In a despicable attempt to undermine the UKRCG campaign, both Councillor Radley and Mr. Stephen Booth appear to be engineering questions and responses to serve their own agenda. Mr. Chowdhry has lodged a formal complaint with the council and has requested a response from both individuals.
One glaring issue concerns Mr. Booth's response to Councillor Gordon Graham’s query about the estimated cost of repairs suggested to both the TCRC and UKRCG in separate meetings.
In a private meeting with Mr. Chowdhry, Mr. Booth and Mr. John Wilson stated that repairs for a four-bedroom property—such as Mr. Chowdhry’s daughter Hannah’s home—would cost £71,000. This figure was allegedly sourced from Fairhurst Contractors. However, during the reconvened Full Council meeting on 17th February, Mr. Booth suddenly changed his position, claiming the figure was not from a contractor but rather from a Quantity Surveyor—as if this somehow justified such a ludicrous estimate.
Further concerns arise from Mr. Booth’s refusal to provide minutes for the meetings held with either TCRC or UKRCG, citing an alleged lack of resources to arrange a scribe. This is despite the fact that Mr. John Wilson contributed very little during Mr. Chowdhry’s meeting. Additionally, an assurance that the meeting would be recorded and shared was never met. Instead, an email containing an alleged recording turned out to be a hoax.
During the meeting, Mr. Booth contradicted himself again, claiming that the £71,000 estimate was inaccurate and instead citing a figure of £50,000 in a report to council — one which he claimed was the minimum cost for a two-bedroom property in meetings with community groups. However, his deception was exposed when the BBC had already quoted Mr. John Meiklejohn from TCRC stating exactly the same £71,000 figure as Mr. Chowdhry though having met with council officers separately. A copy of this article can be found (here) Mr Booth's problem is that he told the same lie to two groups.
It is becoming increasingly clear that council officials are intentionally attempting to frighten homeowners into accepting undervalued offers—a tactic we will not cave into.
Councillor Miranda Radley appears to be collaborating with Mr. Booth in crafting misleading responses aimed at undermining Mr. Chowdhry’s deputation. She falsely claimed that Mr. Chowdhry stated only four homeowners were engaging with the council, when in reality, he explicitly stated that only four had accepted offers:
"To date, not a single property has been acquired, and only four homeowners have even expressed a willingness to accept an offer. This is a clear sign that the voluntary acquisition scheme is failing. Homeowners are not rejecting assistance; they are rejecting unfair and inadequate offers that do not reflect the true value of their homes before RAAC was declared a risk."
Despite this clear statement, Mr. Booth failed to correct Cllr Radley’s misrepresentation. Instead, in what appeared to be a deliberately engineered response, he falsely claimed that Mr. Chowdhry was wrong and insisted that around 50 homeowners were still engaging with the voluntary acquisition process.
However, the council’s own report contradicts Mr. Booth’s claim, providing the following breakdown:
Owners who have engaged and proceeded to valuation inspection 55
Owners who have engaged but have decided not to proceed to valuation inspection 21
These figures do not support Mr. Booth’s attempt to dismiss Mr. Chowdhry’s statement. Rather, they reinforce the argument that homeowners are engaging with the council—but rejecting its undervalued offers.
Additionally, Cllr Radley questioned his assertion that properties were being undervalued and asked about the valuation process.
In response, Mr. Booth stated that valuations were conducted through the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) and implied that this ensured independence. However, both he and Councillor Radley conveniently ignored the core issue Mr. Chowdhry raised—that undervaluations were driven by the council’s inflated repair estimates, a point made clear explicitly in the first few paragraphs of this blog. Moroever, in his deputation Mr Chowdhry emphasized other issues:
It's ominous that the council, in Section 5 of their latest report, states that their preferred strategy for addressing privately owned RAAC-affected properties remains voluntary acquisition. They justify this by claiming it aligns with their broader plan to demolish council-owned RAAC properties, presenting it as the ‘optimum option’ for streamlining housing delivery and addressing safety concerns. While they insist compensation packages comply with the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973, this approach seems more like an attempt to pressure homeowners into selling at undervalued rates. However, I remain hopeful that the council will eventually recognize the severe difficulties, high costs, and reputational damage associated with pursuing a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO), forcing them to abandon their stubborn attempt to rinse local homeowners."
Mr. Chowdhry’s remarks clearly highlight the council’s failure to explore alternative solutions for retaining affected homes, alongside their persistent use of CPO threats—a tactic they now admit is not a viable option at this stage. The council lacks the budget for a redevelopment programme, and none of their inspected RAAC-affected roofs have deteriorated to a critical risk level.
Given these facts, homeowners firmly believe that the council’s true motivation has always been to pressure them into accepting undervalued offers. The involvement of an independent officer from the Valuation Office Agency does nothing to change the fact that the council itself artificially depressed market values—a strategy that was never justified, given their current admission that CPOs are off the table.
Councillor Miranda Radley also addressed Mr. Chowdhry’s concerns regarding rubbish accumulating in vacated council properties, which he highlighted in his deputation:
"Concerns have been raised about the condition of vacated council properties, with images circulating on Facebook showing rubbish and building materials piling up in front gardens, creating a sorry state for the area. This neglect not only impacts the community but also raises doubts about the council’s willingness to adopt the community-proposed solution. If they were genuinely committed to addressing the issue efficiently, one would expect better upkeep of these properties, rather than allowing them to fall into disrepair."
In response, Mr. Booth claimed that fencing around empty council homes had been removed due to fire risk and that the rubbish was only present for a single day. However, this statement is plainly false—a fact that local residents can readily disprove.
We have clear photographic evidence spanning several days, showing rubbish continuously accumulating in gardens, as well as fences being pulled down far earlier than Mr. Booth claims. In fact, images of the fences being removed were posted on Facebook on February 1st—four days before the Full Council Meeting on February 5th, when Mr. Booth claimed this occurred. Additionally, a separate video uploaded on February 3rd by a different resident from another area further contradicts his version of events.
The most egregious moment in the attempted character assassination by Miranda Radley and Mr. Booth came in Ms. Radley’s final question. She blatantly ignored Mr. Chowdhry’s repeated requests for the council to explain why it was withholding house numbers for blocks where no council-owned properties were present. Instead, the council hid behind confidentiality and GDPR legislation, which did not apply to this situation.
In an expanded response to a councillor’s question, Mr. Chowdhry highlighted that the council’s report once again confirmed that homeowners in these blocks were eligible to apply for loans, grants, or other schemes—they were not obligated to enter the Voluntary Acquisition Scheme and could instead carry out repairs themselves. Mr. Chowdhry’s only request was to identify which blocks these were so that homeowners could be informed—either through a public meeting citing the block numbers or via a letter drop organized by the UKRCG.
At no point did he request personal details, a fact he made abundantly clear in his response. Yet Ms. Radley deliberately distorted the situation, seemingly in an effort to obstruct the dissemination of this crucial information. Her actions appeared to be an attempt to prevent these homeowners from being empowered with the option of self-repairs or seeking targeted support from the council.
The reality is simple: local people are exhausted by the council’s repeated dishonesty and its deliberate attempts to undermine community advocates fighting for homeowners’ rights. For all intents and purposes, it appears the council only acted to clear the rubbish after Mr. Chowdhry raised the issue—yet Cllr Radley and Mr. Booth have since concocted a misleading response to discredit him.
We now await a proper and truthful response from them, one that acknowledges the reality faced by residents rather than attempting to cover up the council’s negligence. We will keep everyone posted.
