WORKERS' LOANS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 136, 12 June 1930, Page 12

WORKERS' LOANS

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I feel coustrained, to reply to the letter from "Interested" concerning workers' loans. The information "that the State Advances Department does not profess to advance 95 per cent." . . "the earning capacity of the applicant becomes the factor governing the amount of the advance to be made." Well, this is certainly an entirely now departure to me— and I have had extensive dealings with the Department for the-past five years. Is not your correspondent confusing the attitude of the Department towards applicants? 1 was always under the impression that the applicants' security was the main factor, and that certainly the Department wants to know that the applicant's position is such that the advance will be a'safe proposition, i.e., that the -applicant will be able to maintain thu house when erected insofar as the half-yearly payments fall due; and the Department is quite justified, in my opinion, in making sure that the -loan will be repaid promptly, and that the house will not be thrown, on their hands after two or.three years. Does "Interested" forget that the money loaned was borrowed at dhi per cent, and advanced at 5%. per cent., so it is obvious that the Department, working on such a narrow margin, cannot afford to take any risks. It is hard on the man who desires a home of his own to be refused, but if he is unfortunately in poor circumstances,,well, \vhat is to be the remedy?- I wish I could suggest one —one that all could benefit by gaining the wherewithal to build their own nest. Again, one deplores* the great number of carpenters and builders out of employment, and again I would wish that I could suggest better times, but we all know that, unfortunately, the Department, although cognisant of these workless men^ will not, or rather cannot, help them. .' .

Further down in "Interested's" letter he states: "The specified progress payments ;irc never made," also further on, "the loan of £900. . . the Department has paid ■, out about £250* by the time owner took possession." This is another

"eye-opener" to me! Granted there are delays in somo cases, it still is, in my opinion, hardly fair to imply that this is the general rule. In my own case— and not a favoured one either—l had only to advise re first, second, and third inspections and the progress payments were promptly paid by the Department to the builders. In no singlo instance had I, or the builders, • cause to complain; in fact, must really commend the Department for its prompt attentidn to both inspection and payment. This I can prove in other instances to be the experi-1 ence of friends and acquaintances in their j dealings with the Department. The numerous refusals of the Department are certainly hard on the man ambitious to possess a home of his own, but there we get stuck. The board's decisions are final and confidential, and few there be who get the reason why they are declined. At Woodville on 9th inst. . the Hon. E. A. Eansom stated "that from December, 1925, to December, 1929, the total amount advanced for workers' homes ■was £3,327,636." Thus it is easy to see that some hardships occurred in loaning such a hugh sum. Let's be fair to the Department and all entertain the hope that the same amount, or more, will be forthcoming in this year, both for the benefit of ■ the homelesstind incidentally for the good of the building trade. —I am, J. THOS. LIDDALL.