Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

free spirit said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's exactly why the question of who's been responsible for the upkeep of the building is significant - is it the council or the co-op? No-one seems able to answer this.
 
Given that people like Saffron at Social Life and Brixton Green probably have a defined mission statement (and in theory an ethical statement based around consultation and cooperative decision making) on what sort of organisation's they will work with/take money from, do they have any public response to Lambeth's approach?

Having said that, if you knocked local authorities off your list of people not to work with due to their shady, conniving ways, there'd probably be no money in it for them.

And Teutcher - it's normally the coop isn't it? Depends how they're constituted and whether they get grants from what was the Housing Corporation for rents, maintenance etc.
 
teuchter said:
That's exactly why the question of who's been responsible for the upkeep of the building is significant - is it the council or the co-op? No-one seems able to answer this.
Click to expand...
well, the council is obviously now asserting that it is ultimately responsible, by saying that it can't allow them to stay there any longer due to the fire risk, therefore they can't deny their responsibility for ensuring the fire safety of the building for the last few decades.

the only way they could get out of being sued would be to assert that it wasn't their responsibility, in which case they lose their grounds to chuck them out.
 
Could we know what exactly needs doing and how much it would cost? I don't see how they can chuck you out if work is started to bring the building up to standard. Please see my first post on this thread.
 
Co-op members, have you seen the fire risk assessment? Or is the council keeping the specific details from you? Is there some reason this information can't be made public?
 
sleaterkinney said:
They hold surgeries on the weekend at Lambeth town hall, but you would probably be chucked out if you asked questions.
Click to expand...

Thats probably why they have them in the Town Hall, are they only ones to do that!!! not everyone can make it there anyway.
 
free spirit said:
well, the council is obviously now asserting that it is ultimately responsible, by saying that it can't allow them to stay there any longer due to the fire risk, therefore they can't deny their responsibility for ensuring the fire safety of the building for the last few decades.

the only way they could get out of being sued would be to assert that it wasn't their responsibility, in which case they lose their grounds to chuck them out.
Click to expand...
I doubt it is that simple. It would be quite normal that the sublandlord (the coop) had, as well as the right to set and receive rent, responsibility for overall management including maintenance and safety beneath the council. However, if the coop were not properly engaging in their maintenance and safety obligations, the council would the be legally negligent if it did not step in and take control once they realised. It is of only limited significance that they left it a long time - they could say they had no reason to believe that the coop was acting irresponsibly but when they realised that the coop was in breach of their own duties towards the occupants they took action.

Judge Zimmerman said,
“By making an application for injunctions the people who occupy the building now know the serious risk from the fire assessment, and they know how seriously the council takes that risk.”
Click to expand...
That is code for The coop and the occupants have been warned about the dangers in the strongest possible terms and responsibility for not evacuating the building is now on their own collective shoulders. That does not mean the council can sit back - they are now obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure safety - hence the upcoming possession hearing. If the "sublandlord" or coop is in breach of the agreement they are within their rights to do so by eviction.

If maintenance and safety were the coop's responsibility the council presumably could instead carry out all the required safety works and charge them to the coop and its members, including management charges on top. But as the buildings are due a full refurb or whatever in the next couple of years and it is unlikely that they would get the money back from the coop, I can't imagine they would chose to take this route.


Of course, it may be that in this particular set up the coop was not explicitly or impliedly responsible for management, maintenance and safety. In that case the only real difference is that the council was ultimately responsible throughout and is still legally justified in taking possession action if it is realistically proportional to the fire threat. If the coop is set up as a landlord, even if its tenants are also its members, then it has the same legal obligations towards its occupants as any other landlord, private or social.

As we don't know what the report says or who was responsible for what, this is, of course, all speculation.
 
Thanks for that Rushy. If there was a real fire safety issue and it was the responsibility of the coop, shouldn't they be given a chance to fix it before being evicted? Has this ever been mentioned Gramsci?
 
Winot said:
Thanks for that Rushy. If there was a real fire safety issue and it was the responsibility of the coop, shouldn't they be given a chance to fix it before being evicted? Has this ever been mentioned Gramsci?
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on how serious the report says the danger is. If it is has been professionally found to be "intolerable" but the council chooses to tolerate it, I guess they would be legally negligent if anything happened. That does to mean to say that they could not evacuate it with a list of conditions upon which it could then be occupied again. It is hard to know what to think - no one is being very forthcoming about the set up or the report.
 
2. The fire risk assessment was carried out by Gordon Mckay; GIFireE, tech IOSH on behalf of Lambeth Living on 13 March 2013. The fire risk assessment found:
  • "that the present level of compartmentation provided by the walls ceilings and doors would not confine a fire to the room or floor of origin and would very quickly compromise the escape stairwell and render it untenable. The restricted access for fire fighting appliances compounds this problem."
  • Basic security against arson from outside was unreasonable
  • There had been no periodic inspection and testing of the electrical installations
  • The building had no lightning protection system
Click to expand...
that's it?

that is absolutely not grounds for immediate eviction IMO.


There had been no periodic inspection and testing of the electrical installations
A periodic inspection can be arranged inside a few days for a few hundred quid.

The building had no lightning protection system
I doubt it's needed, and I doubt the fire safety guy has expertise in that field anyway, so I'd get a report from an actual lightning protection expert, then get a system fitted if they recommend it, I'd expect it to be under a grand.

Basic security against arson from outside was unreasonable
wtf does this even mean? If someone wants to commit arson to burn a building down then they've find a way to do it. But if there's more detail about the concerns then this shouldn't be too hard to resolve.

"that the present level of compartmentation provided by the walls ceilings and doors would not confine a fire to the room or floor of origin and would very quickly compromise the escape stairwell and render it untenable. The restricted access for fire fighting appliances compounds this problem."
As long as the walls, doors and ceiling on the stairwell are in good condition, they should provide around 20 minute fire protection, as per guidance quoted earlier in the thread - if not in good repair, then a plasterer can sort that out in half a day for £100-150.

There would then be a variety of options to resolve these concerns, not just the 30 minute compartmentalisation standard - alternatives would be enhanced fire detection system, so heat sensors in each kitchen on a centrally linked fire alarm/detection system. Fire doors on different levels of the stairwell would also help to improve the situation in terms of compartmentalising the building.

Essentially they appear to be applying the letter of the regulations for new build, rather than finding suitable solutions to the problem as per the guidance for historic buildings, so they seem to be working in breach of the official government guidance as an alternative report from someone who specialises in historic buildings would no doubt confirm.



If someone sends me a copy of this report, I would be happy to draft a response to it over the weekend. pm me for my email addy, or upload the file to a filesharing site etc please.


 
This all sounds really kinda shite, and my best wishes to all affected (I don't think I'm local enough or practical enough to offer much more at present.)

Just a thought, I don't have any connections with them or fully understand all their politics, but I'm aware that Lewisham People Before Profit have some experience in occupying and renovating council properties that Lewisham Council has been trying to get rid of. More here

They might know friendly people in the building trade who may be able to assist.
 
free spirit said:
that's it?

that is absolutely not grounds for immediate eviction IMO.


There had been no periodic inspection and testing of the electrical installations
A periodic inspection can be arranged inside a few days for a few hundred quid.

The building had no lightning protection system
I doubt it's needed, and I doubt the fire safety guy has expertise in that field anyway, so I'd get a report from an actual lightning protection expert, then get a system fitted if they recommend it, I'd expect it to be under a grand.

Basic security against arson from outside was unreasonable
wtf does this even mean? If someone wants to commit arson to burn a building down then they've find a way to do it. But if there's more detail about the concerns then this shouldn't be too hard to resolve.

"that the present level of compartmentation provided by the walls ceilings and doors would not confine a fire to the room or floor of origin and would very quickly compromise the escape stairwell and render it untenable. The restricted access for fire fighting appliances compounds this problem."
As long as the walls, doors and ceiling on the stairwell are in good condition, they should provide around 20 minute fire protection, as per guidance quoted earlier in the thread - if not in good repair, then a plasterer can sort that out in half a day for £100-150.

There would then be a variety of options to resolve these concerns, not just the 30 minute compartmentalisation standard - alternatives would be enhanced fire detection system, so heat sensors in each kitchen on a centrally linked fire alarm/detection system. Fire doors on different levels of the stairwell would also help to improve the situation in terms of compartmentalising the building.

Essentially they appear to be applying the letter of the regulations for new build, rather than finding suitable solutions to the problem as per the guidance for historic buildings, so they seem to be working in breach of the official government guidance as an alternative report from someone who specialises in historic buildings would no doubt confirm.



If someone sends me a copy of this report, I would be happy to draft a response to it over the weekend. pm me for my email addy, or upload the file to a filesharing site etc please.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right to me, esp the compartmentation bit unless there are special rules about HMOs that I don't know about, or the compartmentation has been massively compromised by removed doors and walls or something like that.

Co-op people, take up free spirit's offer!
 
Sorry not to have got back earlier.

I attended an extremely difficult meeting with the Cllrs and officers (Including the "Short Life" officer) yesterday.

I know have to be careful exactly what I say here. Devonshires the Councils lawyers are on the case in conjunction with the "Short Life" officer.The "Short Life" officer asked if the meeting was going to be "blogged" as it went on.:facepalm:

Also as we work as a Coop I have to discuss what to say in public. I have some leeway. Unlike the Council which works in a different way.

The Coop in the end decided to pay a company to produce an assessment for us.

(BTW the Council in legal terms regard the building as occupied by "individual occupiers" not a Coop. Papers for injunction were for each flat separately).

We told the Council on Friday at the fraught meeting.

It is confidential to us as we paid for it. Litigation has been started by the Council. As I said at meeting its not us who started litigation. Council said at the Friday meeting that they would pursue it now its started.So we are going to , from now on , to be extra careful on what is said.

I have Coop permission to say that our independently made report states in summary that the risk is "tolerable" to use the exact word in report.

At this time we are not showing it to the Council as we no longer trust them and they have taken an adversarial legal approach. I noticed at court on Tuesday the Council Barrister was coming down ( with the "Short Life" officer) fishing for titbits of info whilst everyone was waiting.

Brixton Blog
 
fair enough, but I'd definitely make sure you get an Electrical Installation Condition Report carried out (the actual current name for what were called periodic inspections) before you go back to court to show willing.

That's something that should be carried out on HMOs regularly anyway, regardless of anything else, so failure to do that won't play well in court for the co-op's ability to operate safely as a building management organisation for an HMO, and it's something that can be carried out relatively quickly... but get a decent co-op friendly electrician in for it - a proper time served apprentice trained spark, who will have seen it all and be aware of previous regs etc not someone who's just done a short course and got a part p accreditation, who might struggle with anything outside of the normal house situation. Otherwise you could end up with an unnecessary recommendation to rewire / change the board etc that would play into the council's hands.
 
Also told the Council to stop there action for an injunction on Friday at meeting with Cllrs and officers.

The Coop asked the Council at the meeting to clarify what was happening to the injunction action. The Coop requested that the injunction action be stopped as it was inappropriate use of an injunction.

The Coop told Cllrs and officers present the great distress that the court action last Tuesday had caused its members. (See Tims Blog piece).

A Labour Council should not use an injunction against its residents in this way. Residents who reside peaceably in there homes. It is draconian use of an injunction that the Judge last Tuesday rightly in the Coop view refused to hear.

Also it was a waste of everyones time. The Council would have paid for a barrister and his two minions plus the ever present Council "Short Life" officer to be present.

We spent three hours at Lambeth County Court waiting.

The Council officer stated that the application for an injunction and the possession hearing will both be heard on the same day 22nd May at Lambeth County Court.

So a Labour Council is quite happy about this use of the law.

I also want to put in a good word for Tim of Brixton Blog who came down to court at short notice. His piece is the accurate report. Unlike the disinformation put out on Lambeths website.

Brixton Blog
 
snowy_again said:
Given that people like Saffron at Social Life and Brixton Green probably have a defined mission statement (and in theory an ethical statement based around consultation and cooperative decision making) on what sort of organisation's they will work with/take money from, do they have any public response to Lambeth's approach?

Having said that, if you knocked local authorities off your list of people not to work with due to their shady, conniving ways, there'd probably be no money in it for them.
Click to expand...

I do not have a clue what Brixton Green think.

Social Life have been supportive of us. They are working for free on the Somerleyton road project consultation. I have suggested they come to see us anyway whatever happens. They said they would to record us an example of a community group. Resilience and all that.

After meeting them at workshops etc I rate Social Life. I know there website is a put off but they are ok. I think they should do something to make there website language less off putting. Its full of the jargon Labour Councils/ Labour party "progressives" who read Prospect magazine use.

Also I would say the lead Council officer on the Somerleyton road project is ok. As I said at the meeting last Friday with the Cllrs/ officers he is one of the newer progressive officers. Unlike the "Short Life" officer. Who I told at the meeting could learn a few things about how to deal with people from the lead officer on the Somerleyton road project.

The Council is not monolithic. Some officer are ok some not. Unfortunately I am now up against the most repellent officers.

Saffron

SocialLifeteam
 
quimcunx said:
They are doing another injunction?
Click to expand...

Yes its surprising how the Council can obstinately pursue an action when it wants.

The same injunction will be heard at the same time as the possession proceedings.

It is the same injunction. As the nice man:rolleyes: from Devonshires told me at court it still potentially stands. It was that the Judge refused to hear it that day. As the Judge was not at all happy at this wheeze by Lambeths clever clogs lawyers. The nice:rolleyes: men from Devonshires had taken the trouble to hand deliver the papers. They had put so much effort into it. It would be a pity to waste all the effort and Council expense.:rolleyes:

Took me being persistent to get that clarified from officers at the recent meeting with officers/Cllrs. I think not all are happy with it.

Nor were they keen to say it front of Cllrs. Who were unaware of what it really meant.
 
Sorry if this has been posted already. Not sure how it would stand with the council viewing CM as individual tenants, or whether being a short life co-op changes anything, or indeed if the info in the link's actually relevant, but might be worth getting in touch with friendly housing action - http://www.fhaction.org.uk/faq.html

good luck with everything x
 
Miss-Shelf said:
thank you Gramsci for taking the time to write up what's happening on here while you must be under a lot of pressure
Click to expand...

Thanks for your support.

Also like to thank editor and mods for enabling hard pressed residents to have a place where people can have there say.

What is most pressing is legal advice for the court action on May 22nd. The Council with the go at it lawyers Devonshires:p are seeking to get an injunction and a possession order on each individual "occupier" as they put it for each flat.

The draconian injunction would stop us entering the flats. Doing so or remaining in flats would put an "occupier" in contempt of court. Or so the Devonshire Barrister told me.

Lambeth have a seemingly bottomless pit of money when it comes to taking residents on in court. So that makes it a David and Goliath struggle.
 
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
520
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
724
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
Back
Top Bottom