Private home owners in Falkirk facing bills of up to £15,000 for repairs and improvements being carried out by the council will not be given any extra help to meet the costs.
Proposals to allow owners to defer the payments, or for Falkirk Council to work with a financial partner to help them spread out the cost over a longer period have both been rejected.
And one councillor warned the 'disappointing' decision would leave homeowners - many of whom are OAPs - facing terrible stress and huge bills in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
Read more: Distraught Bonnybridge residents being hit with bill for £11,000
At a meeting of Falkirk Council on Thursday, housing manager Kenny Gillespie told members it is vital to keep the houses in good order. Members heard that over the next five years, the council plans to spend £180 million on improvements.
Work being carried out on roof repairs, roughcasting and improvements to energy efficiency and insulation.
But with 48 per cent of former council homes now in private hands, thanks to the Right to Buy scheme, it is not always a straightforward process. And as a result many owner-occupiers have to pay as much as £15,000 for their share of the work.
There is a legal process to go through before any work can be carried out, and where there is a mix of owner-occupier and council housing there has to be a vote first, the result of which is binding.
The problem of home owners facing huge costs had been raised at a Falkirk Council meeting by Councillor Billy Buchanan, who said some of his constituents had already received bills of around £11,000 for roughcasting work that had been done to their homes four years ago.
Cllr Buchanan had appealed to councillors to look at the possibility of deferring payment until the homes were sold or the owner died, at which point the council would be paid.
But a report to councillors explained that financial help has already been made available through a scheme of assistance, which gives owner occupiers interest-free credit over five years and private landlords over one year.
In an amendment proposed at the meeting, the Labour group had called for a more detailed report looking at the possibility of extending the scheme.
In particular, they wanted to examine working with a financial partner to allow the pay back period to be extended from five to 20 years, saying this would help support families who are struggling during the current cost of living crisis.
Councillor Jack Redmond said: "If someone is living in a two-bedroom flat in a four-in-a-block, they're not going to be on a high wage - potentially £15,000 could be a year's salary to some people."
He added that people in that situation had not chosen to do the work, which was imposed on them.
"I don't think that's fair at all," he said.
But SNP members argued that the money for any extra help would come from the Housing Revenue Account, which is entirely funded by rents - and using it to support home-owners would be wrong.
The council leader, Cecil Meiklejohn, said: "The HRA comes from council house rents - so what you are asking is for council tenants to be paying those loans for owner-occupiers.
"I'm not entirely sure how morally correct that is - particularly when it could impact on the housing investment plan."
SNP portfolio holder Gary Bouse agreed and added that taking out a loan with a private company would add substantially to the cost, whoever paid the bill.
The Conservative group were also unconvinced by Labour's proposal and supported the report, which showed that allowing 60 owner occupiers a year to delay payment for 20 years could potentially lose the council £1 million a year.
Following a vote, Labour's proposal was defeated.
Cllr Buchanan said: "I am so disappointed at the outcome of the vote. Obviously new members have not had the experience of having been involved with constituents who are handed bills for up to £15,000 for for works they did not want in the first place.
"The majority of those I dealt with were OAPs and the stress on them was terrible - and still is as they have now had to enter into repayment schemes.
"The present position of putting it to a vote is unfair as the vast majority of residents in blocks of flats are council tenants. The sensible option should clearly be through a charging order payable if property is sold or the owner passes on."
