Housing Association Chief On £400,000 A Year

[thecrashingisles]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7795905/Housing-association-chief-on-400000-a-year.html

More than 50 executives at housing associations – which provide council houses at taxpayers’ expense – earn more than the Prime Minister.

Based on figures from last year, the highest paid executive at a housing association was John Belcher, at £391,000. He was chief executive of Anchor, which provides affordable homes for the elderly. David Cowans, at Places for People, earned £297,000.

At least six executives, including Keith Exford at Affinity Sutton; Mark Rogers at Circle Anglia and David Bennett at Sanctuary; and David Montague at London & Quadrant, earned more than £200,000, it has emerged.

The figures have been uncovered by Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, who has indicated that the pay packages are unacceptable.

Edited June 2, 2010 by thecrashingisles

[Bloo Loo]

Public sector trough.

Private sector drinking from it.

discusting.

[Peter Hun]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7795905/Housing-association-chief-on-400000-a-year.html

"– which provide council houses at taxpayers’ expense – "

What utter ********.

Housing associations existed before council housing. If you take the biggest, Peabody, its property came from the wealth of a American businessman. Peabody has property that it owns outright and simply has to charge a maintenance and management fee on. The government has no right to claim ownership of charities property. They can provide cheaper accommodation becuase they own the properties and land from well before the mad speculative boom in land prices.

Please remember, Daily Telegraph is running a campaign to support to BTL which is in DIRECT competition with H.A.'s for tenants (who are NOT all on Housing Benefit, another lie by the DT)

[thecrashingisles]

...

Ah so as charity bosses these people have a duty to take so much money, lest there be any profit?

[PopGun]

Some nice low hanging fruit for the spending cuts here.

[Si1]

these are organisations without business risk right? they cannot fail, by order of govt finance? often registered charities? is that true or not?

[DabHand]

Well it would be silly if the head of an HA couldn't actually afford to buy an average house wouldn't it.

[Si1]

Well it would be silly if the head of an HA couldn't actually afford to buy an average house wouldn't it.

I thought HA workers had the offer of a HA property at a lower price than the plebs pay

?

[Tonkers]

I thought HA workers had the offer of a HA property at a lower price than the plebs pay

?

Staff at my association are not allowed to be tenants of it...

[pl1]

"– which provide council houses at taxpayers’ expense – "

What utter ********.

Housing associations existed before council housing. If you take the biggest, Peabody, its property came from the wealth of a American businessman. Peabody has property that it owns outright and simply has to charge a maintenance and management fee on. The government has no right to claim ownership of charities property. They can provide cheaper accommodation becuase they own the properties and land from well before the mad speculative boom in land prices.

Please remember, Daily Telegraph is running a campaign to support to BTL which is in DIRECT competition with H.A.'s for tenants (who are NOT all on Housing Benefit, another lie by the DT)

Who pays for these salaries?

[Si1]

Staff at my association are not allowed to be tenants of it...

ok. fair enough. not as bad as it sounds.

[thecrashingisles]

Regarding the status of housing associations:

Court rules housing associations are public bodies - http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=6505146

[Guest tbatst2000]

"– which provide council houses at taxpayers' expense – "

What utter ********.

Housing associations existed before council housing. If you take the biggest, Peabody, its property came from the wealth of a American businessman. Peabody has property that it owns outright and simply has to charge a maintenance and management fee on. The government has no right to claim ownership of charities property. They can provide cheaper accommodation becuase they own the properties and land from well before the mad speculative boom in land prices.

Please remember, Daily Telegraph is running a campaign to support to BTL which is in DIRECT competition with H.A.'s for tenants (who are NOT all on Housing Benefit, another lie by the DT)

Peabody is something of an exception here, most housing associations do get some form of direct finance from the government. Even those that don't, Peabody included, get indirect payment in the form of housing benefit. Oh, and since they're mostly charities they get subsidies in the form of tax exemptions too. So, a more accurate statement would be 'provide council houses subsidised by the taxpayer'.

[Peter Hun]

Peabody is something of an exception here, most housing associations do get some form of direct finance from the government. Even those that don't, Peabody included, get indirect payment in the form of housing benefit. Oh, and since they're mostly charities they get subsidies in the form of tax exemptions too. So, a more accurate statement would be 'provide council houses subsidised by the taxpayer'.

All Landords get the same housing benefit don't they? So BTL have profits subsidised by the tax payer (HB and GBT) whereas HA may have subsidises in preferential tax emptions from the tax payer. But charities don't pay tax.. and why should they when they make no profit.

So, a more accurate statement would be 'provide housing without a profit'.

I agree £400K is a ridiculous pay check however and cutting the grant (Anchor Trust get a massive government grant) would be fully justified.

Why are some many people on this web site so keen on BTL when the subject of Housing associations come up? Affordable housing? shouldn't be allowed seems to be the attitude.

[Tonkers]

Peabody is something of an exception here, most housing associations do get some form of direct finance from the government. Even those that don't, Peabody included, get indirect payment in the form of housing benefit. Oh, and since they're mostly charities they get subsidies in the form of tax exemptions too. So, a more accurate statement would be 'provide council houses subsidised by the taxpayer'.

They provide housing association houses, not council houses.

[Guest tbatst2000]

All Landords get the same housing benefit don't they? So BTL have profits subsidised by the tax payer (HB and GBT) whereas HA may have subsidises in preferential tax emptions from the tax payer. But charities don't pay tax.. and why should they when they make no profit.

So, a more accurate statement would be 'provide housing without a profit'.

I agree £400K is a ridiculous pay check however and cutting the grant (Anchor Trust get a massive government grant) would be fully justified.

Why are some many people on this web site so keen on BTL when the subject of Housing associations come up? Affordable housing? shouldn't be allowed seems to be the attitude.

What on earth makes you think I'm standing up for BTL??? I'll just about accept we need some system to stop people literally ending up on the streets but, beyond that, I can't see any justification for any public subsidy for housing of any sort, BTL, HA, council or otherwise. To add another statement about this particular HA, 'providing publically subsidised housing with any profits paid to the directors'.

[caparn]

If they are not making money through massive wages they will be making it through back handers from builders who rig overpriced estimates, which is something that we should worry about more.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7795905/Housing-association-chief-on-400000-a-year.html

That housing chap earning 391k is doing all right. That's £17,525 per month after tax.

[Frank Hovis]

If they are not making money through massive wages they will be making it through back handers from builders who rig overpriced estimates, which is something that we should worry about more.

Or both!

Fraud police hunt Ujima finance chief

Police have appealed for help tracking down the former finance director of failed housing association Ujima, who has gone on the run.

Former Ujima finance officer George Avwunu

George Avwunu, 50, of Purley, Surrey, is suspected of money laundering and conspiracy to defraud Ujima.

In November last year, fraud detectives charged a housewife and a consultant with money laundering following a 17-month investigation into suspected fraud at Ujima.

At the time they said they were hunting a third man, who skipped bail the previous May.

These jobs are difficult because of the over-regulation, complexity and continuing shifting targets of the sector, and the bigger ones such as Anchor have huge sections effectively acting as commercial entities. But without question these salaries are too high.

However they are on a par with other public sector jobs such as councils so there needs to be a whole public sector review (=cut) rather than focussing on HAs.

I like the earnings multiple rule, Anchor has loads of people on minimum wage ?£8k a year, so the boss gets a maximium of 20* times this or a £160k package including pension benefits. Though this won't be enough as not every HA has people on £8k, some kind of national banding system would be appropriate as they are semi-public bodies.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Frank Hovis