http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/furniture-scheme-to-fight-debt-1-4702382
The 'genius' furniture project that was tagged onto the ping pong budget seems a step nearer. Basically tax payers money going on free dishwashers for people on benefits.
The tender process to find a host for the project starts in September.
What's the betting to 50k will go to an organisation based at West View and/or Manor? or perhaps a 'new' charity started by 'someone'? I don't suppose there's any chance it'll go to the citizens advice to look after, or to the co-op to run along side existing schemes?
I really hope this is done properly so that it actually ends up doing what its supposed to do. (Not that I agree with it, but if it's happening, it should be done right). What are the chances of which ever organisation gets hold of the money buying in washing machines for £200 a pop, then 'selling' them on for £400 to be paid back at £2 a week for 4 years or some such lunacy. That way after 4 years there'll be £100,000 knocking around.
Schemes like this must be so easy to abuse. For example, if i was dodgy (which i'm no,t but if i was) i'd bid for the contract at a stupidly low tender. If you then buy 125 fridges at £200 a go, you've spent £25,000 of your £50,000.
A dodgy invoice stating that the fridges were in fact £400 a go a you have receipts for £50,000 (all the money has 'gone', but £25k has gone 'missing'). IF by some miracle the 125 households who get a fridge pay back the £400 + say £100 in interest each (on the drip weekly over a few years) you've got yourself £62,500 back (plus the £25,000 that you didn't spend in the first place). So thats maybe the thick end of £100,000 that an organisation could click for for essentially giving away, and doing the admin for, £25,000 worth of fridges. . . . simples.
mk 1; You could be right in your assumptions.
However, I would hazard a guess that they will be 'sold on' at a loss (or at the most 'cost' price). The famous 'loss leader'.
In this scenario, to curry favour with the residents of the E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, blocks, Owton Manor. :-X
I drove past the Owton Manor Residents office today and saw a decrepit old mini bus parked on the front.
If that is theirs, can anyone remember how much it was on the books as costing? It appeared to have a scrap value of circa £100. :o
Such schemes are so naive.
I remember Seaton Lane council houses being fitted out with new kitchens.
They were being sold off at one end before the other end had theirs fitted allegedly.
I hope my cynicism is proved wrong.
Its only available to the low life that can't afford a fridge but can vote Labour.
The £50,000 is to fund an 'administrator' over two years; it's not to fund any actual purchases. People will still have to get loans from other sources like the Credit Union which they could have done anyway. In my view, this is all a totally unnecessary project which simply duplicates what is already there. I fully expect the money to find its way to Owton Manor as the end result of another fake 'tendering' process.
Why can't they go to Currys like any other normal person, why do they have to be wet nursed ?
The suppposed justification for this is to stop people who can't get credit through the usual route going instead to the likes of Brighthouse and their extortionate interest rates and 'extended warranties'. That sounds fair enough to me until you realise that there already are plenty of alternatives - the Credit Union being the obvious one. The Credit Union was set up with the help of HBC but I gather Mad Marge fell out with those running it because they didn't want her on the board.
The Housing Associations run similar schemes, as does the Coop. The Coop scheme is an interesting one in that people can use the Coop website to choose what they want and finance it through low interest loans from Credit Unions. There really is no need to re-invent the wheel here and certainly no need to spend £50,000 administering a new scheme. I too am expecting this money to head towards the Manor.
Nice try perseus. In a perfect world (or even a semi perfect world) that would happen. What this malignant lot will do is word the contract to suit the manor cronies.
They would make sure PHF didn't even get a sniff.
I reckon you're right, perseus. As soon as they get in they pay homage to the chairman, have 1/2 hour reading pravda, daily mirror and (for those that can read words of multi syllables) the daily telegraph.
Then it's on to High Tax Hartlepool.
Simples.
I wouldn`t bet against the£50,000 ending up in the pocket of a Labour / Manor acolyte, this scheme is just one more example, if one were needed, that the "Voluntary Sector" is wide open to abuse.
The sad thing is that this kind of activity gives a bad name to the many genuine Voluntary Organisations & the people who give freely of their time & energy to help others.
The mayor & his cabinet should veto this particularly odious proposal, but i wont hold my breath.
I think the local Credit Union has been something of a success story and I'm baffled as to why it would not be the focus of any additional efforts towards financial inclusion. I walked passed it the other day and noticed a poster in the window inviting people to 'Ask Us About Our Electrical Goods Scheme'. There is obvious duplication going on here and something of a personal vendetta by the looks of it.
This subject is up for Cabinet discussion this Monday coming - 9:30am in the Council Chamber
As is stated here several times, the Credit Union is a source for low rate loans and a link to the purchase of "White Goods", via the Coop. The prices for "White Goods" provided by the Coop are stated to be competitive with those available from other outlets. However they will not be given away. The Credit Union does not appear to provide direct help either for the supply of cut price/ free furniture.
Here, the route for those in need of furniture (and appliances) is provided by the Owton Fens Community Association who took over the role from the Settlement Furniture Services, who had to close in Dec 2009 as they had run out of cash!. The new service was opened by our MP, Ian Wright in 2011 as the Mail shows:
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/community/service_will_be_fully_furnished_1_3562769
Perhaps the OFCA is finding a similar difficulty in the present climate of running a similar operation without the granting of some financial input.
Perhaps 50,000 pounds would help a little?
Not sure if I follow that post Rabbit. The new scheme is set to provide new furniture/white goods, not second hand and the route is through finance provided by third party organisations like the credit union. The point being that anyone can already approach the credit union for a low cost loan which enables people to shop around for the best deal. The credit union already removes the need for people to resort to the likes of Brighthouse - provided it has the necessary finance.
The problem for the credit union is that it can only lend out at the rate of the repayments coming in as it doesn't have enough 'float' to meet the current demand. If the £50,000 was given to the credit union (as a loan and not a grant to cover administration which is the current proposal) then that £50,000 would allow the credit union to expand its service to more people without more money being wasted on additional administartion.
Marky: The Mail article does not state that the items offered under the scheme would be new.
Perseus: I am not implying that the OMCA would be the best route for the new arrangement.
In fact I am suggesting that like their predecessors, perhaps cash flow is a problem. and 50.000 pounds would help them out (whether or not I agree with such a funding!)
Also if the furniture/white goods items in the proposed Furniture Project are used or recycled then I cannot understand the Council re-inventing the wheel.
From a Council Report:
DECISION REFERENCE: RN 14/12 - FURNITURE SOLUTIONS
PROJECT
Key Test Decision (ii) applies
Nature of the decision
To consider the options surrounding the delivery of the Furniture Solutions Project, and seek approval to progress with the preferred option.
Who will make the decision?
The decision will be made by the Housing and Transition Portfolio Holder.
Ward(s) affected
The scheme is town wide and will therefore be available to residents in all wards.
Timing of the decision
The decision is expected to be made in June 2012.
Background Information
Introducing a Furniture Solutions Project was identified as a priority, as part of the Scrutiny o-ordinating Committee's investigation into Child Poverty and Financial Inclusion to assist families, particularly those in receipt of benefits when they need to replace or purchase new essential household items.
The work that has been undertaken, so far, in relation to the development of a scheme was outlined to the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Committee in August 2011, which considered the involvement of a community/voluntary sector organisation in the service delivery.
This proposal was reported to Cabinet in October 2011 where Members agreed that the commencement of the scheme could not be supported and that the £50,000 contribution to kick start the scheme should be part of the budget consultation process. opportunities to link to other organisations already delivering this type of scheme should be explored further.
£50,000 has been approved by full Council, as part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy – Budget and Policy Framework 2012/13 and 2014/15, to kick start the Furniture Project.
66 - 66 -
Who will be consulted and how?
Research will be undertaken to establish which service providers from the community / voluntary sector, public and private sector etc. already deliver similar or related services. The aspirations of such groups and organisations will also be explored.
I note that the word "new" is used in the document on one occasion but whether that refers to pristine unused items or just means provision of a replacement product is not made clear. I also note that the last paragraph opens the door to the OMCA.
I can see no justification whatsoever in blowing £50k on wages on an unnecessary administrator of a duplicate 'service' with little apparent value; my hope is that the cold wind of reality sweeps through tomorrow's meeting. Money is tight, and every penny is going to need to do the work of a sixpence as times grow increasingly harder. Apart from selfless, worthy and effective institutions such as credit unions/charity shops etc., Perseus has clearly demonstrated the value of Freecycle, both in ethics and practicality. My feelings are that it would be little short of obscene to appoint anyone to this role, and I would question the morality (and sanity) of those who would endorse what could be seen as a pointless waste of public money when (if affordable, appropriate and used judiciously - e.g. as a grant to a credit union), it could benefit those who truly need it most.
I remember reading one of the scrutiny reports on this and they were definitely talking about 'new' items. In fact, I'd go a bit further than that - I'm sure it was stated that providing 'new' items rather than second-hand would help people settle into their new homes quicker and produce a more 'stable tenancy' - or words to that effect. Don't ask me to explain the logic - I'm just the messenger. ;D
Its another job that will disappear in the next raft of cuts.
Not if the job is farmed out to a third party 'outreach' centre. Haven't we all seen how the council washes its hands of the money once it leaves the Civic Centre?
I seem to recall that the said £50,000 was a bit of a windfall to HBC following a strike by staff,creating a surplus due to non payment of wages on the day. Would anybody please be able to confirm this? If true I feel HBC would be better using the money to help balance their budget and not letting it burn a hole in their hand. I accept I may be wrong however thanks in anticipation.
No, that £50,000 was redirected into the training budget and relates to the one-day stoppages by Civic Centre staff (not teachers) over pension changes. Although, the strikers weren't paid for the day, they will now have access to training days and courses that wouldn't have been available before. I believe the idea was that re-training would be especially useful to any council workers who may find thmselves facing redundancy.
Quote from: perseus on July 09, 2012, 05: PM
to waste on microwaves for people on the dole.
I have to say posting that kind of sh*ite does the site no good at all.
Perhaps in future the moronic comments could be kept to oneself?
Quote from: perseus on July 09, 2012, 09: PM
.
What's the matter? Did nobody vote for you when you stood for election?
Paranoid/delusional as well as moronic!
Quote from: perseus on July 09, 2012, 09: PM
And bang on the money by the sounds of it. . . ;)
World's worst clairvoyant as well as a paranoid delusionist!
"waste on microwaves for people on the dole. "
I think you've spoiled a good point by using an uncharateristic generalisation. Anyone can find himself 'on the dole' these days and generalisations like that are disrespectful to many who have worked for years and find themselves having to sign on through no fault of their own.
Those that have a history of working generally already have a microwave, washing machine etc. (maybe not a 70" flat screen telly for Jeremy Kyle),
so are generally not likely to need this service (unless thy want to watch Jeremy Kyle doley style).
Looks like this has been given the nod through by Drummond and his Cabinet leaving me wondering just what it is about Ms James which scares people so much. There's no logic to this at all; it's straight forward duplication and a complete waste of £50,000.
The Credit Union offers loans at 2% interest for electrical goods and furniture in conjunction with the Coop compared to the likes of Brighthouse which charges 29.9% APR. The Coop scheme is used widely across the UK, specifically targets those unable to obtain credit elsewhere and views itself as a 'social scheme' with preferential terms. They guarantee the lowest prices for electrical items and also make available special offers. They also arrange to take away old electrical items and deliver for free.
The Credit Union runs out-reach sessions at several community run organisations in Hartlepool but interestingly not OFCA or Manor Residents - some bad history there methinks which possibly explains the unnecessary duplication.
Take a look at the Credit Union web site and then try and figure out why HBC is forking out £50,000 to fund an administrator for some, as yet un-named organisation, for two years (don't try too hard guessing which). I can't be the only one who thinks that £50,000 would be better spent as a loan rather than a grant to the Credit Union to help it simply make its existing cheap load service available to more people.
Can we expect a certain councillor to be making use of the service to buy a second 50inch 3D Telly?
http://www.hartlepoolcreditunion.co.uk/Electrical-Goods
The Credit Union rate of interest on loans is not so good, as it states no more than 2 percent per month. This works out as no more than 27 percent APR . Not dissimilar to that of those available elsewhere.
Why the Mayor is supporting this with a donation is not clear to me either.
I hear what you are saying but you have to remember that this new scheme comes with no means to fund its own loans - all of the £50,000 is going on admin. What that 'admin' will do is point any applicant in the direction of some other organisation for the actual loan - in all probability the Credit Union - which only serves to emphasise just how c**k-eyed the whole idea is. Still, looks like someone's relative will get a couple of years salary out of it. ::)
What I can't understand is why this director (Stubbs) has agreed to it.
Surely he can see it is not a good use for £50,000?
Why haven't other cllrs kicked off and stopped it from happening? ???
Surely it can't be down to a fear of one bad tempered person? :(
Totally bizarre...HBC's pleading poverty one moment, then are almost immediately chucking away cash like sailors in port...
This looks like another nepotistic use of council tax payers money, i am at a loss to understand why HBC see fit to spend £50,000 on an administrator to administor a non exisistent amount of money.
It would seem that certain councillors are desperate to force decisions through full council for their own ends, bully boy tactics aren`t unheard of within the ruling elite & this is another example of such behaviour.
It will be very interesting to see who ends up with this position, £25,000 per annum isn`t to be sneezed at.