Jump to content

Rob Callister


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

Having looked at the full Onchan Housing document I’m not sure it’s really an overspend. More a misallocation of expenditure.

Repairs and maintenance is fixed at 25.1% of net rental income.

over the years in the table above they’ve done the following:

Recent Schemes:
❖ Funding for schemes such as new builds and regeneration of existing estates should be met from capital costs by applying for loans through Central Government.
❖ External Refurbishment Scheme of 118 properties (School Road, Barrule Drive (Odds), and Nursery Avenue)
❖ Reroofing of 62 properties (Hackett Close, Meadow Close, Ballachrink Drive)
❖ Replacement Boiler Scheme (411 properties)
❖ Replacement Doors and Windows (Heywood Park)
❖ Replacement Windows (Springfield Court Phase II)
❖ Replacement External Doors (Hewyood Court)
❖ Conversion of the former Police Station to 5 social housing units
❖ New Build Scheme – 10 Units (Marion Road)
Future Schemes:-
❖ External Refurbishment of First Avenue
❖ External Refurbishment for The Park Houses
❖ Kitchen Framework Agreement throughout the general housing stock ❖ Electric Mains Board Upgrades and Periodic Testing
❖ Springfield Court Refurbishment/Regeneration including lift installations
 

Much of that has been allocated to the repairs and maintenance revenue budget, whereas they’re capital and funds should have been borrowed.

As a result the maintenance and repairs account is cumulatively in the red by nearly £400,000 over 7 years - they had a surplus before this - hence not higher.

 

Steady now John.  Who needs facts when we have some insane conspiracy to run with?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It seems like they did a briefing last Thursday to members and this is where they "Informed them" of the planned trajectory. This seems disingenous of Quayle. It's one thing to have an informal b

Haha is Rob really complaining about unnecessary questions in Tynwald?  "How much does is cost to send a letter to Jersey?" Idiot.

Hello Mr. PB A family member has alerted me to your posts and as your observations are not correct, it’s only fair that I correct them for you. I joined the civil service on 17th May 1976 wi

Posted Images

On 7/5/2020 at 9:04 AM, Holte End said:

The real question Onchan residents should be asking their MHK's is this all about ?

https://www.onchan.org.im/uploads/housing-review-report-december-2019-saved-051219.pdf

927933947_ScreenShot2020-07-05at08_49_41.png.320aa8086484068af8ac68006b8734bc.png

It appears that from 2014 to 2017 the commissioners overspent on general housing maintenance,

the biggest overspend was in 2016 to2017of nearly £600,000.00

653247326_ScreenShot2020-07-05at09_00_23.png.743ff234e596af327871276660fdbacb.png

Here:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

All valid points Roger but my point remains, that these people (and I'm not for one minute trying to suggest that it's all LA tenants) regardless of their circumstances (your a to e) have incurred costs to the LA and little effort is made to recoup. If they were in private rentals they'd have kissed their deposit goodbye at least. Under present policy it just seems to be accepted and brushed aside. At at least partial cost to the private ratepayers.

The feckless and the debtors are therefore the winners and are therefore unlikely to feel compelled to ever change their outlook or practices in that respect? Which brings up a whole sector of society blessed with the same ethics.

But there's no point in trying to reclaim costs from people with no money.  You'd just be throwing ratepayers' cash at lawyers with no purpose.  You could certainly try to make some claim if they were still LA tenants, but in practice in the worst cases they won't be and you'd be only too glad to get rid of them completely.

The same is true for private landlords as well.  They know that with tenants there will always be some who will leave the place requiring  work and that is just part of the overheads.  And they probably won't bother paying the last month's rent, so you can't even take the damages out of the deposit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Er..... you posted it two pages back going on about Oncham rate payers demanding answers etc.

When a simple bit of reading like John did would help.

To be fair to @Holte End, there are questions there that haven't been answered - around why this happened.  Either the Commissioners had mishandled their maintenance budget or they have been going about capital schemes in the wrong way.  John's list of projects suggests the latter, but it's not certain and even if that is the case there may be other questions arising such as how tenders were handled.

But in either case something has happened that shouldn't and there needs to some sort of investigation as to why.  Has this come from the Commissioners themselves of from the Clerk and admin?  And is this related to the various clashes that have occurred within the Commissioners and between some of them and the various Clerks over the years?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Here:rolleyes:

I still think Onchan residents should be asking their MHK's to look into this.

Recent Schemes:
❖ Funding for schemes such as new builds and regeneration of existing estates should be met from capital costs by applying for loans through Central Government.
❖ External Refurbishment Scheme of 118 properties (School Road, Barrule Drive (Odds), and Nursery Avenue)
❖ Reroofing of 62 properties (Hackett Close, Meadow Close, Ballachrink Drive)
❖ Replacement Boiler Scheme (411 properties)
❖ Replacement Doors and Windows (Heywood Park)
❖ Replacement Windows (Springfield Court Phase II)
❖ Replacement External Doors (Hewyood Court)
❖ Conversion of the former Police Station to 5 social housing units
❖ New Build Scheme – 10 Units (Marion Road)
Future Schemes:-
❖ External Refurbishment of First Avenue
❖ External Refurbishment for The Park Houses
❖ Kitchen Framework Agreement throughout the general housing stock ❖ Electric Mains Board Upgrades and Periodic Testing
❖ Springfield Court Refurbishment/Regeneration including lift installations
      

If you take out the New build - 10 units, I think you will find the rest should come under maintenance of the properties.

How they should have funded it, is one of the points somebody should be looking into.

I am still wondering who you think I am conspiring against.

If you think asking questions about a document published by Onchan Commissioners

which shows a  massive overspend of all reservers and putting the authority into debt

is a documented fact.

 

 

Edited by Holte End
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 5:21 PM, Roger Mexico said:

And is this related to the various clashes that have occurred within the Commissioners and between some of them and the various Clerks over the years?

I might be wrong but my guess would be, yes. It went south not long after the CEO retired in 2016 and the Finance Manager early 2017. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

I might be wrong but my guess would be, yes. It went south not long after the CEO retired in 2016 and the Finance Manager early 2017. 

Really I just wonder what the financial impact will be on the rate payers.

I can see another 6% increase or even more.

Because as we know final year before elections, there will be no rent increases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

’The Department of Infrastructure makes an important contribution to the quality of life we enjoy in the Isle of Man and touches the lives of thousands of residents in various ways every day.'

Ahahaha yes, yes it does Rob.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, english zloty said:

the gift has given.

may as well have written "as no one else will touch this with a barge-pole  and until the new member is found following the bye election..."

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=56751&headline=Callister%20joins%20DoI&sectionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2020

 

Rob has found his ideal government placement. Political member for rubbish.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

What sort of complete idiot would want anything to do with that train wreck? How many actual departments is he on now? 

Three I think.  He's been a member of DfE since 2016 and joined DEFA this year.  And he's previously been in DHSC and (briefly) DHA.  Clearly he's trying to collect the set.  Only DESC, Treasury and Cabinet Office to go.

There seems no reason to do this except to provide the DoI with another mug who has to vote for them.  They knew where to look.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...