Tillicoultry RAAC Homeowners Confront Council Over Unfair 5.5% Loans
On 23rd September 2025, members of the Tillicoultry RAAC Campaign Group once again challenged Clackmannanshire Council over unfair costs, lack of transparency, and barriers to protecting their homes.
The meeting — attended online by Kim Grieve (Project Co-ordinator) and in person by Council officers Kevin Wells, Lee Robertson, and Andy Buchanan — saw local homeowners Grant Smith, UKRCG Secretary Fiona Crichton, UKRCG Chairman Wilson Chowdhry, and Lee Sapphire from Structural Repairs confront the Council over ongoing failures. The discussion laid bare just how far the Council still has to go before residents can trust that their homes and futures are truly being safeguarded.
1. Interest Rate on Loans
Residents were outraged to learn that the Council plans to charge a punishing 5.5% interest rate on loans — far higher than expected and a direct contradiction of earlier assurances that rates would remain low.
The Council defended the figure by claiming it was simply passing on the cost of borrowing from its own lenders, and that rules required them to protect council tenants as well as private owners.
But homeowners hit back, arguing this logic is deeply unfair. Families already plunged into crisis through no fault of their own are now being asked to shoulder bank-level interest rates, when what they need is support, not exploitation.
2. Grants for Environmental Improvement
Residents made it clear: no more false promises. In previous discussions, the Council had suggested that grants might be available for environmental improvements, including new render and cavity wall insulation, but no concrete details or progress had ever been provided. Wilson Chowdhry emphasised that unless 100% of the costs are fully funded, homeowners do not want these measures tied into the project, as partial funding would leave them facing significant, unaffordable bills.
Kevin Wells stated he would review individual cases to see whether environmental improvement options might be suitable for owners like Ronnie and Lynsey. However, residents remain deeply sceptical given the long delays, inconsistent communication, and lack of clarity over what funding is actually available. The message was clear: homeowners will not be forced into additional costs under the guise of “improvements” that are unaffordable or optional.
3. Improved Offer for Voluntary Agreements (VAs)
Residents highlighted the case of one homeowner, Fiona Crichton, whose Voluntary Agreement (VA) offer was increased by £4,000.
The valuation of Fiona’s property has increased because the surveyor confirmed that, while the home had been left vacant for over 18 months and was not presented in the best condition, it was still reasonably well maintained with relatively modern fittings. The initial figure of £65,000 reflected its vacant state and limited presentation. However, the surveyor noted that if the property had been better presented, without RAAC or roof defects, its value would lean closer to £70,000. This aligns with what Kevin Wells had originally told RAAC-affected homeowners – that surveyors would be asked to value the properties on the special assumption that RAAC was not present and that intrusive measures such as shuttered windows, forced entry doors, or broken ceilings to expose RAAC would not be factored into the assessment.Yet the fact that presentation and disruption were still considered in the report has left homeowners concerned that their properties may not have been valued on the fair basis they were promised, undermining confidence in the process.In an email to Fiona the surveyor wrote: "I understand that the property has been vacant for over 18 months and was left in a hurry which may not have left it in the best order for a valuation inspection. Any increase in value would be marginal as the property has been reasonably well maintained over time with relatively modern fittings present internally. Should the property have been better presented for valuation inspection the figure in its current state with no RAAC present may lean slightly higher towards the £70,000 level."
Wilson Chowdhry argued that this same process must apply to all top-floor flat owners — including those who also suffered contractor damage and lengthy vacancies. Campaigners stressed that Fiona’s minor door damage alone could never justify a £4,000 uplift, meaning other flats had likely also been seriously undervalued.
Kevin Wells at first denied that similar photographic evidence existed for other flats. Mr Chowdhry reminded him that in Fiona’s case, she herself had requested the photos taken by contractors at the time of clearance, then used them with Shepherd Surveyors to prove her case and secure the uplift.
Only after this challenge did Mr Wells agree to look into whether photographs exist for other top-floor flats. If evidence is found, valuations may finally be adjusted — a step that campaigners argue is long overdue.
4. Insurance Provision
The Council admitted it has no insurance cover for the RAAC-affected buildings, leaving homeowners dangerously exposed to unforeseen costs. Residents highlighted the stark reality: some, like Lyndsay, already pay thousands of pounds annually privately just to protect their homes.
Homeowners demanded that, at a minimum, the Council secure warranties under the building contract and guarantees from the builders to ensure protection against unexpected issues. The group stressed that any promises must result in real, enforceable coverage, not just theoretical options.
Action promised: The Council said it would approach insurance brokers and McConnells to explore potential coverage. Campaigners insisted this process must deliver tangible protection, not become another bureaucratic exercise that leaves homeowners at risk.
5. Missed Share Option
Campaigners pressed the Council to reconsider a missed share option that could provide meaningful relief for struggling homeowners like Fran. Instead of offering a fresh solution, the Council insisted that the current package already includes a version of this support.
Kevin Wells suggested that Fran speak directly with Kim Grieve to explore alternatives, including the drastic step of selling her property to the Council and returning as a tenant. This proposal sparked frustration, as it risks stripping homeowners of their hard-earned equity and independence.
Wilson Chowdhry asked whether a post-sale option — one that would allow owners to recover some share in their property in the future — could be created. Kevin, however, deflected the question and reiterated that Fran must raise it individually with Kim.
Campaigners stressed that piecemeal, case-by-case answers are not good enough. Homeowners deserve clear, fair, and consistent options that protect their investment, not solutions that push them into becoming tenants in what were once their own homes.
6. Confirmation of VAT Costs
VAT continues to be a murky and confusing issue for homeowners. Rates could range from 0%, 5%, or 20%, depending on materials and the specifics of the works. Residents were frustrated that the Council admitted it “doesn’t know” the exact VAT implications for individual properties and simply suggested homeowners consult their own lawyers.
Wilson Chowdhry emphasised that this is completely unacceptable, particularly as the Council has had six months to identify costs. Homeowners cannot make informed financial decisions or plan for repairs without clear, authoritative information. Leaving families to navigate such complexity on their own adds unnecessary stress and risk.
Action promised: Lee Robertson confirmed she will commission an external lawyer to break down VAT obligations into plain language for residents. Mr Chowdhry insisted that full clarity must be provided before any works begin, ensuring homeowners are not blindsided by unexpected costs or hidden charges.
7. Barriers to Alternative Finance
The Council’s current staged payment plan — requiring 50% of the cost upfront within the first month — was condemned by homeowners as unrealistic and deeply unfair. Many families simply do not have the liquidity to meet such a large initial payment, particularly while navigating other financial pressures caused by the RAAC crisis.
Residents demanded fairer, more flexible terms, including:
-
Lower deposits of 10–15%
-
Milestone-based payments tied directly to progress on the work
The Council insisted it has a “duty to safeguard funds,” but Wilson Chowdhry made clear that this policy primarily protects the Council’s finances, not the homeowners already facing financial hardship. He argued that genuine flexibility is essential so families can realistically participate in the repair programme without being forced into further debt. Following the discussion, Kevin Wells agreed to re-examine what greater flexibility could be introduced to the staged payment arrangement.
ReGrid: A Cost-Effective Solution
Seeking constructive solutions, Wilson Chowdhry introduced Lee Sapphire from Structural Repairs Ltd to Clackmannanshire Council. Mr Sapphire presented ReGrid, a new reinforcement system, through a detailed PowerPoint presentation with supporting videos.
Key highlights of ReGrid include:
-
Proven success: Already used effectively by Network Rail.
-
Exceptional strength: Tests show structures reinforced with ReGrid are 14 times stronger than traditional methods.
-
Minimal disruption: Installations can typically be completed in just two days per home, without requiring families to move out.
-
Long-term durability: Over 25 years of maintenance-free protection, backed by a lifetime product guarantee and a 10-year workmanship warranty.
-
Cost-effective: Significantly cheaper than full roof replacements, which many homeowners cannot realistically afford.
Mr Chowdhry urged the Council to consider reverting to this scheme rather than pursuing full roof replacements, highlighting that ReGrid’s non-intrusive installation allows properties to be returned to use more quickly and at a fraction of the cost proposed by McConnells. In addition, the system comes with warranties and guarantees that cover a significantly longer period.
While Council officers were impressed, they noted they had questions and explained that a report recommending full roof replacements had already been submitted. In response, Mr Chowdhry has asked Mr Sapphire to quickly prepare a counterquote and requested that Kevin Wells express homeowners’ support for ReGrid when the report is presented to Council — an approach Wells agreed to.
Meanwhile, Kevin Wells will send questions to Mr Sapphire to learn more about ReGrid, ensuring the Council has the information needed to fully evaluate this alternative solution.
Where We Stand
This meeting once again exposed the gulf between what residents need and what Clackmannanshire Council is prepared to offer. High interest loans, vague answers on VAT, and lack of real insurance leave homeowners vulnerable, while promises of “flexibility” remain little more than words.
The Tillicoultry RAAC Campaign Group will not accept half-measures. We demand:
- Fair borrowing rates that don’t penalise victims.
- Clear and binding insurance cover for all unforeseen costs.
- Transparency on valuations, VAT, and grants before any contracts are signed.
- Genuine flexibility on finance that recognises the hardship homeowners already face.
- Reverting to cost-effective solutions: Homeowners are calling on the Council to reconsider ReGrid, a fast, affordable, and minimally disruptive reinforcement system, instead of expensive full roof replacements.
The Council has a duty to protect its residents — and we will keep fighting until they do.
