise to consider whether a fixed payment of £5,000 per affected homeowner could be found from existing or alternative budgets. He argued that such a payment would at least go some way towards recognising the financial losses homeowners say they have incurred while waiting for a better and more affordable solution to the RAAC crisis.

For campaigners, the proposed £5,000 payment would not represent full compensation for those losses, nor would it resolve the wider dispute over funding. Rather, it would provide tangible financial assistance in recognition of the additional costs and losses residents say they have borne during a prolonged period of uncertainty, changing proposals and delayed decisions.

The commitment to bring Council departments together to examine possible funding sources therefore represents an important next step. Campaigners will now be looking for that exercise to produce more than another explanation of why existing budgets cannot be used; they want every realistic option examined to determine what the Council can do to help homeowners who have already spent years carrying the financial consequences of the RAAC crisis.

Voluntary acquisition process comes under scrutiny

Some of the most serious concerns raised at the meeting related to the voluntary acquisition process.

Homeowners questioned how valuations and offers had been calculated, authorised and communicated. One example concerned a property where approximately £34,000 was reportedly offered at auction, compared with a £32,000 direct Council offer. A separate case involving an offer of approximately £40,000 was also discussed.

Significantly, following the meeting, Marie Komorowska confirmed that, while seeking information to determine the valuation to be offered, she had been given incorrect information internally before the formal auction bid was made.

Other cases discussed by campaigners added to concerns about the consistency of the process. Fiona Crichton's offer was reduced by almost £5,000, while Lynsey McQuater, Chair of the Tillicoultry RAAC Campaign Group, discovered after reaching the missives stage of her voluntary acquisition that £2,500 included within the amount she had been offered should not, according to the Council, have been authorised.

The Council initially sought to reduce the amount accordingly. However, following further discussions, the additional £2,500 was ultimately paid to McQuater as a rental refund rather than being removed from the overall financial settlement.

Campaigners argue that this example is particularly significant. In their view, it demonstrates that, when circumstances require it, the Council can identify a degree of flexibility in how financial support associated with an acquisition is structured. They say this sits uneasily alongside repeated assertions that there is little or no scope to provide homeowners with additional financial assistance.

These examples also raise questions that extend well beyond poor communication. If incorrect information is being relied upon when valuations or offers are determined, or if sums can reach an advanced stage of the acquisition process before questions are raised over whether they were properly authorised, homeowners are entitled to ask how robust the process has been and whether other cases should now be reviewed.

When such errors potentially affect decisions involving someone's home and tens of thousands of pounds, residents deserve to know what went wrong, how it happened, who was responsible for checking the information and whether similar errors may have affected other homeowners.

The meeting heard acknowledgement that mistakes had been made and that these required investigation. Council Leader Cllr Ellen Forson suggested that the Council's formal complaints procedure should be used so that the concerns could be properly examined.

Chowdhry asked Forson to be copied into correspondence relating to the complaint so that she could personally see whether the Council adhered to its stipulated response times. This was considered particularly important given homeowners' previous concerns about missed deadlines, delayed responses and correspondence that had gone unanswered. Forson agreed.

For affected residents, these are not minor administrative discrepancies. They concern people's homes, mortgages, savings and futures. Where mistakes or inconsistencies involve thousands — or potentially tens of thousands — of pounds, campaigners argue that homeowners are entitled not only to an explanation, but to a transparent investigation and confidence that any errors identified will be put right.

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.

Apologies now need to become action

The meeting appears to have achieved at least one important outcome: a clearer recognition that the approach taken to date has not provided homeowners with the certainty, consistency or confidence they need.

A number of next steps are now expected. These include establishing accurate and final remedial costs; clarifying the position on VAT and the total amount homeowners would be required to pay; determining whether remedial prices can be frozen; ensuring that significant verbal statements and commitments are subsequently confirmed in writing; formally minuting future meetings; and providing much greater transparency about which Scottish Government and alternative Council funding sources have already been explored, what the outcome of those approaches was, and what further funding options will now be investigated with a view of providing a £5000 fixed payment at least.

The commitment by Council Leader Cllr Ellen Forson to bring together senior representatives from across Council departments to examine whether further sources of financial assistance can be identified will therefore be particularly important. Campaigners will want that exercise to look beyond explanations of why particular budgets cannot be used and instead demonstrate that every realistic avenue has been properly examined.

But homeowners will ultimately judge progress by outcomes, not meetings, apologies or expressions of intent.

After such a prolonged period of uncertainty, residents should not have to continually chase responses, decipher changing figures or rely on competing recollections of conversations in which potentially significant financial assistance was discussed. Nor should they be expected to make life-changing decisions about selling or repairing their homes without a clear understanding of the final costs and the financial assistance that may be available.

The message emerging from the meeting is therefore straightforward.

Clackmannanshire's RAAC homeowners need accurate information, transparent funding decisions, meaningful financial support and accountability when mistakes are made. They also need clear deadlines, named responsibility for agreed actions and written confirmation when important commitments are given.

The Council has acknowledged failures in communication and has agreed to several steps intended to improve the position. Those commitments must now be properly recorded and, more importantly, delivered. Where mistakes have been identified, they should be investigated. Where information has previously been unclear or contradictory, it should be corrected. And where potential sources of funding remain unexplored, campaigners expect them to be pursued with urgency.

For the UK RAAC Campaign Group, the principle remains unchanged: ordinary homeowners should not be left to carry an extraordinary financial burden arising from a structural crisis they neither caused nor could reasonably have anticipated. Many purchased their properties in good faith and now find themselves facing substantial repair costs, uncertainty over the value of their homes and financial decisions that could affect their savings, mortgages and futures.

After everything residents have already experienced, another round of discussions followed by months of uncertainty would not constitute progress. The commitments arising from this meeting provide an opportunity for the Council to demonstrate that lessons have been learned and that a different approach will now be taken.  Mr Chowdhry, has begun work on the formal complaint.

The meeting cannot simply become another entry in a long history of discussions about RAAC.

Apologies must now be followed by answers. Commitments must be followed by delivery. And for affected homeowners, this meeting must finally lead to action.

Together, we continue to stand with RAAC families and campaign for a fair resolution.

---

The RAAC crisis is not just about concrete—it is about accountability.

And we are far from finished.

JOIN OUR 'UK RAAC CAMPAIGN GROUP' FB PAGE (HERE)

PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION  (CLICK HERE), 

📧 Email: wilson@aasecurity.co.uk
📢 Twitter/X: https://x.com/WilsonChowdhry

#RAACScandal #Petition2113 #ScottishParliament #SupportRAACVictims #EndTheSilence   

RAAC homeowners to protest at Kilncraigs ahead of crucial council meeting today

 

IMAGE: Tillicoultry RAAC campaigners gathered outside the Scottish Parliament ahead of a protest calling for justice and fair treatment for affected homeowners.

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  

As RAAC homeowners continue to face disputed valuations, financial losses and the refusal of additional assistance, questions are being raised about the timing and scale of pay increases awarded to senior councillors and the Council’s Chief Executive.

RAAC families to protest at Kilncraigs as homeowners demand answers over funding, changing offers and promised financial help

Thursday 3 September 2026

RAAC-affected homeowners and supporters will protest outside Kilncraigs, Alloa, at 11:30am today, ahead of a crucial meeting with senior representatives of Clackmannanshire Council at noon.

The UK RAAC Campaign Group is calling on members of the public to stand with Tillicoultry homeowners who have spent years dealing with the financial and emotional consequences of RAAC while seeking a fair resolution from the Council.

Today’s meeting, scheduled for 12 noon–2pm, follows sustained pressure from affected homeowners and campaigners. Residents were offered meetings on 3 or 17 September and unanimously chose the earlier date, saying they had already waited long enough for answers.

Campaigners say the meeting must now address a series of significant questions about Council and Scottish Government funding, disputed valuations, changing purchase offers and a potential £10,000–£15,000 Council-funded payment that homeowners understood was being explored but which never materialised.

£817,333 Scottish Government funding revealed

Fresh questions have emerged after a Tillicoultry homeowner and campaign member obtained information from the Scottish Government confirming that £817,333 had been approved through the Affordable Housing Supply Programme for remediation of Council-owned properties at 35–51 High Street, 6–22 Park Street and 75–97 Chappelle Crescent.

The funding is for Council-owned properties and is not a compensation fund for private homeowners. It is expected to be paid as works are completed during the 2026/27 and 2027/28 financial years.

Campaigners say the significance of the disclosure is not that the £817,333 should have been divided among homeowners, but that it raises questions about what the Council knew about its wider financial position, when it knew it and what homeowners were being told while they were making major decisions about their properties.

What happened to proposed £10,000–£15,000 homeowner payment?

Following an October 2025 meeting involving homeowners, Council representatives and then Housing Minister Mairi McAllan, homeowners understood that Clackmannanshire Council would explore providing a fixed payment from its own resources, separate from Scottish Government grant funding.

Wilson Chowdhry says that in a subsequent conversation with Kevin Wells, Director for Place & Economy, a possible payment of approximately £10,000–£15,000 per homeowner was discussed. Homeowners were then asked to wait while the possibility was explored.

However, letters dated 23 July 2026 informed residents that, following what the Council described as a “thorough review and exploration of all available funding options”, it could provide no additional financial assistance towards purchasing their properties.

Campaigners want the Council to explain whether the proposed fixed payment was formally considered, what its finance team concluded, whether money was identified and why homeowners were required to continue waiting if additional support could not ultimately be provided.

Offers changing by thousands of pounds

Residents are also demanding explanations for substantial differences between earlier and more recent property offers.

One homeowner reportedly received a revised offer more than £13,500 higher than their original offer, only for the increased offer to later be withdrawn and attributed by the Council to an administrative error, while another homeowner received an offer £5,000 lower than previously offered.

A further resident had progressed as far as concluding missives when she was advised that £2,500 of the valuation figure offered to her should not have been authorised. In recognition of the Council’s error, the Council has agreed to reduce the property sale price by £2,500 but repay the equivalent amount to the homeowner separately as a rental reimbursement, meaning she will not ultimately lose the £2,500.

Campaigners say these three cases raise serious questions about the robustness and consistency of the process. When offers affecting people’s homes can change by thousands of pounds, an increased offer can be issued and subsequently withdrawn as an administrative error, and another error is identified only after a homeowner has reached the missives stage, residents are entitled to ask how valuations and purchase offers are calculated, who authorises them, what checks are undertaken before figures are issued, and why these discrepancies are occurring at such critical stages of the process.

Homeowners have meanwhile continued to face mortgages, insurance and other costs while living with uncertainty about whether their properties would be purchased, remediated or otherwise dealt with.

Questions over priorities

The dispute also comes against the background of substantial increases in senior local-government remuneration.

Council Leader Cllr Ellen Forson’s remuneration increased from £35,580 to £50,063, while Clackmannanshire Council Chief Executive Nikki Bridle was reported as due to receive an approximately £32,000 annual increase, taking her salary from £133,530 to around £165,755.
The UK RAAC Campaign Group acknowledges that these increases arose through national remuneration processes and is not suggesting that the money could simply have been redirected to homeowners. However, campaigners say families being told that no additional assistance can be found are entitled to ask what every reasonable option was and why the previously discussed homeowner payment came to nothing.

Wilson Chowdhry: “The Council needs to explain exactly what happened”

Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, said:

“These families have already spent years dealing with RAAC, disputed valuations, mortgages, insurance costs and uncertainty about what will happen to their homes. They should never have had to campaign this persistently simply to get senior decision-makers around a table.

“We now know that £817,333 of Scottish Government funding was approved for remediation of Council-owned properties in three Tillicoultry blocks. We have always been clear that this was not compensation money for private homeowners and we are not asking for it to be divided between them.

“But homeowners are entitled to know what the Council knew about that funding and when, particularly because at the same time they understood that a completely separate payment from Council resources was being explored.

“Following the October meeting, homeowners were given reason to believe that additional help might be possible. Kevin Wells subsequently indicated to me that a figure of around £10,000 to £15,000 per homeowner was being considered. Families were asked to wait while that was explored, and while they waited they continued paying mortgages, insurance and other costs.

“They were then told in July that no additional financial assistance was available. The Council needs to explain exactly what happened between those two positions.

“We also have one homeowner whose latest offer is reportedly more than £13,500 above the original offer and another whose offer has fallen by £5,000. When valuations change by thousands of pounds, families are entitled to know why.

“That is why we will be outside Kilncraigs at 11:30am today. This meeting cannot end with another promise to look into things. Homeowners need answers, transparency and a fair resolution. They have waited long enough.”

Fiona Crichton: “Families were making life-changing decisions without the full picture”

Fiona Crichton, Secretary of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, said:

“The figures matter because the consequences for families are very real. Homeowners have been trying to decide whether to sell, remain in the remediation programme or continue waiting while carrying mortgages, insurance and other costs on RAAC-affected properties.

“We now know that £817,333 had been approved for Council-owned property remediation. Again, that funding was not compensation for homeowners, but its existence is part of the financial picture that residents are entitled to understand.

“Separately, homeowners understood that the Council was looking at providing a fixed payment from its own resources, potentially in the region of £10,000 to £15,000. They waited while that was explored and were eventually told there would be no additional assistance.

“Families were making life-changing decisions about their homes without the full picture they are now trying to piece together.

“Today’s meeting is an opportunity for the Council to put that right. We need a clear chronology, an explanation of what funding and financial options were considered and honest answers about why the possibility of additional support disappeared.”

Kerry Mackintosh: “Explain how an offer can change by £13,500”

Kerry Mackintosh, Co-Deputy Chair of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, said:

“When one homeowner can reportedly receive a new offer more than £13,500 above the original figure while another homeowner sees an offer fall by £5,000, it is obvious why people have questions about the valuation process.

“These aren't small accounting adjustments. Thousands of pounds can determine whether a family can clear a mortgage, move home or rebuild its financial future.

“Homeowners also want to know what happened to the £10,000–£15,000 additional payment that was discussed. If it was properly considered and rejected, tell residents when it was rejected, who made that decision and why. If no money could lawfully or responsibly be found, explain that in detail.

Hannah Chowdhry: “This is about people’s homes and futures”

Hannah Chowdhry, Co-Deputy Chair of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, said:

“Homeowners did not choose to have RAAC in their properties. Yet they have spent years living with uncertainty and continuing financial costs while decisions have been discussed around them.

“It is particularly difficult for families to hear that no additional assistance can be found while senior remuneration has risen substantially. We recognise that those pay increases were determined through national processes and cannot simply be handed to homeowners. The point is about priorities and confidence: residents need to see the same determination being applied to finding a fair solution for them.

PROTEST TODAY – 11:30AM

When: Thursday 3 September 2026, 11:30am
Where: Kilncraigs, Alloa
Council meeting: 12 noon–2pm
Supported by: UK RAAC Campaign Group and affected homeowners

Residents, supporters and members of the media are encouraged to attend and stand with Tillicoultry’s RAAC-affected homeowners as they call for answers, transparency and a fair resolution.

Together, we continue to stand with RAAC families and campaign for a fair resolution.

---

The RAAC crisis is not just about concrete—it is about accountability.

And we are far from finished.

JOIN OUR 'UK RAAC CAMPAIGN GROUP' FB PAGE (HERE)

PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION  (CLICK HERE), 

📧 Email: wilson@aasecurity.co.uk
📢 Twitter/X: https://x.com/WilsonChowdhry

#RAACScandal #Petition2113 #ScottishParliament #SupportRAACVictims #EndTheSilence