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

[gaijingirl]

Sorry if I have missed this, but out of interest, have the reasons why the building presents an "intolerable" level of risk been shared?

 

[el-ahrairah]

I got the same email myself, I'm interested to hear what other people think about it before I send them a reply.

i think they're trying to make you think that everythings ok and that they will be fixing the problems. but they're still determined to g to court and i bet you that no matter what the co-op offer the council will still push ahead with the eviction.

 

[TopCat]

Emailing Councillors will achieve fuck all. It makes me want to weep and shout with frustration. Brixton has a long tradition of opposing evictions in a much more forceful manner.

 

[sleaterkinney]

It's just so blatant, they're selling off anything they can.

 

[sleaterkinney]

They hold surgeries on the weekend at Lambeth town hall, but you would probably be chucked out if you asked questions.

 

[Gramsci]

Got a reply from Councillor Rachel Heywood on behalf of loads of other Councillors.




I am thinking I might reply with my feelings about how totally unnessecary it was to drag everyone in to court yesterday, what a waste of pubic money and stress to residents it was and how they have been total bastards, but more politely obviously.

Anyone got any ideas of what to say?

To start I really appreciate posters like you here who have taken the trouble to email. I post up here. But other Coop members are watching this thread. They are touched at the support given here.

We are also touched by the posts here. It makes us feel we are not going through this alone. Its a big morale post to see posts here on this thread. Thanks to all.

You can say:

Email is incorrect.

The case was not deferred.

The Judge said that Lambeth use of an injunction was procedurally wrong. That the Council should use a possession order.

So it was not a matter of deferring the case.

Lambeth should apologize to the Coop members for the distress caused by this failed draconian action. Which rightly the Judge would not hear.

The case was also not deferred as Lambeth ( not known by Coop) had already lined up proceeding for possession orders. The argument between the Judge and Lambeths legal team was to try and move the date forward. Which I think was said at the court to be June. It was brought forward to move to 22nd May.

The attempted use of an injunction in this way is unusual. It is not normal use of an injunction. I talked to Lawyer to today who told me he was not surprised the Judge would not hear it.

The attempted use of an injunction was draconian action. It caused a lot of distress. I have been talking to Coop members as several reported sleepless nights etc over this.

I have been told it might be worth putting in a complaint about the Council attempted use of this action.

People thought that if the action went against us potentially we could be barred from our homes same day. An injunction can take effect immediately its granted. The whole thing was designed to intimidate.

Half the Coop is female. We have always tried to house women. I am not saying that women are the weaker sex. However the thought of bailiffs kicking the door in frightened people. We are not a burly bunch of baby eating Anarchists just up for a fight for the sake of it.

Also you could raise with Rachel the unnecessary slur on Coop members in the Coop papers by the Council:

"The residents in terms of their social environment and conditions are likely to carry out practises where fires could develop in the home"

Which several posters have rightly seen as a slur.

Also if you read the Cllrs email u can see that despite the fact that the Council are making people potentially homeless and ordering them out they are not offering any real alternatives. Just "plans" , "advice" and "support they are entitled to". This does not mean much. Its also vague.

 

[quimcunx]

The comparison of potential risk of fire in the next 6 weeks (to original possession order court date?), or until such time as the necessary works* are carried out (don't know how long that would be) with the risk of suffering mental and physical health problems, financial problems and potentially ending up on the street which is a massive risk to one's physical safety and general well-being, over a much longer period than six weeks, seems entirely out of kilter.

*as for required works there must be a point between 'intolerable risk and you must move out immediately' and 'all recommendations excecuted' where sufficient measures have been put in place that eviction is no longer necessary, if indeed the official finding is that the fire risk is intolerable

 

[Gramsci]

i think they're trying to make you think that everythings ok and that they will be fixing the problems. but they're still determined to g to court and i bet you that no matter what the co-op offer the council will still push ahead with the eviction.

Sadly accurate post.

Also it was illuminating reading the papers the Council served on us this week for the (failed) injunction. It is clear from the papers that whilst the Coop thought it was in discussion with the Council/ Cllrs in fact they were getting there favourite lawyers
Devonshires onto the Coop . Described to me as being known to be "gung ho". Another example of how caring cuddly Lambeth Coop Council work.

And the Council had the cheek to argue in the court papers they were taking this action as the the "individual occupiers" ( as they insisted to use in court papers) had already shown unwillingness to leave "voluntarily" at meetings that had been held. So Council used the very fact that the Coop would meet Council in a civilized manner against it.

Coop had no idea (naively in hindsight) that the meetings would be used in this way.

I am starting to lose faith in my Coldharbour Ward Cllrs.

 

[Gramsci]

I have contact from one of the Coop members who was in Mansions in the early days. She is now a writer who lives in Canada.

She kindly wrote this piece for Brixton Blog.

I also asked her to do it as an historical record. Its also an interesting read of the early days of the Coop warts and all.

As the Council are set to destroy a long lasting community its important to record it.

If you like it twitter/ FB it around.

 

[Gramsci]

Got a reply from Councillor Rachel Heywood on behalf of loads of other Councillors.

Thank you for contacting councillors about this situation. I am replying on behalf of Coldharbour ward councillors – Donatus Anyanwu, Matt Parr, and myself. Our colleague Cllr Pete Robbins, Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration, will be responding in more detail on the issues that you and others have raised about Carlton Mansions but Matt Donatus and I wanted to acknowledge the enquiries which have been sent to us in the meantime.

You will probably be aware that the outcome of the application to court yesterday morning was that the case has been deferred and will be heard on the 22nd May. This will allow us to continue to work with the coop to assess individual needs, to plan alternative accommodation where appropriate, and to ensure that they are receiving all the support to which they are entitled, including to benefits. We hope to start this work with individuals immediately so that as much as possible is resolved before the case returns to court, however we have been meeting regularly with representatives of .


This does not remove the urgency of the situation, and I hope that the coop will accept support to promptly move out of what has been judged to be a building which poses an ‘intolerable’ level of risk to those living in it. This is a judgement which we cannot ignore, and is the reason for the actions which have been taken. We understand that this is an extremely difficult situation for CMHC and for individuals but we believe there is no alternative solution in the immediate future.

Our colleague Pete will be in touch with a further update.

I am thinking I might reply with my feelings about how totally unnessecary it was to drag everyone in to court yesterday, what a waste of pubic money and stress to residents it was and how they have been total bastards, but more politely obviously.

Anyone got any ideas of what to say?

You might point out the difference between what Cllr Rachel says of the recent Council court action and the Brixton Blog report. ( Tim from BB was at court with Coop members or "individual occupiers" as Council insisted on calling us.)

Brixton Blog report

Brixton Blog

Judge Zimmer refused to hear the injunction application at Lambeth County Court, Kennington, yesterday, privately telling lawyers for the council he wasn’t happy to make injunctions “as back door possession orders”.

The BB account is the accurate one.

 

[teuchter]

Sorry if I have missed this, but out of interest, have the reasons why the building presents an "intolerable" level of risk been shared?

I don't think so, but it would be useful to know.

Gramsci?

Also as others have asked, who's ultimately responsible for the upkeep of the building, Lambeth or the co-op?

 

[gaijingirl]

I don't think so, but it would be useful to know.

Gramsci?

Also as others have asked, who's ultimately responsible for the upkeep of the building, Lambeth or the co-op?

well it's just that I would hope the the co-op members had been given this information. Are they issues that would cost many tens of thousands to resolve? It would be very interesting to know.

 

[SocialLifeteam]

Hi - Social Life team here.

The summary of all the Action Planning Workshops we have been running about the future of Somerleyton Road is being displayed as part of Lambeth's display about this site in Windrush Square this afternoon, 4 to 8pm.

We've really appreciated all the support from the people who have come to our workshops, especially the people from Carlton Mansions, who've found time to speak to us while going through an incredibly difficult time. Thank you.

We are putting the full report of all our work out next week.

Thanks again to everyone who took part and our best wishes to everyone in Carlton Mansions.

 

[zora]

Just wanted to check in on this thread to send my support and best wishes to Coop members, boohoo and Gramsci and everyone there.

Am truly horrified at the actions of lying, spinning and corrupt council with no regard for people's lives and livelihood.

Thanks Gramsci for pointers upthread in response to kittyp as to what to say in a letter/e-mail to councillors/MP after the developments on Tuesday.

 

[critical1]

1st this on U75 then sometime later in the Brixton Blog

"This does not remove the urgency of the situation, and I hope that the coop will accept support to promptly move out of what has been judged to be a building which poses an ‘intolerable’ level of risk to those living in it. This is a judgement which we cannot ignore, and is the reason for the actions which have been taken. We understand that this is an extremely difficult situation for CMHC and for individuals but we believe there is no alternative solution in the immediate future."

Then this on the Brixton Blog several days later

"Cllr Rachel Heywood told the Brixton Blog and urban 75 site today: “The situation with Carlton mansions has moved extremely rapidly and with less time for discussion and the exploration of alternative options than I, personally, would have wished for.”

WTF. So it's spin time can you trust a Cllr who talks with forked tongue just another example of how committed Heywood is to her constituents.

I am surprised that given how intolerable Carlton Mansions is that the judge decided to give them till the middle of the month to present their case.

Critical1 being extremely critical
Critical1

 

[editor]

Why has no one at the council expressed any interest in investigating ways that building may perhaps be swiftly brought up to the required safety standard, and the residents allowed to stay?

What appear to be several sound practical solutions have already been suggested here but the council only seems interested in hoofing out the residents as swiftly as they can.

All this falls rather short of a self-declared 'co-operative' council fulfilling their promise to do all they can to support 'resilient communities'.

 

[TruXta]

Why has no one at the council expressed any interest in investigating ways that building may perhaps be swiftly brought up to the required safety standard, and the residents allowed to stay?

What appear to be several sound practical solutions have already been suggested here but the council only seems interested in hoofing out the residents as swiftly as they can.

All this falls rather short of a self-declared 'co-operative' council fulfilling their promise to do all they can to support 'resilient communities'.

Seems their model of cooperation is assisted suicide. Nothing's as resilient as death right?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's just so blatant, they're selling off anything they can.

Yup. As I said earlier, most of this is being done in order to keep the Council Tax frozen, either by using the money from asset sales to directly subsidise services, or by "banking" the money.
As with all asset sales, though, it's only viable as long as you have assets to sell. A small rise in the CT would mean being able to eke out assets over a much longer period.

 

[JTG]

I realise that it's different councils etc but, having been considering holding my nose and voting Labour here, this bollocks in Lambeth helped remind me why I shouldn't. Just in case any Labour types are reading like

 

[leanderman]

Why has no one at the council expressed any interest in investigating ways that building may perhaps be swiftly brought up to the required safety standard, and the residents allowed to stay?

What appear to be several sound practical solutions have already been suggested here but the council only seems interested in hoofing out the residents as swiftly as they can.


All this falls rather short of a self-declared 'co-operative' council fulfilling their promise to do all they can to support 'resilient communities'.

Unbelievably shabby.

 

[laptop]

Judge Zimmer refused to hear the injunction application at Lambeth County Court, Kennington, yesterday, privately telling lawyers for the council he wasn’t happy to make injunctions “as back door possession orders”.

Well spotted that judge!

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yup. As I said earlier, most of this is being done in order to keep the Council Tax frozen, either by using the money from asset sales to directly subsidise services, or by "banking" the money.
As with all asset sales, though, it's only viable as long as you have assets to sell. A small rise in the CT would mean being able to eke out assets over a much longer period.

I don't think it's purely CT, I reckon they are cosy with developers...

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think it's purely CT, I reckon they are cosy with developers...

I'm sure they are, but at least some of the cosiness is due to the various asset-stripping/sales wheezes that have been thought up to offset "austerity" cuts.
I'm just praying we don't see anything on the scale of Southwark and Lend-Lease.

 

[editor]

Some may feel that with the sometimes-dissenting voices of Carlton Mansions swiftly written out of future consultation, Brixton Green may see it as a gilt-edged opportunity to try and grab more influence in the Somerleyton Road scheme.

 

[shifting gears]

Got the same reply of cllr Heywood, just sent this. Livid.

"Thanks, councillor, for the stock reply, which made no effort to tackle individual points and was clearly just engineered to appease any dissenting voices: a few points

1/ this building has been under your jurisdiction for decades, and only now, do you conveniently find it an 'intolerable risk'. As to my question about independent assessment? No reply. As to the option of the residents assisting in rapidly bringing the building up to standard? Nothing.

2/ you have dragged these people to a court at short notice, where your solicitors have applied pressure in underhand ways to try and achieve your agenda. This is little short of harassment. On top of this the judge has determined improper use of an injunction - another example of how you think you can bully your way to a victory.

3/ you may think that those of us that live in your wards are stupid and gullible, but plenty have seen the methods you are deploying in regards to this situation, as well as, for example, the Barrett Homes development, where I personally witnessed the labour councillors betray the community by acceding to Barrett's disgusting u-turn.

4/ you can spout empty rhetoric about 'concern' and 'assistance' all you like, you are not fooling anyone. Indeed, it appears that while convincing the CM residents that you are working with and assisting them, you have in fact been plotting and subverting those discussions in tandem with your legal advisers. And then springing snap meetings on the residents, in order to gain the upper hand in the ensuing case.

Did I mention the word underhand yet?

Lambeth may well be safe Labour territory for the most part, but as far as I'm concerned, Lambeth council is an utter disgrace.

Yours disgustedly
SW9"

 

[Gramsci]

Why has no one at the council expressed any interest in investigating ways that building may perhaps be swiftly brought up to the required safety standard, and the residents allowed to stay?

What appear to be several sound practical solutions have already been suggested here but the council only seems interested in hoofing out the residents as swiftly as they can.

All this falls rather short of a self-declared 'co-operative' council fulfilling their promise to do all they can to support 'resilient communities'.

Pretty well sums up the situation that teuchter gaijingirl bring up.

 

[Gramsci]

Well spotted that judge!

Judge Zimmer refused to hear the injunction application at Lambeth County Court, Kennington, yesterday, privately telling lawyers for the council he wasn’t happy to make injunctions “as back door possession orders”.

I notice this has been on Brixton Blog a few days and the Council have not said its incorrect report of what Judge thought of the Council lawyers action.

 

[Gramsci]

Sorry if some of my replies are a bit short. I have been spending some time talking to several Coop members today. The whole thing has caused great distress.

 

[free spirit]

you could always sue the council for failing in their duty of care to you for 2 decades by failing to carry out an adequate fire risk assessment and ensuring the appropriate fire safety measures were in place.

that'd certainly put the cat among the pidgeons...

 

[Gramsci]

1st this on U75 then sometime later in the Brixton Blog

"This does not remove the urgency of the situation, and I hope that the coop will accept support to promptly move out of what has been judged to be a building which poses an ‘intolerable’ level of risk to those living in it. This is a judgement which we cannot ignore, and is the reason for the actions which have been taken. We understand that this is an extremely difficult situation for CMHC and for individuals but we believe there is no alternative solution in the immediate future."

Then this on the Brixton Blog several days later

"Cllr Rachel Heywood told the Brixton Blog and urban 75 site today: “The situation with Carlton mansions has moved extremely rapidly and with less time for discussion and the exploration of alternative options than I, personally, would have wished for.”

WTF. So it's spin time can you trust a Cllr who talks with forked tongue just another example of how committed Heywood is to her constituents.

I am surprised that given how intolerable Carlton Mansions is that the judge decided to give them till the middle of the month to present their case.

Critical1 being extremely critical
Critical1

Thanks for that. Well spotted by you.