Carlton Mansions co-op, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton - history and news

[Gramsci]

So what did she say in their defence?

The Council Leader?

I know her a bit from when she was Cabinet member for Regeneration and Housing. I used to see her at some consultation events.

Well she listened to what I had to say. She started off about the "intolerable risk" and she did not want it to happen. In the end had a quite long chat with her. She did not know all the detail of what was happening. So I filled her in. Or our assessment.

I did complain about the Council using injunctions in this way. Will keep raising this. Also about the Council hiring Devonshires.

I am not really into ranting at people. With some people its worth trying a bit harder.

With others I realise quite quickly its not worth the bother. Like the Short Life Housing Project Manager. What a job title for someone whose job it is to get rid off people. And likes the job.

As I said to her I do not enjoy dealing with the Council in this adversarial way. It is not the way I like to do things.

I must say it was a surprise to just bump into her. Literally we both turned around same time as saw each other.

I will follow it up.

 

[editor]

If you are up for putting on one of the U75 nights as a Carlton Mansions night that would be appreciated.

Be delighted to! I'll PM you.

 

[critical1]

The Council Leader?

I know her a bit from when she was Cabinet member for Regeneration and Housing. I used to see her at some consultation events.

Well she listened to what I had to say. She started off about the "intolerable risk" and she did not want it to happen. In the end had a quite long chat with her. She did not know all the detail of what was happening. So I filled her in.

So next time there will be no excuse of not knowing anything about such a hot potato, Cllr Rachel Heywood surly should have briefed her, they all read URBAN75 I believe or at least the legal department do.

Why is our local MP Tessa Jowell not asking questions??? after all she is one of the Co-Operative movements standard-bearer for Labour values. Hmmmm

CLick Me --- > https://www.google.com/search?q=Tessa Jowell, and the Co-op&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs

Extremly
Critical1

 

[Gramsci]

So next time there will be no excuse of not knowing anything about such a hot potato, Cllr Rachel Heywood surly should have briefed her, they all read URBAN75 I believe or at least the legal department do.

Critical1

Yes I was a bit surprised thinking about it afterwards that she did not know more.

The high hits on this thread make me a bit careful what I say here. As you say Cllrs and officers lurk here.

Give officers something to do when they are hard at work at there desks. Hello Council officers..

Its partly why I do not go into to many details on here.

 

[critical1]

Yes I was a bit surprised thinking about it afterwards that she did not know more.

The high hits on this thread make me a bit careful what I say here. As you say Cllrs and officers lurk here.

Give officers something to do when they are hard at work at there desks. Hello Council officers..

Its partly why I do not go into to many details on here.

Yes it's a commonly used words " I know nothing about it" "I not fully aware of the situation" " I'm working terribly hard" what are they paid for!!!

Well If you decide to go into detail here be aware the Lambeth Legal will write a nice letter threatening Libel!!! and you'll have to provide evidence. Nice of them to use or money so effectively. To start a Libel case costs apx £230,000 which more than enough to to bring Carlton Mansion up to scratch I should think or at least give it a good start.

Critical1

 

[Gramsci]

Yes it's a commonly used words " I know nothing about it" "I not fully aware of the situation" " I'm working terribly hard" what are they paid for!!!

Well If you decide to go into detail here be aware the Lambeth Legal will write a nice letter threatening Libel!!! and you'll have to provide evidence. Nice of them to use or money so effectively. To start a Libel case costs apx £230,000 which more than enough to to bring Carlton Mansion up to scratch I should think or at least give it a good start.

Critical1

Precisely why I am a bit careful.

Also do not want to give Council ammunition they could try to use against us.

I wonder how much they are shelling out for legal fees? Must be quite a lot already on this imo unnecessary action. Money that could be spent elsewhere.
http://www.brixtonblog.com/12508/12508
Have u seen this? About the bedroom tax. Note the lukewarm support from the Labour Cllr. Other Councils have decided not to evict people because of this.

The Loughborough Estate Tenants and Residents Association is urging the council to not make those tenants leave their homes who face eviction as a result of the changes.
There was unanimous support for a motion urging the council to protect the 170 people on the Loughborough Estate facing a 14% cut in their housing benefit because they have a spare room.
Grace Lally, chair of the association, told a packed meeting earlier this month: “Lambeth is one of the most litigious councils in the country. It’s ridiculous how much the council spends on court actions, making people homeless, which doesn’t save the council money.”

 

[Gramsci]

Carlton Mansions squirrels

We have a lot of wildlife who live around the building.

 

[Gramsci]

Carlton Mansions cat

 

[critical1]

I wonder how much they are shelling out for legal fees? Must be quite a lot already on this imo unnecessary action. Money that could be spent elsewhere.
Have u seen this? About the bedroom tax. Note the lukewarm support from the Labour Cllr. Other Councils have decided not to evict people because of this.

Yes this is true if they had listened to the residents of Loughborough estate earlier they could have saved us all millions, instead they want to go all the way to court!!! or in our case litigation as they want to prove that we will back down!!! But we WILL NOT, as WE ARE RIGHT.
Lambeth is supposed to be Co-Op now but still behave and pursue the dictatorial approach to management with sham consultations( the Brixton Rec sham proves this) just wasting more of our money. The bedroom tax as Grace says is a major issue that our local Cllr Rachel Heywood has ignored and we are the only borough to be implementing such draconian measures to ensure we follow a conservative mandate! What has our MP and Cllr said about this apart from a few airy words.. Actions NONE.

I dont want to rant more here as it take away from Carltons issues. just look for Legal Not Loughborough in the forums for more.

Click here
The Juicy Bits, Lambeth the Co-Op council don't want you to see...
Nothing Libellous here!!!

Critically
Critical1

 

[BBTim]

I wonder how much they are shelling out for legal fees? Must be quite a lot already on this imo unnecessary action. Money that could be spent elsewhere.

I'm putting in a FOI request to Lambeth to try and find out how much they've spent on legal fees on CM and shortlife evictions so far. It must be an absolute fortune. Sadly, though, I fear they may wriggle out of having to answer it.

Mr Grundy's fees alone must be monumental.

 

[Rushy]

The also seek off to get off me £9 780 to date. If there action is successful. Others are potentially in same boat. So they are scaring people to go.

Glad to hear that you had a reprieve and time to sort things out.


What on earth is that £10K for? It presumably can't be legal fees relating to the eviction as that has not been decided yet?
And I guess that if it were unpaid rent they would be pursuing the coop for that - rather than individuals? You have mentioned that the council is taking action individually against occupants so, was it established in court exactly what the coop's status is in the tenancy arrangements?

 

[Manter]

No only £9 780

Devonshire Barrister today helpfully gave me a copy of all the paperwork they have summarising my case.

All part of the service one gets off Lambeth- a Cooperative Council.

why the fuck to they want money off you? That really is just insane fucking bullshit. (not my most articulate comment but seriously....)

 

[Manter]

Do not know why.Urban has a reputation. Where is Manter?

<<waves>> Sorry, @ViolentPanda's pitchforks haven't got me yet

E2A- and for the avoidance of doubt, as well as not being a spy or in the police I don't (snort) work for the council

 

[Winot]

why the fuck to they want money off you? That really is just insane fucking bullshit. (not my most articulate comment but seriously....)

The general rule in a civil case is that the loser pays the winner's legal costs. They will be keeping a (generous) tally and using the threat of it increasing as a tactic to scare Gramsci et al. into giving in. Pretty standard litigation tactic.

 

[teuchter]

Gramsci is everyone back in the building now then? I'd assumed you had to stay out until the court hearing.

 

[Manter]

The general rule in a civil case is that the loser pays the winner's legal costs. They will be keeping a (generous) tally and using the threat of it increasing as a tactic to scare Gramsci et al. into giving in. Pretty standard litigation tactic.

ahha, get you, thx. Seriously nasty behaviour

 

[free spirit]

The general rule in a civil case is that the loser pays the winner's legal costs. They will be keeping a (generous) tally and using the threat of it increasing as a tactic to scare Gramsci et al. into giving in. Pretty standard litigation tactic.

in that case...

Keep weekly timesheets of all time spent by all co-op members on this matter, including reading through all the legal paperwork the keep sending you, and send the council weekly invoices for your time.

Assuming you win, you ought to be entitled to having your time paid for by the council IMO - at the very least it would give a magistrate an idea of the disruption and time costs the councils actions have caused, and a starting point for working out what costs should be awarded against the council. This ought to apply particularly if you're carrying out your own defence.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Council ( or rather this section of it including the Short Life Housing Project Manager who represented the Council at court. ) do not want to work out a compromise.

They are going to pursue this in the courts. Its there job. They get paid to go to court. They are not risking anything themselves.

The also seek off to get off me £9 780 to date. If there action is successful. Others are potentially in same boat. So they are scaring people to go.

That's a disgrace, I'd like to hear someone from the council defending that.

 

[free spirit]

Gramsci have you made an official complaint to the council yet about the Short Life Housing Project Manager, and the actions instigated / statement about not wanting to work out a compromise etc?

If not, please do so, as only once you've made a complaint via the council can you then make a complaint to the local government ombudsman, then once you've done that you can take it to judicial review if necessary.

It sounds like the council is abusing laws that are not intended for use in these situations, as well as abusing the agreement they have with the short life tenancies in these areas, and prejudicing the results of the consultation being carried out for the regeneration plan of which your co-op is an intrinsic part, so multiple grounds for judicial review.

I had a quote of around £10k for the legal costs of taking something to judicial review, as a guide, which IMO ought to be a figure that could be raised with the depth of support you obviously seem to have for this.

You don't need to take this lying down, and you don't need to allow them to dictate the terms of this fight - take the fight to them, put them on the defensive, and they may well decide that compromise is actually not such a bad idea... if not, then please do follow this through as either an ombudsman decision, or judicial review will stop the council's actions in its tracks, not just for you, but for all other short life co-ops etc that might be threatened in this way.

ps If the council officers, and lawyers are reading this - please take note of this post, these options are available, and can be used to stop you from overstepping your legal powers in the way that you clearly seem to be doing. It's not usually seen as a good career move to have an ombudsman or judicial review finding against you, so please take a step back from this and take the compromise agreement that is on offer from the Co-op. You've stirred up a hornets nest here, and a fighting fund can fairly easily be established to force you to stop your attempts to bully this long standing co-op into submission.

As someone who has been part of setting up and managing a £58 million community regeneration programme, I can only say that your approach to this is shockingly bad, and shows a huge amount of disrespect for a long established community who actually have helped to keep that area and prevent that building falling into decay for several decades, at their own expense. If you want to have your actions used as a case study of how not to do regeneration projects, you're going the right way about it at the moment from what I can see.

Obviously it's your call, but if you think about it, you know I'm right here - successful community regeneration programmes do not start by ripping the heart out of the area first.

 

[dotdotdot]

why the fuck to they want money off you? That really is just insane fucking bullshit. (not my most articulate comment but seriously....)

Over in Clapham and Stockwell 'Shortlife', Lambeth are threatening £300+ per week 'occupation charge' if we fight possession in court (backdated to the termination of the license in 2011), then court costs are to be claimed on top of that... it's simple intimidation. Fortunately I'm dirt poor...

 

[Gramsci]

Glad to hear that you had a reprieve and time to sort things out.


What on earth is that £10K for? It presumably can't be legal fees relating to the eviction as that has not been decided yet?
And I guess that if it were unpaid rent they would be pursuing the coop for that - rather than individuals? You have mentioned that the council is taking action individually against occupants so, was it established in court exactly what the coop's status is in the tenancy arrangements?

The court was adjourned.

The issue of the tenancy status is one of the legal aspects of the case that is being argued in court. There was a bit of heated discussion of it in court. Then case was adjourned.

Its the longstanding "Short Life" legal issue of whether there is in fact secure tenancy with the Council.

As dotdotdot says the Council have made up an "occupation charge" that they have backdated. On top of any costs.

 

[Casaubon]

Lambeth’s behaviour in this case is just disgusting, but I’m not surprised. They’re unable to deal with residents on anything but adversarial terms, with Devonshires’ shysters setting the agenda in the most unpleasant and aggressive way possible.

Devonshires may threaten you with potential legal costs, but remember it’s the court that decides these matters, not Devonshires. In my experience the courts haven’t been very sympathetic at all towards Lambeth/Devonshires on costs.

After my case (Rushcroft Rd) had been going on for a couple of years I was threatened with costs of £20K. I felt I had nothing to lose by this point, and accepted the possibility of bankruptcy, or whatever.
Subsequently, the threat lost its power. The case rumbled on, but increasing levels of potential costs didn’t worry me – I might as well be hanged for £50K as for £20K.

After 9 years both sides’ costs totalled more than £200K, if memory serves. The court made Lambeth pay the lot.

My case ended satisfactorily for me. But my blood still boils when I think of how Lambeth spent so much time and money persecuting and destroying our community.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

Lambeth’s behaviour in this case is just disgusting, but I’m not surprised. They’re unable to deal with residents on anything but adversarial terms, with Devonshires’ shysters setting the agenda in the most unpleasant and aggressive way possible.

Devonshires may threaten you with potential legal costs, but remember it’s the court that decides these matters, not Devonshires. In my experience the courts haven’t been very sympathetic at all towards Lambeth/Devonshires on costs.

After my case (Rushcroft Rd) had been going on for a couple of years I was threatened with costs of £20K. I felt I had nothing to lose by this point, and accepted the possibility of bankruptcy, or whatever.
Subsequently, the threat lost its power. The case rumbled on, but increasing levels of potential costs didn’t worry me – I might as well be hanged for £50K as for £20K.

After 9 years both sides’ costs totalled more than £200K, if memory serves. The court made Lambeth pay the lot.

My case ended satisfactorily for me. But my blood still boils when I think of how Lambeth spent so much time and money persecuting and destroying our community.

liked for the fact that Lambeth was made to pay all the costs. At least in your case it looks like the pressure put on last June seem to have abatted abit but the uncertainty certainly can't be any good for anyone living there.

 

[zenie]

Over in Clapham and Stockwell 'Shortlife', Lambeth are threatening £300+ per week 'occupation charge' if we fight possession in court (backdated to the termination of the license in 2011), then court costs are to be claimed on top of that... it's simple intimidation. Fortunately I'm dirt poor...

They can't take what you haven't got

 

[Gramsci]

Gramsci is everyone back in the building now then? I'd assumed you had to stay out until the court hearing.

The injunction was not heard at the first court hearing. As the Judge refused to hear. So it never came into force.

 

[Winot]

This is why the freedom of information request about Lambeth's expediture is so powerful here. If it can be publicised widely just how much money Lambeth is wasting on lawyers, they will lose the sympathy of 'ordinary Lambeth folk', even those not normally disposed to be sympathetic to housing coops.

I can't imagine Councillors would welcome a headline in the SLP along the lines of "Lambeth wastes your council tax on fat cat lawyers whilst school children go without books".

 

[laptop]

The injunction was not heard at the first court hearing. As the Judge refused to hear. So it never came into force.

Which is in itself a good sign with respect to the eventual position on costs. Judges in general really dislike over-clever moves like that injunction.

 

[Manter]

Over in Clapham and Stockwell 'Shortlife', Lambeth are threatening £300+ per week 'occupation charge' if we fight possession in court (backdated to the termination of the license in 2011), then court costs are to be claimed on top of that... it's simple intimidation. Fortunately I'm dirt poor...

I just find that so unpleasant. Threatening people with what is, in effect, years of hassle from debt collectors, bankruptcy etc is immoral. I can just about see why you might do it in a high stakes libel case or international divorce (though I still think it's pretty low behaviour) but to do it to people who just want a home.... god, it makes my blood boil.

 

[Manter]

This is why the freedom of information request about Lambeth's expediture is so powerful here. If it can be publicised widely just how much money Lambeth is wasting on lawyers, they will lose the sympathy of 'ordinary Lambeth folk', even those not normally disposed to be sympathetic to housing coops.

I can't imagine Councillors would welcome a headline in the SLP along the lines of "Lambeth wastes your council tax on fat cat lawyers whilst school children go without books".

Guardian etc must be interested? For a council that is making cuts and whines regularly about having no money (though the regular glossy magazine they put through our door makes me a bit suspicious of that at the best of times) to be pissing money away like this is pretty shabby

 

[critical1]

I just find that so unpleasant. Threatening people with what is, in effect, years of hassle from debt collectors, bankruptcy etc is immoral. I can just about see why you might do it in a high stakes libel case or international divorce (though I still think it's pretty low behaviour) but to do it to people who just want a home.... god, it makes my blood boil.

Well DameTessa Jowell MP is very clear & silent... as is Cllr Rachel Heywood...
This is what they said at the CO-OPERATIVE PARTY ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2011

TJ-
"The formation of co-operative councils and our work as community organisers can rebuild those long-term relationships that will once again put us at the centre of our communities. Whether we organise days of local community action, like we did in my constituency, campaign around housing security as they have done in Enfield or campaign for a living wage – we have the power and the ideas to lead the rest of the country in once again bringing our party back to the centre of community life."

RH-
Talking about being a “Co-operative Borough”,"driving unprecedented change, quite transformative with fairness and accountability".

A new innovative way of working with communities...
Critical1