THE comments of the Glasgow Housing Association spokesman reported in your news article,
Tower block residents face uncertain future (April 1), are interesting
since they expose one of the
fundamental paradoxes in GHA's business plan.
To be fair, GHA quite rightly identifies many of Glasgow's multi-storey flats as problematic. This much has been borne out time and time again by countless architects' reports that we at Govan Law Centre have commissioned on multis over the years, which persistently condemn this kind of accommodation as failing current building regulations - eg,
not wind and watertight, damp, thermally inefficient, unventilated, unsanitary, lacking wholesome drinking water, etc). Perhaps these
flats should never have been built,
with design and construction better suited to the sunny climes of
southern Europe than to windy, rainy Scotland.
However, GHA knew, or should have known, what it was getting into when before the stock-transfer ballot and subsequent handover. Now it says it is committed to providing warm, dry, comfortable homes within 10 years. However, the fact of the matter is that people are already living in them right now, usually with no choice. The logical corollary of GHA's recent admission is that these tenants may have to continue living in cold, wet and uncomfortable conditions for up to 10 years. Should people's comfort and health take a distant second place to GHA's half-baked plan to makeover the city's skyline?
What GHA fails to appreciate is that by adopting such an egregious
manana strategy, it may not only perpetuate misery for hundreds of families, but in so doing it is almost certainly breaking the law. This exposes the GHA to the risk of very costly damages litigation in years to come, with tenants of damp housing being entitled to up to (pounds) 1000 per year, and perhaps considerably more if their or their children's health suffers as a result. By not spending money on these homes now, GHA may have adopted a false economy while actually sitting on a ticking litigation time-bomb.
Jon Kiddie,
Govan Law Centre,
Burleigh Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article