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.
📧 Email: wilson@aasecurity.co.uk
📢 Twitter/X: https://x.com/WilsonChowdhry
#RAACScandal #Petition2113 #ScottishParliament #SupportRAACVictims #EndTheSilence
No comments:
Post a Comment