Member's statement: Housing Executive Right-to-buy Scheme: Maintenance Costs
Member's statement by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 June 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Housing Executive Right-to-buy Scheme: Maintenance Costs
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4497425
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Over the past year, I have become increasingly worried about some homeowners in my constituency who bought their flats through the Housing Executive right-to-buy scheme. They are not landlords but ordinary people who have a small flat that they inherited or purchased themselves. This issue is the cost of maintenance that the Housing Executive is demanding for work to external aspects of the properties such as roofs, windows, balconies and stairwells, ranging from £1,000 or £2,000 to tens of thousands of pounds — amounts that the homeowners simply cannot afford. I have spoken to many of my constituents in East Antrim who are at breaking point. One elderly lady faces a repair bill almost as high as the market value of her flat. Some homeowners are being asked to pay large sums for renovations on properties that are valued at much less than the bill that they have been presented with. Even without the impact of cost-of-living increases, those demands are unreasonable and unaffordable. Another resident, who has kept her flat in excellent condition, was recently asked to pay over £2,000 for minimal work done in a stairwell of her flat block; work that she was neither consulted about nor is able to afford. It was simply a paint job and the fitting of some PVC flooring tiles, which was inexplicably priced at £12,000 for the entire block of six flats. That constituent, like many others, has been paying a monthly service charge, which should have covered the cost of maintenance. Furthermore, some homeowners have contributed to a maintenance fund set up by the Housing Executive, but that fund has not been either properly collected or managed. The shortfall leaves residents facing huge, life-altering costs that could have been avoided by the better management of a reserve maintenance fund by the Housing Executive. Many are caught between two untenable choices: leave and face homelessness or stay and endure crippling legal costs and repair bills. Last year, I contacted the Minister for Communities, the permanent secretary and the chief executive of the Housing Executive. I have had little success in getting any progress. This matter cannot go on any longer. I have, once again, reached out to the Housing Executive chief executive, seeking a sustainable solution. It is time for the Minister for Communities to address this issue, to act now and to protect residents from financial ruin so that they can remain in their homes without fear of destitution.
409 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.75 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.23 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:48 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.