Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Here's the statement from Cllr Rachel Heywood. It looks like the court appearance is just a fait accompli for the immediate eviction.
Dear [urban75 editor]

You are quite right in saying that the situation with Carlton Mansions has moved extremely rapidly and with less time for discussion and the exploration of alternative options that I, personally, would have wished for.

In fact my preference is that we continue to work productively with CMHC (Carlton Mansions Housing Co-Op) to develop a good solution for the redevelopment of Somerleyton rd which includes CMHC.

There is no reason why we cannot continue to do this, but nor can we ignore the gravity of the findings of the fire risk assessment.

This has placed an urgent duty upon the council to vacate the building because of "intolerable" levels of risk.

I am truly sorry that the members of CMHC are in this dreadful position but I do not believe that there is any immediate alternative.

We have met with representatives of the group several times in the last few weeks to try and find the best possible solution under very difficult circumstances.

My ward colleagues and I met with residents last week and understand that a fire safety inspection was being carried out for CMHC by the London fire brigade at the weekend; we are looking forward to hearing about their findings which might offer a way ahead in the medium term.

For now of course we cannot accept a situation in which people living in a Lambeth council owned property and for whom we therefore have a particular duty of care are placed at an intolerable level of risk.

We have done our best to find temporary Accommodation which will enable the cooperative to continue to live together and the council will be offering intensive support to members.
Click to expand...
 
Is "intolerable risk" a standard technical fire assessment term used n the report or is it the council members' conclusion after reading the report?

Has the coop carried out any safety assessments over the years?
 
i wonder if this is in the context of housing departments being extra twitchy over fire risks since the Lakanal House fire, which begs the question of how and why has this been allowed to be left in such a state an extreme option like this is required.
 
Dan U said:
i wonder if this is in the context of housing departments being extra twitchy over fire risks since the Lakanal House fire, which begs the question of how and why has this been allowed to be left in such a state an extreme option like this is required.
Click to expand...
Totally unrelated to all the new redevelopment in the area, obvs.
 
Dan U said:
i wonder if this is in the context of housing departments being extra twitchy over fire risks since the Lakanal House fire, which begs the question of how and why has this been allowed to be left in such a state an extreme option like this is required.
Click to expand...

Councils are being twitchy about Lakanal - even if the coroners recommendations related solely to high rise developments. The scale of the criticism for Southwark means that local authorities are scrapping to ensure all multi-occupancy buildings have up to date assessments. Lambeth is no different in that regard. I would not be surprised if the council did try and use Lakanal as justification to some degree.
 
One question; what is the benefit to Lambeth of evicting everyone now instead of in a couple of years time (which the housing co-op have already agreed to, yes?) if we are assuming their motivations are not to do with a genuine concern about fire safety issues?
 
The Lakhanal House tragedy will be wheeled out as a convenient excuse to justify the council's actions in this and other cases...and already has been by Cllr Rachel Heywood. Which is dispicable imo.

It's a bit like how terrorism was used to justify more restrictive laws and extra police powers post 9/11 - very difficult to argue against.
 
Brixton Hatter said:
teuchter Allow the building to fall into disrepair so they can demolish it, get rid of the mural, more cash from the developers?
Click to expand...
Maybe yes.

Not sure it's entirely fair to compare fire risk in multi occupancy buildings (which is a very real danger) with hyped-up fears about terrorism. I think it's right that the camberwell fire should provoke councils into taking things more seriously. I don' think we should criticise councils for identifying fire risks. It's what they do about it that needs to be scrutinised.
 
teuchter said:
Maybe yes.

Not sure it's entirely fair to compare fire risk in multi occupancy buildings (which is a very real danger) with hyped-up fears about terrorism. I think it's right that the camberwell fire should provoke councils into taking things more seriously. I don' think we should criticise councils for identifying fire risks. It's what they do about it that needs to be scrutinised.
Click to expand...
How does the set up work? Is the Coop in essence a sub-landlord? Does the coop have any H&S responsibilities?
 
Spent 3 hours in court. Most of it waiting.

About six of us went at short notice.

Upshot was that we were called then everything stopped. The usher came out and said that the Judge was not happy about the procedure the Council were using. The use of an injunction in this way is not usual. An injunction is normally used against stalkers or about harassment.

So we are outside court. Judge gets the Lambeth lot in for private chat.

Lambeth legal team come plus the so called Short Life manager come out and say they will instead be seeking possession orders.

Then a lot of time whilst they get new date. It appears that a date had been set. We were never told about this despite the meetings we had with Council and Cllrs.

So court date brought forward to end of May.

From what I could get out of Lambeth Barrister the whole exercise this morning was a waste of everyones time. Except the legal team and officers who are all being paid for being there.

I asked Lambeths barrister whether there was a legal problem with using an injunction in this way. He was non committal.

So I reckon the Judge had told Lambeth legal lot that this was not the correct way to do things.

What a shambles.

This caused a great deal of distress to individual Coop members. Lambeth Barrister kept on coming down in the long period we waited to try and do individual deals with people. Offering them two weeks to leave rather on end of week ( which he had been instructed to get by Coop Council Lambeth).

imo the whole exercise was bullying. Lambeth are trying to kick people out of there homes with an offer of B&B ( at a cost to the individual) and then "assessment" of there needs.

Trying to use an injunction really scared a lot of people. Its hard to explain unless u have been on the receiving end of "justice".So the exercise worked to that extent.

The Council played on people vulnerabilities. Got one member who is now part time carer of elderly parent for example. Who did not want any trouble.

Im not particularly bolshie but as I feel I have nothing to lose I was saying to people be careful what you say to the Barrister. He appears friendly but is not on your side.

Got to go now.

Thanks for all the support form posters here.

If anyone wants they can email Cllrs about Lambeth Council wasting everyones time and money on ill advised legal action.
 
What a load of shite

Anyway, no response from any of the councillors I've emailed. I made it clear I'm not a Lambeth resident so probably even less likely to get a response than anyone else
 
I'm off emailing again. This is causing distress for long term residents who should be protected by their own council, and ultimately costing all of us residents as we'll be footing the bill for this ill-thought out court fiasco.

*edit to add: maybe it's something Private Eye might take an interest in?
 
I will email my councillors again: I have just received a reply saying a very brief version of what you've just said and implying that he agreed with your view Gramsci

It sounds awful what you're going through
 
editor said:
I'm off emailing again. This is causing distress for long term residents who should be protected by their own council, and ultimately costing all of us residents as we'll be footing the bill for this ill-thought out court fiasco.

*edit to add: maybe it's something Private Eye might take an interest in?
Click to expand...
Yes, maybe grist for their Rotten Councils column.
 
Gramsci said:
Im not particularly bolshie but as I feel I have nothing to lose I was saying to people be careful what you say to the Barrister. He appears friendly but is not on your side.
Click to expand...

Good advice. I took Lambeth to court over what I considered an unfair abatement notice. Their solicitor/barrister cornered me outside and started to 'caringly' bully me - mostly threats about cripplingly huge legal costs if (he said when) I lost and lots of bullshit about just accepting the notice as I could infringe the notice without any major repercussions other than a small fine (he forgot to mention a criminal record!). Luckily I was not concerned about costs and have a degree in law so was able to see through his utter bullshit. He didn't know the case law, didn't know the guidance and didn't know the statutes. I had to ask him to leave me alone several times, my partner had to step in between us after I told him that he was no more trustworthy than a second hand car salesman and then he eventually went away after she left to complain to the court clerk.

I wrote to Lambeth describing the occasion and saying that it was unethical to attempt to mislead and bully residents, particularly if they are financially or otherwise vulnerable. They responded that he was just looking out for me!
 
Gramsci said:
Lambeth legal team come plus the so called Short Life manager come out and say they will instead be seeking possession orders.
Click to expand...
You need to get your hands on that fire report and see if there is an economical way of getting the building to an "acceptable" standard for the short term.

The possession process is harder and a lot slower. You should look into how to best delay proceedings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Gunshots fired in Coldharbour Lane, Weds 7th Aug 2024
Replies
21
Views
1K
editor
editor
editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
8
Views
494
story
story
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
715
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
Back
Top Bottom