Co-op Party fails to uphold the principles of Co-operation

Last week, on the 1st anniversary of the official complaint against Lambeth cooperative council’s evictions of long established Housing Co-ops, a second complaint was officially made, against all the borough’s Co-operative Party councillors.

The Co-operative Party has failed to deal with the first complaint at all, Karin Christiansen, John Boyle and Joe Fortune try to smooth things over when asked for progress updates, they say how complicated the situation is, then they brush it back under the carpet again.

The second complaint, individually naming each Lambeth Co-op Party councillor, hasn’t even been acknowledged, let alone been side-lined, yet.

 

 

The original complaint is here: https://comvox.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/formal-call-for-the-co-operative-party-to-suspend-lib-peck-peter-robbins-and-steve-reed/

 

Here is the new complaint:

Trace Newton-Ingham
Lillieshall Road
Clapham Old Town
London SW4 0LP
Membership No: 120 414

Karin Christiansen, General Secretary    
John Boyle, Membership & Party Support Officer
The Co-operative Party            
77 Weston Street
London SE1 3SD

13th May 2014

Dear Ms Christiansen and Mr Boyle,

Congratulations!

Today is the 1st anniversary of the submission of my formal complaint to the Co-operative Party regarding the destruction of Housing Co-ops in Lambeth.

However, over the past year, my complaint seems to have been, essentially, ignored (apart from unsubstantiated assurances provided in response to my enquiries, that the complaint was being dealt with).
There has not been any formal acknowledgement or report on the progress of my complaint, nor any resolution.
I am still waiting for something to come of my making a Formal Complaint a year ago.

Is the Co-operative Party sticking it’s head in the sand, again?

Lambeth United Housing Co-operative, the umbrella body for the co-op households still in Lambeth, has contacted all the councillors at Lambeth council but has received neither acknowledgment nor support from any of the Co-operative Party members, regarding the ongoing recall of homes, dispersal of communities and serious health and social implications of Lambeth council’s actions.

Mr Joe Fortune, the chair of the Lambeth branch of the Co-operative Party, did call in and have a chat with me one evening at the beginning of the year, though this was unhelpful in any practical way. Joe’s interest seemed to be more about the Politics (capital ‘P’) of the Co-operative movement, rather than in small co-operative organisations and the grass-roots members of co-operatives.

If Joe’s position is standard, this may explain the seeming lack of interest on the Co-operative Party’s part, regarding the handling of the complaint I submitted – the Co-operative Party is not concerned with real world co-operatives, simply in being part of the ‘Westminster bubble’.

I requested a full list of all the Lambeth Co-op Party councillors from Joe, but he could only tell me that Martin Tiedemann and Florence Nosegbe were Co-op Party members… obviously this was a somewhat desultory effort to provide the information I requested. Doesn’t the chair of the Lambeth branch of the Party have access to this info, or was he simply trying to make things difficult for me?
Eventually I realised that a councillor by councillor trawl through the Lambeth council website provided the names of each Co-op Party member.
Please pass the list to Joe, for his future reference.

In view of Mr Fortune’s un-helpfulness, and the total absence of support from any Co-operative Party councillors in Lambeth, I am now submitting an additional complaint to the Party, against each individual Lambeth Co-op Party councillor.

I would like the Co-operative Party to suspend the individuals named below, pending a formal enquiry, for their actions against the Housing Co-ops in the Borough, and I would like the Co-operative Party to publicly support Lambeth United Housing Co-operative and the remaining Housing Co-op residents.

Below is the list of individuals I am formally submitting this complaint about:

Alexander Holland
Florence Nosegbe
Christopher Wellbelove
Matt Parr
Martin Tiedemann
Paul McGlone
Sally Prentice
Matthew Bennett
Jim Dickson
Mike Smith
Jane Edbrooke
Jack Hopkins
Alex Bigham
Stephen Morgan
Pete Bowyer
David Malley
Mark Harrison
Edward Davie
John Kazantzis
Paul Gadsby

Councillor Christopher Wellbelove, in particular, has behaved dishonourably.

In the run-up to the last council elections, Cllr Wellbelove (along with two other prospective Clapham Town candidates, O’Malley and Haselden) specifically pledged support for our Co-ops. When all three won election, both he and Cllr Nigel Haselden then turned around and voted in support of the eviction of the Co-ops.

Cllr Helen O’Malley stood by her promise to us, only to find herself deselected by the Labour Party. Labour candidate Linda Bray was then parachuted into O’Malley’s place on the election sheet.
It seems, in Lambeth anyway, if you’re in the Labour Party and say what you mean, you’re axed.

Cllr Wellbelove’s behaviour was cynical in the extreme (as was Haselden’s, but he’s not in the Co-op Party).

My new complaint is much the same as the ongoing complaint against Peter Robbins, Lib Peck and Steve Reed, namely that Co-operative councillors in Lambeth are unquestioningly supporting, and actively participating in, the wholesale destruction of co-operative communities involving the displacement of many long-term co-operators and the disintegration of distinct Housing Co-ops and communities that have evolved and developed in Lambeth since the mid 1970s.  

Lambeth council has waged a campaign of misinformation that laid the foundation for the recall of our homes, a process devoid of compassion, co-operation, consultation or vision.  
This process was begun when Lambeth was a Conservative/Lib Dem led council, but it has been carried forward by the current Labour administration.  This immediately raises questions of ideology and motivation.
Ironically, our Housing Co-ops are now supported by the Lib-Dem and Tory Parties in the borough, they acknowledge the importance of our communities and recognise the unfair treatment meted out to us.

As a group, ‘Shortlife’ (though 40 years is hardly a ‘short life’, is it?) Housing Co-ops have been treated with contempt by Lambeth council for many years, so it is ironic that it’s most caustic behaviour has come about since it’s called itself ‘the cooperative council’.

I am a co-operator because I live in a Housing Co-op property.  I have regularly served as an officer of my co-op and I believe that the Housing Co-ops we developed over the past four decades, throughout Lambeth, should be recognised as templates for successful, self-help co-operative community living in urban areas.

However, as soon as I am evicted, I am, by definition, no longer a co-operator.  The actions of Lib Peck, Peter Robbins and Steve Reed, along with the support of the named councillors are forcing me and my fellow co-operators out of the Co-operative movement.

How can the above named members of the Co-operative Party, supposedly my co-operative colleagues, reconcile their actions on behalf of Lambeth council with the Aims and Principles they signed up to when they became Co-operative Party members?

The actions that are demanded of Co-operative Party members who hold office in Lambeth Council are not consistent with the Constitution of the Co-operative Party, and Co-operative Party members should not be authorising or undertaking actions which are inherently destructive to other Co-operative groups.

The behaviour of the current officers at Lambeth council is bringing the term ‘co-operative’ (or ‘cooperative’, as Lambeth spells it) into disrepute.  Furthermore, their intimidatory and bureaucratic behaviour, aligned as they are, individually, with the Co-operative Party, sullies the reputation of the Co-operative Party itself.

There has been a complete lack of consultation with co-op residents, Local Authority ownership of the co-op managed properties is being lost to the private sector and  ‘Shortlife’ co-operators have been treated with disdain and contempt.

Personally, my health is extremely fragile at the moment, the stress of the the situation is doing untold long-term damage to my wellbeing.
I have been told that I am at very high risk of suffering a stroke or heart attack, should I have to go to court to defend possession of my home.

My co-op colleague, SD (I can provide his details on request), of Short Stock Housing Co-op in Clapham North, suffered a heart attack and epileptic seizure just days before he was due in court to defend possession of his home.
SD was in a coma for 2 months. He is now extremely disabled and in a residential facility with round-the-clock care.
His life has been devastated, essentially as a result of the stress caused by Lambeth council’s recall of our homes and the brutal treatment we have been subjected to by the council.

Many of the remaining co-op residents are disabled or elderly, and we are at risk of similar catastrophes. We count on our neighbours for support, we rely on each other. Lambeth council failed to undertake any sort of risk assessment of the effects that the recall would have on the people being evicted, the council had no idea what the ‘fallout’ would be. And even now, having been furnished with details of the terrible consequences of it’s actions, Lambeth council presses on with evictions and sales.

Taking into account the case of SD, coupled with an understanding of the real-life stress and despair caused by the recall of our homes and the threats of eviction and consequent destruction of our essential support networks, the notion that any co-operative principle is being followed by the ‘cooperative council’ or by Co-operative Party councillors in Lambeth, is laughable.

The named councillors have all supported the eviction of co-op residents to progress the sale of Local Authority properties. This action is detrimental to all the remaining  ‘Shortlife’ housing co-op residents in Lambeth and, in wider terms, to the tens of thousands of citizens in Lambeth who are in need of social housing.

I have specified, below, the core values and principles that I believe are being contravened by the Lambeth councillors named.

…

Co-operative identity, values & principles

Definition
A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.
Values
Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity.  In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others.

Principles
The co-operative principles are guidelines by which co-operatives put their values into practice.
1. Voluntary and Open Membership
Co-operatives are voluntary organisations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.

2. Democratic Member Control
Co-operatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership.  In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organised in a democratic manner.

3. Member Economic Participation
Members contribute equitably to and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.

4. Autonomy and Independence
Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organisations controlled by their members.  If they enter into agreements with other organisations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.

5. Education, Training and Information
Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives.  They inform the general public – particularly young people and opinion leaders – about the nature and benefits of co-operation.

6. Co-operation among Co-operatives
Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co-operative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.

7. Concern for Community
Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.

The specific rules of the Co-operative Party, that I believe are being contravened, follows:
Rule 2.1

The purpose of the Party is to promote co-operative and mutual forms of economic, social and voluntary organisation, which are based on the principles of mutual ownership and democratic control and to support political action in pursuance of the Values and Principles of the Co-operative Movement in the UK and internationally as defined from time to time by the International Co-operative Alliance.

Rule 3.1

The Party was created to serve the Co-operative Movement of the United Kingdom and it is committed to working in support of the aims of that Movement – Lambeth council, originally under the leadership of Steve Reed, now under the leadership of Lib Peck and with the assistance of Peter Robbins, has steadfastly refused to work with the long-established (and previously supported) Fully Mutual Housing Co-ops in the Borough of Lambeth.

Rule 3.3

The Party is committed to working in co-operation with bodies representing the co-operative and mutual sector in the United Kingdom, in other countries and internationally to achieve their common goals – Lambeth council has refused to negotiate or enter into equitable or meaningful discussions with us, although they repeatedly say publicly that they have done so.

Rule 3.4

In conducting its affairs, the Party shall respect the rights of everyone it deals with, as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – our communities are being destroyed, our health is being undermined by the actions of the council.  The ‘recall’ process has been going on for almost 20 years!  We have repeatedly been threatened with eviction, though, until recently, these threats were not actioned.  The threats of eviction have constituted intimidatory behaviour for almost two decades.

Rule 4.1

The functions of the Party are to provide goods and services in pursuit of its purpose, including:

Rule 4.1.6

engaging, as principals or agents, in any other business, trade or activity which seems to the Party directly or indirectly in pursuit of its purpose – destroying long established co-ops is not part of the business of the Co-operative Party or it’s members.

Rule 5.1

The Party may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or desirable in connection with its functions.

Rule 5.2

In particular it may:

Rule 5.2.1

acquire and dispose of property – our homes are being disposed of, this reduces the stock of available social housing; adds hundreds of people to an already overwhelmed waiting-list and destroys urban Co-operative communities in Lambeth.

…

Something that may be of interest to you is the fact that one of the Housing Co-op members threatened with eviction is a woman active in many ways within the Co-operative Movement.  She is a descendant of one of the Rochdale Pioneers and a member for more than 20 years of the Woodcraft Folk, the co-operative youth organisation.  Her co-operative beliefs guide what she does.

This, I feel, sums up the despicable and inherently un-cooperative nature of Lambeth council and the Party members who are willing to act in an appallingly un-cooperative manner.  Their treatment of the long-established and well-loved Housing Co-ops we’ve worked hard to build and maintain over decades, is contemptible.

A new Housing Co-operative, Lambeth United Housing Co-operative, has been registered as a Fully Mutual Housing Co-op, made up of various Lambeth Housing Co-op residents who are still living in their homes and fighting against eviction by Lambeth council.  We are fighting to establish more Co-operative housing in the Borough, in the face of Lambeth’s determination to extinguish Co-operative housing communities altogether.

Trace Newton-Ingham

Nigel Haselden finally caught out telling porkies

Oh yes! Finally! Clapham Town ward councillor, Nigel Haselden, has been pulled up for lying… by his arch nemesis Kate Hoey .

Nigel ‘The Cadaver’ Haselden hates Hoey, why? Simple, she’s not a liar, but he is.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-mp-demands-fictional-leaflet-from-her-own-party-is-withdrawn-9402047.html

Haselden lies to his constituents, lies to his friends and, really stupidly, lies to other members of his local Labour Party branch.

He’s taken it a step too far this time, he lied about Kate Hoey, in public, and he’s been caught out, in public.

Colleagues of mine attended a local Clapham Town branch meeting recently, and were shocked to repeatedly hear other members of the party telling Haselden to stop lying to them.

Why was Haselden reselected as a candidate in the local elections while Helen O’Malley, a popular, honest, trustworthy councillor was deselected by the Lambeth Forum, the group that decides these things? Nigel Haselden, along with Cllr  Christopher ‘The Grin’ Wellbelove, are two-faced Party line-toers, while O’Malley is a principled and honest person.

In Lambeth, this very dirty business in Clapham Town ward tells you all you need to know about how Lib Peck’s morally bankrupt Lambeth council works.

 

Lib Peck’s @LondonLabour article & censored comments

Lib Peck speaks… the usual stuff about how challenging everything is but how wonderfully well Lambeth are doing on the housing front.

However, when Shortlife residents post valid comments in opposition to the council leader’s spin, the comments disappear… (w/fez) just like that!

Here’s the link to the article – http://www.labourinlondon.org.uk/lambeth_housing and here are those disappeared comments…

This is was left by @IamTraceyNewton :

Lib Peck says “…Given the growing number of private renters in Lambeth, we are also committed to tackling the private rented sector, where rents and charges are soaring and rogue landlords are flourishing as demand grows…”
Lambeth council is currently turfing out housing co-ops that have existed for 30+ years (decimating stable working class communities in the process) and selling off well-built, structurally sound, easily maintained street properties to… investors involved in the private rented sector.
The affected residents have co-operatively worked to maintain their homes, at no cost to Lambeth council, since the early 1980s. Many residents are re-housed (often against their wishes, but they’re scared of being left with no roof over their heads) while some are actually being made homeless, which is utterly shameful.
One resident received a phone call, by mistake, from a large scale property developer whom Lambeth council was trying to sell the resident’s home to.
The same resident, a vulnerable person with major health problems, is now homeless and Lambeth’s Housing Department appears to have washed it’s hands of him.
Lambeth council is cynically fueling the very situation Lib Peck says she’s intent on dealing with, and that’s apart from Lib Peck and Lambeth’s refusal to openly discuss and negotiate with the Housing Co-ops who are being evicted… not really innovative, or ‘cooperative’.

and this comment was left by @LUHousingCoop –

Lib Peck’s so-called ‘co-operative’ council is waging a community purge against 40-year-old self-reliant, skill-swapping housing co-operatives. Their eviction programme means that social housing stock is being sold off and long-term co-op residents are put on the housing list, displacing others. No money is being spent on new housing breaking Labour’s own manifesto pledge. Many of the residents facing eviction are elderly and vulnerable, some have families who have grown up in these homes, some have been in their homes since the 1970s and are in their 70s! Residents have put forward a plan to keep the homes in a co-operative framework and prevent evictions, but Lambeth a doing their best to avoid a social housing settlement by any means necessary, from denying minutes of meetings to spinning the realities of the waiting list and refusing to answer questions. We have had advice and backing from various social housing experts and the Co-operative Enterprise Hub, plus from local MP Kate Hoey, and even support from Lambeth’s own co-op council commissioners: And what of our councillors? The self-same politicians who are now evicting us have said: “Your communities have given a welcome permanence and continuity to the area.” and… “We have reminded colleagues and officers that some of these homes would not be standing if it was not for the work of the people living in them.” and… “It would be senseless as well as expensive to evict people only to have to re-house them again.” and… “Labour will continue to fight for your right to stay in your home.” It is rank hypocrisy and what is going on in Lambeth is a scandal pure and simple, and a terrible reflection of Labour in action on housing. It is also and stain on the co-op aspirations of Lambeth Council which has shown itself and hypocritical and vindictive on this issue.

Lambeth’s inadequate Equality Impact Assessment re: Shortlife evictions

Despite the known, forced homelessness that has resulted from Lambeth’s recall and sale of Housing Co-op homes, and considering the extreme physical and mental stress that many residents have been subjected to under this policy, I presume the following Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is why Lambeth don’t consider there to be enough vulnerable people in the Shortlife Co-op communities to justify ensuring relevant Shortlife officers undergo CRB checks http://wp.me/p3uiFC-io.

By not requiring officers to undergo these checks, Lambeth presumably considers there to be very few vulnerable people in the Shortlife community.  We beg to disagree! If you have any prolonged contact with Shortlife, you’ll know this is a wrong assumption… Shortlife residents are members of self-supporting groups made up of many clearly vulnerable people.

In ‘Stage 1, point 1.5’, it says: ‘…The ultimate negative impact on all shortlife tenancies is eviction.  In the vast majority of cases this will not be necessary as occupiers accept the alternative accommodation offered…’

Tell that to our colleague who had a heart attack a few days before he was due in court. And it wasn’t just a heart attack – he ended up in a coma for many weeks and is now severely disabled in hospital. Actually, you may not be able tell him anything because he’s lost his hearing, and it’s not clear how much he understands of what’s being communicated anymore.

On a cheerier note though, Lambeth are now threatening to take imminent unchallenged possession of his home and force the eviction of his housemates – so that’s more filthy lucre in Lambeth’s back pocket, at least. Every cloud blah blah blah…

Back to the EIA, reading through the document, it becomes clear that it acknowledges that there is no data available for the majority of Shortlife households… hardly a thorough assessment then, is it?

Lambeth repeatedly told the press that Shortlife Co-ops were consulted regarding recall, but despite the assurance in this document that consultations would take place, nothing ever materialised. And if that fundamental bit of democracy-in-action didn’t get followed through with, how can we trust anything Lambeth’s Equality Impact Statement says?

So, here is the (inadequate) EIA, written up by Lambeth, regarding the Shortlife recall policy formulated in 2007. As far as we can see, there isn’t a more recent assessment.

One last thing… the assessment says that all the evictions will be carried out by the secondaries – Family, L&Q etc etc, but it didn’t happen like this. Essentially, it appears that there is NO Equality Impact Assessment associated with Lambeth council’s eviction of Co-op residents. Oops.

This EIA was on the Lambeth Council website November 2013, though it doesn’t seem to be there now. It was a downloadable doc at this URL:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C7805F1E-BC9B-41E8-A730-DB7225AEB127/0/shortlifeEIA3.doc

It was originally formatted to a template, so we’ve had to tidy it up a bit, however, we didn’t remove or change any text and we haven’t created any gaps or spaces… most of the assessment simply wasn’t filled in at all.

LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH
EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE
Policy: Shortlife recall Strategy

Department: Housing, Regeneration and Environment

Lead Officer Carrying out the assessment: Quality and Equalities Manager

Others to be involved in the process i.e. provide the challenge function:     Interim Assistant Director, Strategy and Partnerships
Stage 1

Risk assessment of discrimination or adverse impact
This section needs to be completed at the start of the development of Policies, Procedures, Practices and Processes (to include projects, strategies, service reviews and re-structures)

1.1     Please provide a brief description of the policy and its key objectives.

Lambeth has been pursuing a policy of disposing of its shortlife properties since 1997.  Housing Committee at that time took a decision to a recall programme of about 1,000 properties.  The policy has resulted in just over 50% of the 1,000 properties either being returned to Lambeth for use in general stick, being disposed of at auction, being sold to Housing Associations for refurbishment.  The current strategy dated 22nd November 2007, and it is this strategy that is being risk assessed against discrimination and or adverse impact.  The strategy states that “it is particularly focussed on the disposal of the “remaining” properties (388).  

1.2      Please state whether this policy is likely to be equally accessed by all different equalities groups or affect all employees in the same way? If not can this be justified?
Please see Appendix 1, Section 1  for a full description of equalities groups.

The shortlife recall strategy concentrates primarily on the 388 properties.  The properties are mainly large Victorian street properties, some of which are divided into separate self contained units, some shared houses in multiple occupation and the remaining being single unit dwellings.  

The properties are held under short term licences to RSL’s who manage them in line with their policy and procedure.  The RSL’s do on occasion pass the day to day management of the shortlife property to another agency, a co-op or small RSL.

The outcome of the strategy is that the options for the legitimate occupier of the property is that they have :

Opportunity to purchase the property

An offer of reasonable alternative accommodation that meets need assistance to secure accommodation in the private rented sector

It is assumed that most households will over the next eighteen months to two years be provided with a suitable offer of alternative accommodation in accordance with Lambeth’s Allocations Property and needs will be taken into consideration based on the policy and procedures in place.

There will be a need to look very closely at rent arrears, where the shortlife tenant may in rent arrears, how will this impact on gaining alternative accommodation?

Currently the intent of the strategy, the consultation process, the terms of licence treats all shortlife tenants in the same way.

Statistical analysis has been carried out on all current live applications in B and C against shortlife live applicants in Band C.  All shortlife applicants have been put on the housing register as Band C.

Gender of Head of Household

                          % of live Band C apps    % of live Shortlife Band C apps
Male                               63%                                                 59%
Female                          41%                                                 37%

Known disability in household

                           % of live Band C apps    % of live Shortlife Band C app
Disabled                         46%                                              15%
Not disabled                 53%                                               85%

The biggest significance of those all those currently in Band C with active applications.  In effect those in shortlife are being given the same priority who are disabled over this statistical sample.  Bearing in mind that the data is based on “Group C supply transfers – Register” which is “moved on from supported housing and care leavers etc”

Ethnicity
The ethnic groups are those taken from all those current in Band C with active applications – this is not a full spectrum of ethnicity

                                    % of live Band C apps    % of live Shortlife Band C app
White                                         26                                                15
Black African                          26                                                29
RNR                                            10                                                 10
Other                                           5                                                   2
Black Caribbean                     12                                                  15
Mixed                                           7                                                   10
White Other                               7                                                   10
Irish                                              3                                                    2
Asian Pakistan                          1                                                    2
Asian Other                                3                                                    2

Age

There is no discernable difference on the age range of those as a % of live Band C applicants as those as a % of shortlife Band c applicants

                                     % of band c apps    % of live shortlife band c apps
21 – 30                                   7                                                 2
31 – 40                                 33                                               27
41 – 50                                 29                                               35
51 –  60                                 23                                               27
61 – 70                                   8                                                6

Are there any obvious barriers that are likely to restrict access to the service, employment or benefits of the policy to different equalities groups?

No.  However, it has to be pointed out that each RSL with the current responsibility for your property will be in communications with their own shortlife tenants.  This will include sending a notice of seeking possession.  The responsibility for returning the property to Lambeth rests with the RSL.  
Each household will be contacted or visited to establish the legal status as an occupant and the options that may be available to your household.   This programme of consultation involves:
To reiterate, rent arrears might be an issue and the issue of rent arrears needs to be determined with the household.

1.4    Does the policy target or exclude any specific equality group? If so, can you justify this exclusion?

No.  A data collection exercise of the household makeup and profile of each shortlife tenancy is currently in place.  The data held by the RSL’s on each of their shortlife tenancies in question is not robust.  
A programme of consultation has begun which involves meeting with tenants and explaining their legal rights to them around the recall strategy.  This is being carried out by the shortlife team.   
This consultation is continuing for those areas where the shortlife team are yet to engage.
It is currently unclear as to the household profile of the tenancies but currently data is held on 1/3 of the 388 properties following visits.
The team are due to produce a newsletter/leaflet explaining what is happening.  This to be in plain English and if appropriate following more information on the household profile be offered in different formats/languages to meet need.

1.5     How will this policy promote equal opportunities and good relationships     between all equalities groups?
The ultimate negative impact on all shortlife tenancies is eviction.  In the vast majority of cases this will not be necessary as occupiers accept the alternative accommodation offered.  For those shortlife tenancies who are given an offer of permanent accommodation offered in accordance with the Allocation Policy as regards shortlife occupancy, would be as part of the Allocations Policy under Part V1 Housing Act 1996.
It is welcomed that the shortlife team are attempting to deal with shortlife tenancies in a band higher than C under choice based lettings allocations policy.
The access time allocated to households on the choice based lettings system should be sufficient to enable them to:
offer and take up advocacy support if the household are not in a position to access the CBL site
enable households to stay in the area if they so wish – community group support, continuity of medical care, schools, family support, faith groups, or are older and are used to living in their particularly area and a move might impact on their welfare
It is not clear if there are people living in the tenancies who may be disabled and have aids and adaptations to support them.  Or indeed if aids and adaptations to support them have been installed – the issue of supporting people at home will need to taken into consideration during consultation and access to CBL

1.6     Based on your analysis what is the proposed Impact Assessment Level (High, Medium, Low) of the policy?
Please see Appendix 1, Section 2  for a full description of Impact Assessment Levels
Low

Stage 2

Use of research and data to predict impact
This section focuses on identifying whether the proposed policy may have an adverse impact on equality of opportunity for some equalities groups or on relations between different equalities groups and how this can be addressed.
2.1    Please provide a response to the following questions:
(i)    What is the purpose (aims / objectives) of the policy?

(ii)     Who does the policy intend to benefit and how?

(iii)     Who might be adversely affected by the policy?

(iv)    Who are the main stakeholders in relation to this policy?

(v)     What outcomes do these stakeholders want from this policy?

(vi)    How do these outcomes support or hinder other policies / values /     objectives of the public authority?

(vii)     Does the policy have any specially designed measures to promote     equality of opportunity and Community Cohesion?

What are the conclusions from a thorough audit and analysis of available research about the impact the policy would have on different equalities groups?
Please see Appendix 1, Section 3 for a more detailed description of the     information that should be included in this section.

What are the main conclusions from the consultation on the proposed policy?
Please see Appendix 1, Section 4  for a more detailed description of     Information     that should be included in this section.

2.4    Based upon the above research, analysis and consultation, what are     the     main conclusions of the equality impact assessment?

Stage 3

Options and decisions on proposal to implement policy

This section should set out what you need to do to deal with any adverse impact or identified lack of positive impact of the policy.

Does the Equality Impact Assessment reveal that:

The policy unlawfully discriminates?
There is an adverse impact upon one or more equalities groups or sub-groups?
The policy fails to promote equality of access or opportunity?
Can any of the above be justified?

Please describe that the measures that you might take to lessen any adverse impact?

Please note that in your response you will need to consider the following:
Ways of dealing with any adverse impact
Where the adverse impact is likely to be unlawful, the policy or the specific element of the policy must be changed or abandoned, or another way found to meet the policy objectives
If the assessment reveals that some equality groups or sub-groups have distinct needs, can these be met either within the proposed policy or by separate means?

Please state if the Policy should be implemented?

Please note that the following factors need to considered in the decision to implement the policy:

How important is the function or policy?
What is the potential impact of the function or policy?
Can any adverse impact be avoided or lessened by taking other steps to compensate?
Are there any alternatives?
Is the adverse impact justified within the wider aims of the overall function or policy?
Will the Policy be a barrier in promoting good relations between different groups?

3.4    What are the key recommendations of the equality impact assessment?

3.5    Please use this section to develop an Action Plan to implement the key      recommendations of the equality impact assessment:
Please note that this Action Plan should address any concerns or issues related to equality and diversity that have been identified in the equality impact assessment
This plan should be integrated into the appropriate divisional or departmental Service Plan.

Recommendations:
Actions Required:                                                                                                                   Timeframe:                                                                                                                                       Resources required / Costs:                                                                                                                  Lead Officer
Responsible:                                                                                                                    Relevant Performance Indicator:

Stage 4

Arrangements for future monitoring and review

Please use this section to outline in detail the monitoring that will take place as the policy is implemented and the process that will be followed to review the monitoring information.

4.1    What are the key performance indicators or targets that will be used to monitor the effectiveness of this policy?

4.2    Can existing monitoring procedures that you are using be adapted to collect the additional information required in relation to this policy?

4.3    What monitoring techniques and tools will be most effective?

4.4    Who will need the monitoring information?

4.5    In what format will the monitoring information be published and who will     review it?

Appendix 1

Section 1                                                                                                                                        Description of equalities groups that should be considered in the impact assessment

Race    BME Communities (if general), Black African, Refugee Communities etc. (if specific)
Disability    Disabled people (if general), people with learning disabilities, Blind/Visually Impaired people etc.
Gender    Women, Female headed households, Men, Transgender people
Age    People over state retirement age, 16-21 year olds, Children
Sexual Orientation    Lesbians, Gay men, Bisexual People
Religion    Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs etc

Section 2                                                                                                                                                   Full description of Impact Assessment Levels

High Level Impact Assessment
If a policy is considered to have a potentially high impact in relation to the equality issues/categories then it will need a very detailed and thorough review.  This is likely to involve:
Research / consultation based on the specific policy proposals
Research / consultation across the full range of equality groups (for example, different ethnic groups, faith groups, different sexes, disabled and non-disabled people, gay men, lesbians and different age groups).  There should be justification for gaps in research/consultation, perhaps the potential impact of the Policy on one group at stage one was low and therefore you do not need to provide as extensive consultation at this stage.
Significant critical friend challenge from outside the organisation

Medium Level Impact Assessment
If a policy is considered to have a potentially medium impact in relation to the equality issues/categories: Needs a reasonably detailed and thorough review.  This is likely to involve:
Consultation based on the specific Policy proposals
Consultation across a range of equality groups.
Some degree of external challenge.

Low Level Impact Assessment
If the policy is considered to have a potentially low impact in relation to the equality issues/categories: Needs a review that is likely to involve:
Previous research and consultation
Addressing issues across the range of equality groups.

Section 3                                                                                                                                       Information on Data and Research that is reviewed

In your response in Stage 2.2 of the template you should please mention what available data, research, results of consultation etc. that you have reviewed or carried out in the process of developing the policy and what does it indicate on the take-up, usage of services and other outcomes of the proposed policy.

This section of the template should also be used to clearly identify and document gaps and inadequacies in the data, explain how these will be addressed and how the future impact of the policy will be monitored.

Please note that you might need to conduct research as a part of the Equality Impact Assessment. Where you have identified at Stage 1 that the potential impact of the policy is high you will have to justify where you have not conducted research.

Section 4                                                                                                                                         Information on consultation

Stage 2.3 of the Template should be used to describe how you have consulted with key stakeholders in the process of developing the policy to obtain their views on how robust the policy is and how well it will meet the needs of all equalities groups.

If you have any relevant recent consultation / research that has been gathered in the process of developing the policy then it can be used for the Equality Impact Assessment.  If you do not then you will have to undertake consultation and /or research as part of the assessment process if you have identified a potentially medium or high impact of the policy on different equalities groups at stage 1. You will need to justify where you have not done so.

The depth and degree of any consultation and / or research will be determined by the relevance that the policy has to different groups. Those who are likely to be directly affected by the policy should be consulted, e.g. service users and potential users from the different equalities groups, appropriate staff and relevant interest groups.
Please see the Corporate Consultation Toolkit  for further guidance on effective approaches to consultation.

Lambeth Council Deceit Exposed

A very illuminating document, probably written in the mid-1990’s, plopped onto my doormat the other day.

This document has been included in disclosures to, and by, Devonshires. This action obviously validates the authenticity of the document.

Thank you to the person who gave me the document, and thanks too, to the anonymous person who actually wrote the ‘South London Shortlife Development Forum’ report, copied below. From the information included in the report, I believe that the person who wrote the document, even back then, wasn’t entirely comfortable with the deceit being perpetrated by Lambeth Council.

Lambeth Council has systematically lied and cheated 1000’s of Lambeth residents. Housing Co-operative residents have been cynically manipulated by this corrupt and dishonest Local Authority.

Lambeth Council should be held accountable for their malfeasance.

Finally, after 20 years, the relentlessly appalling behaviour exhibited by Lambeth Council, Lib Peck, Peter Robbins, Sue Foster, Devonshires, Peter Drake et al makes a very nasty kind of sense…

First, the story of a court case that took place in 1990/1991, then see the document that show why Lambeth Council has been treating Shortlife Housing Co-operative residents so cynically.

…

In 1969, an area around Lillieshall Road, SW4 was declared a clearance area under Part III of the Housing Act 1957. In 1971, the area was CPO’d for slum clearance and in the early/mid 1970’s Lambeth Council began purchasing the houses. The plan was to demolish the cottages and build a small estate.

Before demolition could take place, the Clapham Society managed to get the properties listed and this effectively stopped Lambeth’s plan to clear and develop the land in Lillieshall Road.

Then Lambeth Council, in the mid/late 1970’s, began to allow a ‘quasi-squatting’ situation to develop, I say ‘quasi-squatting’ because the keys to properties were being handed out by the Council’s own neighbourhood officers. There were no official tenancies involved, but the Council was allowing young people and families to move into, and live in, the derelict buildings.

In 1980, in order to formalise this ‘quasi-squatting’ situation, the residents were told to form a Housing Co-operative and that licenses to occupy would then be granted.
The Council assigned a Housing Association, Solon, to oversee the sub-licensing of the houses, effectively creating a legal barrier between the residents (Lillieshall Road Housing Co-op) and the owners (Lambeth Council).

Individual residents signed 5 year license agreements with Solon, beginning in 1981 and lasting until 1986.

However, we now know that there was no license between Lambeth Council and Solon during the 1980’s. Repeated requests, over many years, have failed to unearth any valid license (pre-1990) referring to the Lillieshall Road properties. Recently, Lambeth Council’s Shortlife officer, Peter Drake, stated that the only license that had ever covered the Lillieshall Road properties, was dated 1990, and this license didn’t even include every house managed by the Co-op, only those that had received, or were about to receive, small amounts of funding for refurbishment.

So, in 1981, Solon licensed the properties to individuals in the Co-op, but Solon themselves did not have a license with Lambeth Council.

In 1990, at the request of Lambeth Council, Lillieshall Road Housing Co-op attempted to evict a resident who had stopped participating in the functioning of the Co-op. The Co-op agreed to do this because it was told to sort out any problems within the group, in order to become a Permanent Co-op, an outcome that would give the Co-op residents leave to remain in their homes indefinitely.

Up until this point, the Co-op was functioning extremely well, resident participation was high, rent payment was excellent and the Co-op were following the formalities, stipulated by both Lambeth Council and Solon Housing Association, that would enable the Shortlife Co-op to become a Permanent Co-op.

Lillieshall Road Housing Co-op was officially recommended for Permanent Co-op status.

However, before Lillieshall Road HC managed to achieve Permanency, the attempted eviction in 1990/1991 (at the behest of Lambeth Council) changed everything.

At the initial 1990 hearing, the Co-op was awarded possession against the defendants, but the defendants were allowed to Appeal this decision. In this initial hearing, much of the case revolved around what plans the Council had for the land that the Co-op properties sat on.
The Judge, with Lambeth’s understanding and agreement (Lambeth was represented by Housing officer, Fiona Jamieson), declared that the residents would have been regarded as Secure Tenants of Lambeth had there not been development plans for the  land.

However, during the 1991 Appeal, it was proven that the development plans were not valid, because

1. the properties were listed buildings and could not be demolished
2. the Department of the Environment refused Lambeth Council permission to convert the properties into flats

The result of the Appeal was that the residents the Co-op were attempting to evict, were declared Secure Tenants. Referring back to the initial hearing, the Secure Tenancy was obviously with Lambeth Council.

The big issue here is:

Lambeth failed in it’s duty to give Secure Tenancies to many of the residents it allowed to occupy ‘Shortlife’ properties.

The development plans were invalidated before the Co-op existed,  before the newly formed Co-op became involved with Solon and before any individual agreements between residents and Solon (as the intermediary, aka the ‘Secondary’) were ever signed.

The issuing of Shortlife licenses was legally dependent on the properties being on land designated for development. But the land was not development land (due to the success of the Clapham Society in getting the houses listed and then the Department of the Environment’s refusal to allow conversion of the houses into flats).

Therfore, the failure of Lambeth Council to issue Secure Tenancies to authorised residents occupying Council properties, on land that could not be developed, was illegal.

After the late 1991 Appeal, Lambeth’s attitude to Shortlife Housing Co-operatives changed radically. Perhaps naively, Lillieshall Road Housing Co-op had no real idea why, at the time.

Lillieshall Road Housing Co-operative was repeatedly threatened with eviction from about 1993 onwards, the previous promises of Permanency disappeared, Lambeth refused to tell the Co-op whether they were even licensed or not.

Now, in black and white, spelling out Lambeth Council’s efforts to avoid their legal duties, is a report written by the South London Shortlife Development Forum, referring to the legal status of Shortlife residents.

Devonshires, Lambeth’s own legal team, is referred to as advising that Shortlife residents were probably Secure Tenants.

The report rounds up with:

“…Councils only want to have to deal with the problem when faced with requiring vacant possession of the properties for disposal or development and then are trying to exert pressure on individual associations to mislead the Courts in order to obtain possession…”

Read the Brixton Blog’s article about the ‘dirty tricks’ campaign that Councillor O’Malley was told about by a council officer, and read an earlier blog on here, the last but one paragraph, referring to Devonshire’s and Lambeth’s campaign of misinformation.

Now it’s all starting to make sense, Lambeth Council has acted deceitfully for decades. It’s treatment of Co-op residents has been designed to scare people away from fighting possession orders and evictions. Threats of tens of thousands of pounds in ‘occupancy’ charges; vulnerable people being ill-treated; misinformation constantly being repeated by Council officers and the obvious avoidance, by the Council, of any kind of constructive or equitable negotiation… the Council has been trying to get through the whole of the Shortlife recall without having to confront, or even acknowledge, the illegality of the treatment of Shortlife Housing Co-op residents in the borough.

Thousands of people who, in all likelihood, should have been Secure Tenants of Lambeth since the 1970’s, have been forcibly evicted from their homes.

The £100,000’s raised by the Co-ops, and individual members of Co-ops, spent on maintaining and re-building their homes, was effectively used by the Council to simply increase the profits made when Shortlife homes were eventually sold.

Lambeth Council has systematically lied and cheated 1000’s of Lambeth residents.

Housing Co-operative residents have been cynically manipulated by this corrupt and dishonest Local Authority.

Lambeth Council should be held accountable for their malfeasance.

Lambeth Council knows best… ignores Secretary of State

The Secretary of State, in 2005, specified the following points be followed by Lambeth Council should they sell any council houses:

General consent A.3.1 permits the disposal of a vacant dwelling house to an individual, who intends to use it as his only or principle home, for a consideration equal to it’s market value.

General consent A3.2 permits the disposal of a vacant dwelling house to any person for a consideration equal to it’s market value, where the dwelling house is in need of substantial works of repair, improvement or conversion and that person enters into a covenant to carry out those works and then to dispose of the dwelling house or any dwelling house created from it to an individual who intends to use it or any dwelling house created from it as his only or principle home.

Well, here’s 14 Lillieshall Road, SW4. Former CPO’d property, slated for demolition, saved from the wrecking ball by the Clapham Society. Former Housing Co-operative home (a Co-op home for 31 years). Resident forced out by Lambeth council and property sold at public auction in 2012.

This property has been rented out for at least the last 6 months, and is now on it’s second or third lot of tenants. The house next door, #16, has just been sold, will Lambeth allow the same thing to happen here, too?

Lambeth the cooperative council?

ROFLMFAO

Illegal sale of Co-op Housing to developers – discuss

Last week, outside the West Indian Ex-Serviceman’s Club in Clapham Manor Street, after a Labour Party meeting that had been demo’d, an honourable Shortlife refusnik got into conversation with Nigel Haselden, a Clapham Town Ward councilor.

Two things came out of this (well, two things until she remembers what else they talked about) –

1.  Nigel said that he’d seen planning applications submitted for the Clapham Community houses (on North Street, SW4) that had been sold and were being developed. He said he thought that, because of details in the planning applications, most (possibly all) of the terrace had been bought by a single developer/group…

Hmmm, this looks like it might be illegal, Nigel…what are you doing about it?

Read Lambeth council’s (rather boring, sorry) report on Shortlife Housing, dated 25 July 2011, here are the relevant sections –

(Just before you start ploughing through, I apologise for having to include this part at all… if I hadn’t been writing this myself, I’d skip it, though I think having written it out has helped me understand it a bit better)

Point 4.5 says:

The Secretary of State issued general consents in 2005.

Point 4.6 says:

These general consents cover disposals to both individuals and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). Where a disposal does not fit within one of the general consents, specific consent may be required.

Point 4.7 says:

General consent A.3.1 permits the disposal of a vacant dwelling house to an individual, who intends to use it as his only or principle home, for a consideration equal to it’s market value.

Point 4.8 says:

General consent A3.2 permits the disposal of a vacant dwelling house to any person for a consideration equal to it’s market value, where the dwelling house is in need of substantial works of repair, improvement or conversion and that person enters into a covenant to carry out those works and then to dispose of the dwelling house or any dwelling house created from it to an individual who intends to use it or any dwelling house created from it as his only or principle home.

Point 4.9 says:

General consent 5.1.1 permits the disposal of one vacant house or vacant flat or vacant converted house to any individual for a consideration equal to it’s market value, provided that the purchaser (alone or with others) has not, under the consent (A5.1.1) acquired another dwelling house from the Council previously in the same year.

So, have I understood this correctly?

• An individual or a group can only buy one property within a financial year.
• A property is to be used as a purchaser’s only, or principle, home.

Therefore, no buying of multiple properties, and no renting out? Not unless specific consents have been granted, anyhow.

Many of us are aware of properties being rented out very soon after purchase, and we suspect that more than one house has been bought by an individual or consortium of individuals. This seems to be illegal. We have repeatedly referred to properties being rented out, and multiple purchases by individuals, in correspondence with Lambeth council but the matter has been completely ignored.

Is Lambeth council willfully complicit in the illegal sale of properties to developers?

and here’s the second thing that came out of the conversation –

2.  Nigel was waxing lyrical about how he’d had a poignant experience a few days earlier… he’d watched one of the Rectory Gardens community walking from the bright light of Larkhall Rise, into the dark of the Gardens, and he said how he’d thought, with sadness, that that wouldn’t happen for much longer, the community would be broken up, the homes sold and the houses developed.

Haselden, when it was suggested that he should support the Shortlife communities then, was visibly taken aback that anyone could propose he act against Party policy. He said that supporting Party policy was more important than any thoughts or beliefs that he had personally…

Be warned, whatever Nigel Haselden says means nothing, unless it agrees with policy. That explains the initial support he gave the Co-ops, then the stab in the back he delivered when he voted in support of the eviction of Co-op residents and the sale of our homes.

The eviction of low-waged, co-operative communities in Lambeth, is OFFICIAL Lambeth Labour policy

Suspension of Eviction re: Charmain Lodge, raises serious questions

It’s great news that Charmain Lodge is no longer going to be evicted on Thursday morning.

After weeks of frantic action by Charmain and her friends, neighbours and supporters, she will be now be allowed to remain in her long-term home for a while longer, and will be offered SUITABLE rehousing.

However, despite this good news, the content of Lib Peck’s email raises serious questions about the murky processes that ferment in the bowels of Lambeth council…

1.  “…I have done so because on listening to you yesterday I was struck by…”

So, it takes a personal audience with Lib Peck (in public), complete with a baring of one’s soul,  to ensure that a vulnerable person, with supporting documentation from medical professionals, is treated fairly by Lambeth council. That begs the question, what happens to all those other vulnerable people that Lambeth is evicting, those people who don’t have the support of activists with political savvy, who don’t have the support of neighbours and friends, who are unable to bare their souls, who are simply too ill to fight?

2.  Lib Peck appreciates “…that the properties you have been offered to date did not seem appropriate to you at that stage…”

So why has it been impossible to get any council officers or Labour councillors (apart from Councillor O’Malley) to similarly accept this rather important fact?

The Judge at Charmain’s eviction hearing a few weeks ago, acknowledged that Lambeth hadn’t offered suitable rehousing to Charmain, and recognised that Lambeth council, in fact, chose not to do this, although it was asked to… unfortunately, the Judge didn’t have the power to make Lambeth offer suitable rehousing, which is why the eviction was finally granted.

The lesson from this is – Lambeth will not necessarily offer suitable rehousing unless it’s poked with a very sharp stick.  In this instance, the sharp stick has been public opinion and pressure from grass-roots activists.

I’ll say that again, quite loudly…

public opinion and pressure from grass-roots activists has forced Lambeth council to suspend the eviction of, and to actively offer suitable rehousing to, a vulnerable resident

Of course, this doesn’t alter the fact that Lambeth council is still pursuing the eviction of many other vulnerable Housing Co-op residents, simply because the homes they’ve lived in, and personally maintained, for 30+ years are now worth some money (rather than being designated part of a slum clearance programme, as was the case when Lambeth originally allowed us to move into them).

3.  “…I believe you and have taken this in good faith….”

Does this mean that, had Lib Peck not believed her, Charmain would still be facing eviction on Thursday?  Sorry?!  If this one, single individual (intentional tautology there) had not subjectively felt some kid of empathy, or sympathy, for Charmain, then Charmain’d be out on her ear in a couple of days time?  Really?!!!!

Is Lambeth’s housing system simply dependent on the personal opinion of whichever council officer deals with a case? Cross your fingers you don’t get someone who hates poor people or Black people or White people or Asian people or gay people or people with red hair or people with big feet or women or men or cat owners or people who wear their knickers over their tights (insert any stereotypical description of yourself).

Procedures are supposed to be in place that stop exactly this kind of personal opinion from interfering with a housing policy that is supposedly based on need. Except, in Lambeth council, the Housing department is in chaos and the housing system is wide open to mismanagement and manipulation.

Lambeth council is bending over backwards to sell council housing as quickly as possible – the forced evictions of residents (based on the council’s drive for money and it’s unstated policy of disposing of all social housing)  is part of this process.

Lambeth council is, simultaneously, bending over backwards to provide land and buildings for property developers to exploit – the forced eviction of  residents is also part of this process.

Lambeth’s (highly paid) council officers tell councilors what to do. Our council representatives in Lambeth do not seem to have the power to act on our behalf. That means, our lives are presided over, and being dumped upon, by a bunch of jumped-up admin workers (err, I like admin work – it’s the OCD in me – that’s not what I’m criticising).

4.  “…Politically, we remain committed to recalling short life properties…” That actually means:

Lambeth Labour remains committed to selling council housing.

Lambeth Labour remains committed to evicting vulnerable residents. 

Lambeth Labour remains committed to a policy of decimating Housing Co-ops.

…

Here’s exactly what Lib wrote to Charmain:

“Charmaine,

I have asked the lawyers to call off the eviction for Thursday.

I have done so because on listening to you yesterday I was struck by your personal battle against depression and by your determination to stay in recovery; and could appreciate that the properties you have been offered to date did not seem appropriate to you at that stage.

You stated yesterday that you were not challenging the decision that meant you had to move but rather wanted more time to find a suitable home. I believe you and have taken this in good faith.

However we can not indefinitely delay the process. Politically, we remain committed to recalling short life properties. So I have asked officers to work with you closely to find somewhere for you to live permanently or we will have to return to court. You will need to work with them to secure a new home and we do expect this to be concluded by 1st November.

I have put this in writing rather than phoning you because I understand from various bits of correspondence you did not receive my text last night. I can assure you it was sent. I have double checked and it was sent to the number you gave me so I am not sure what happened.

Best wishes

Lib”

Dodgy politician looks to buy Co-op house after Lambeth council evicts residents

Two Co-op houses in Lillieshall Road are currently up for sale, the Co-op residents were evicted a few weeks ago.

Both sets of residents had been in their homes for at least 34 years, neither household wanted to move, and especially didn’t want to move under threats of homelessness and financial bankruptcy… Unfortunately, Lambeth ( the cooperative council) have other ideas. Lambeth council’s idea of co-operation is to intimidate and coerce, essentially saying ‘move or we’ll impose tens of thousands of pounds of ‘occupation’ charges, and you’ll be homeless’… not much choice there then.

Spotted today, sizing up our homes – Chris Huhne, dodgy, pants-on-fire politician. Can’t wait till he moves in. Oh don’t be stupid, it’ll most likely be a buy-to-let jobbie, which is exactly what’s happened to the rest of our Co-op.

Dishonest? No integrity? Lack of any social conscience? Welcome to Lambeth! You’ll fit right in, mate.

In case of mistaken identity, sorry Mr Huhne (though, as per Lambeth council, don’t believe a word we say).

Lambeth council(l)ors – who do you trust?

Pete Robbins, was deselected by grass-root members of the Larkhall Ward Labour group. They choose to have Adeline Aina (Black! female!) as their candidate for the next council elections.

Pete Robbins kicked up a stink and tried to get Aina’s election barred, this failed. There are suggestions that Robbins, or his supporters, used confidential material to try to undermine her.

http://www.obv.org.uk/node/6512

contrast,

Helen O’Malley, current local councilor for Clapham Town Ward. She has been deselected by Labour’s Campaign Forum, with no reference to Clapham Town Labour group.

The grass-roots Labour members have called for an urgent review of the decision that says O’Malley can’t stand for re-election at the next council elections. Clapham Town Labour group members consider her deselection was unjust (as do many local residents).

Now, looking at the current discussion taking place regarding councilor O’Malley’s statement about Lambeth council’s appalling policy of ridding the borough of Housing Co-ops, who should we believe?

http://www.brixtonblog.com/senior-lambeth-officer-says-policy-is-to-make-life-difficult-for-shortlife-tenants-so-they-go-away-claims-labour-councillor/15969

Do you believe the councilor who the pleb members are supporting (against the wishes of The Party) or the councilor who has (possibly illegally) tried to get The Party to usurp the decision of the pleb members?

Not a difficult choice.

Go ‘Malley.

Please note, I have a problem with the spelling of ‘councilor’ or is that ‘councillor’?  I can never remember which is correct,  I’ll just use both then.