RUKHSANA Nabi's letter (September 6) seems to paint a very rosy picture of the council house transfer. But a rosy hue soon turns a muddy brown.

Of course the council can't borrow money to repair our homes. The law forbids it, because this Government, just like the previous one, does not want council houses, full stop. They cost money while private makes it.

But just transfer your council houses (public ownership) to a housing association (and by any semantic pedantry you care to use, Mr Nabi, it will be privatisation) and, hey presto, millions suddenly appear. The only problem is, we tenants will be paying back.

And is it unreasonable to assume that what are now termed 'expenses' will not become 'salaries' in future?

However, two vital points;

Rents, we are told, to reach 'target levels' would rise by inflation plus 1.5 per cent, then 1.7 per cent, then 0.5 percent. But we are not told what the initial starting levels are to be because 'average earnings' across the borough come into the sum, not benefits or pensions.

How many tenants in council houses do you know who are on average earnings? I don't know any. So those of you at or in retirement, who have lived in the same council house all your life, raised your children and spent those years and expense making your homes comfortable for your old age will find it counts for nothing, because these 'earnings' will dictate your rent, as will the market value and the size of the property - the larger the property the more the rent. Why? Target levels.

I t could also arise that if your home is deemed 'unsuitable for your requirements' you could be asked to move.

Next, rights. What is the problem?

If this transfer is being hailed as the cure-all, why is Helena Housing, Mr Nabi, not simply transposing all our current 'Secure Tenants Rights' over? Why are words like 'many of; i.e. not all, 'match as closely as possible', i.e. not fully, and 'partly covered by law' again not fully, being glossed over when describing Assured Tenants Rights? And some rights would be covered by 'contracts' or ;pieces of paper' which can be changed as and when the law requires, because I, for one, will NOT be voting for this OR signing ANY contract, so what is the problem?

I have already signed a Tenants Agreement in 1992, with my council who promised their 'determination to keep our homes in public ownership' (their words again). The situation remains unchanged from Tenants Charter 1992, and my signature will NOT be put on any other contract.

I will be staying with the devil I know, Mr Nabi, whatever the ballot decides, so we will see what treatment is meted out.

There is too much at stake for mistakes. I strongly advise everyone to read the information properly, and between the lines afterwards, and not see this just in terms of double glazing or central heating - nice, but could you afford to switch it on? - and consider the future, not the present.

Remember the old adage, a bird in the hand....

Mr Hesford, council tenant,

Sutton.