H o u s i n g ‘
No Real Surprises! T
he MOD has over 50,000 properties, providing housing for 42,000 Service families. At the current rate of upgrade, it would
take 20 years before all properties reached the highest condition.’ Tese are the findings of the National Audit Office (NAO) review of Service Families Accommodation (SFA). Te RAF FF contributed to this study and were invited by the NAO to comment on the Findings. Dawn McCafferty reports.
Once I started to read the report I quickly realised that a significant proportion of the findings chimed with the views we have established on SFA and little we read came as a surprise.
Entitlement Rules The Department has been significantly constrained by the legacy of old stock, some now in the wrong locations and of the wrong size, and the challenge of matching families to properties is made more difficult because of its entitlement rules. Federation’s View: We agree that the rationale for allocating houses by one set of criteria (rank) for the commissioned cadre and by another (number of children) for the non- commissioned cadre is viewed as out-dated and divisive by many and we would support a review of this aspect of entitlement policy.
That said, rank must have its place in a military Service and due regard to length of service and reward for promotion must play their part. Family size is a real issue and we have enjoyed long debates with the Centre regarding the definition of a modern Service family, exposing the issues of elderly parents and children from previous relationships.
Charges
The Department is currently reviewing its complex and, in places, outmoded system for determining the charges paid by families for SFA. Federation’s View: The Report mentions the work towards modernising the Grading process used for SFA charges. Our understanding is that this initiative has been delayed. We would urge that this review is completed as quickly as possible.
22 Summer 2009
Empty Quarters The Department has over 9,200 empty properties (18% of its total stock) which cost some £38 million a year (excluding maintenance). Federation’s View: We endorse the need for more effective management of empty properties. There is significant frustration amongst RAF families concerning the level of voids since the lack of availability leads to families being allocated to locations or properties not of their choice.
Involving Families
Maintenance There were significant problems in the first year of a new prime contract for maintaining housing. Many of these problems have been resolved, but there are still difficulties with contract coverage and management. Federation’s View:We have no issues with any of the recommendations associated with improving the performance of the maintenance contractor and are pleased to report some evidence of these recommendations being implemented by MHS (eg. more flexible appointments).
Move-In Standard Many families are dissatisfied with their property when they move in, in particular, the cleanliness and the state of repair. Federation’s View: We support these recommendations and are keen to see the results of the current trial of a contract cleaning service. We support the DE initiative to provide estate-agent style information on properties and we have contributed to this work. However, we are uncertain as to the time-scale for delivery as work appears to have stalled.
Housing Information Centres (HICs) The Department has experienced considerable difficulties with the performance of HICs, some of which are not delivering a satisfactory service. Federation’s View: The Federation provided a key member for the DE- sponsored Learning from Experience (LFE) exercise, referred to. Many of the NAO’s findings echo the findings of this work and it is heartening to DE’s positive response to it.
Occupants are still dissatisfied with the maintenance and other housing services, particularly the process of allocating properties. Federation’s View: Re-energising local Family Consultative Groups would provide occupants with opportunities to influence the housing debate. However, they would need to be convinced that their participation was valued and their concerns treated seriously and taken forward.
As a Families Federation, we would support a recommendation that allows families to state their preferences more broadly and have a greater degree of choice of property and charge paid. However, there are complications regarding the blocking of entitled families from properties because too many have been allowed to go above entitlement and whilst it keeps some happy it would be to the detriment of others.
Taken to its logical conclusion, all the small properties would remain empty and DE would incur significant costs on Substitute SFA (SSFA) or building a raft of larger properties. We would support the provision of larger properties to reflect the size of modern families but we are realists and recognise that the MOD budget would require massive uplifts to fund such provision. In our view, the priority must be to upgrade existing stock, whilst taking into account modern-family living for future new-builds.
In sum, we believe the NAO Report provides valuable validation of work already undertaken by the MOD, DE/MHS, the chain of command and Service Families Federations. We can only hope that the report will prompt Ministers to re-evaluate the priority of funding.
www.raf-families-federation.org.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48