Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Social housing tenant says he is being punished for speaking to the Guardian.

72 replies

HelenaDove · 12/04/2019 16:34

amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/12/social-housing-tenant-punished-speaking-guardian?__twitter_impression=true

"Social tenant says he is being punished for speaking to the Guardian

Thomas Reames says Southern Housing extended probation period after he discussed segregated facilities

A social housing tenant with a heavily pregnant wife who spoke to the Guardian about segregated facilities in his block has said he’s being punished by his housing provider for doing so.

Thomas Reames, 42, was to sign a five-year tenancy agreement with social housing provider Southern Housing but days after the Guardian highlighted social tenants had no access to lifts in his block, he was told his probation period would have to be extended.

A housing officer from Southern Housing told Reames he would not be able to sign his tenancy agreement for his home in Legacy House, Hackney Wick, as expected because of separate allegations that were brought forward after he spoke to the Guardian. Reames said that the housing officer warned he and his family would be monitored over the next six months to see if he continues to follow the agreement in his tenancy but that if the provider was still unsatisfied he could lose his home

Reames said the sudden change came as a huge shock to him and his wife, who are expecting their fourth child. “All the indications before that was that we were signing that tenancy agreement, but that’s suddenly changed,” he said. “It’s a huge shock to us and it’s upsetting as this comes at a time when I’m expecting my fourth child in a few weeks.”

On 1 April, Reames told the Guardian that pregnant and disabled social housing tenants in his block, which is dominated by privately owned flats, are forced to use stairs to access their floor because the lift was designed to stop only on private floors.

London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), the planning authority, confirmed that after residents campaigned it is taking enforcement action over social tenants’ access to the lift.

Shortly after the Guardian article was published, Reames received an email that said due to a number of issues in the previous year, Southern Housing would be extending his probation period. Reames said the housing provider had not raised any issues with them in the previous 12 months

In the same email, Reames and his wife Taslima were told: “Please can you also ensure that your conduct over social media in regards to Legacy House matters is deemed as appropriate.”

Reames said residents have been trying to make Southern Housing aware of the developer’s planning breaches, the most significant being the lack of access to lifts for social housing tenants, but failed to get any support.

He added: “There now appears to be a campaign to attempt to bully residents into silence or encourage us to not chase up on these breaches or highlight them. Since the Guardian article on 1 April 2019, SHG [Southern Housing Group] commented to me on 3 April 2019 they are aware of the article and then on 9 April they instructed me not to talk about the breaches on social media, which quite frankly is disgusting.

Taslima Reames said: “As far as I was aware, I was expecting to sign this five-year tenancy agreement with Southern Housing, but after the article we were suddenly told about these complaints. It just feels like they are making something up to extend our probation period.

“I’m due to give birth in seven weeks and I don’t need this stress.”

Southern Housing is a major housing provider in Tower Hamlets, but the council declined to provide comment on the case.

Rabina Khan, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Tower Hamlets, said: “Who do Southern Housing think they are? The thought police? A social housing tenant exercises his democratic right to speak to the press about the social housing block he lives in then suddenly gets an email from his landlord informing him that he is being investigated for those comments?

She added: “What makes Southern Housing think they have any control whatsoever over what one of their tenants can say? Thomas has the right to speak to the press or anyone else for that matter.”

Chris Harris, executive director, customer services at Southern Housing, said: “It would not be right to discuss the specific details of a customer’s tenancy account. However, we can assure you that our communication with Mr Reames and Mrs Reames, which has been ongoing for some weeks, has nothing at all to do with any contact that Mr Reames may have had with the press.”

Harris added: “As an organisation, from time to time we remind residents that comments on social media should always be considerate as they are subject to the same laws that govern other forms of public behaviour. Southern Housing Group understands that frustrations about housing, neighbours and similar issues do sometimes boil over onto social media.

“We offer this advice as a matter of support and goodwill, although we recognise that it is not always perceived this way and perhaps we could phrase it better."

Angry
OP posts:
HelenaDove · 13/04/2019 14:26

.

OP posts:
Palominoo · 13/04/2019 15:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

leckford · 13/04/2019 15:51

Palominoo - agree, if he is unhappy they should find alternative accommodation. Presumably when they signed the lease they knew what the situation was. They are in London when all accommodation is £££

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 13/04/2019 15:53

4 kids in London? Blimey.

Saucery · 13/04/2019 15:59

The number of children they have is irrelevant. They are being punished by the HA for criticising planning breaches. I hope the spotlight put on the HA’s behaviour now makes them unlikely to find some made up reason to end this family’s tenancy.

Katterinaballerina · 13/04/2019 16:00

It’s the latest breed of development. A very pricey new block of flats where, to be allowed to build, some of the homes are set aside as in some way ‘affordable’. In this case, the developers put in lifts that only stop on the privately owned floors. It’s very unlikely that this was made known to the social housing tenants when they applied. It impacts those with disabilities, those with young children and hinders access for medical emergencies.

Debenhamshandtowel · 13/04/2019 16:09

I don’t think the number of children you have affects the right to free speech?

My friend lives in a similar set up in the social housing side of a new build. They have one lift, the owners have 3 lifts. The lifts are opposite each other in a hallway with a glass locked fire door between the renters and the owners. When the social housing lift goes out of action as it so often does disabled people and parents with buggies in the social housing side are trapped! The fire door is not allowed to be unlocked.

Then their is the school issue. The front door to the private block is slightly nearer the Outstanding primary school than the social housing door. So all children in the private block live nearer to the school and are more likely to get in than the socially housed children.

She was going to go to the press but I’m bet she’s glad she didn’t now.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 13/04/2019 16:09

Seems to be the norm around here - expensive developments have to include ‘affordable homes’.

Belleende · 13/04/2019 17:22

What the fuck does the number of kids they have got to do with this you judgemental arseholes.
This family raised a legitimate issue and they have been punished for it. They have the right to free speech. They have the right to live without fear of being turfed out of their home for bogus reasons. The issues they have raised are important for us as a society to deal with. Why don't you toddle off and get your Daily Mail fix

Peachesandcream14 · 13/04/2019 17:33

Utterly despicable from the HA, but sadly not surprising. But then some of the comments on here show that people think HA tenants deserve to be treated like second class citizens

Debenhamshandtowel · 13/04/2019 17:41

Seems to be the norm around here - expensive developments have to include ‘affordable homes’.

I think it’s the law? I think affordable homes are those sold to people but the ones in the article are slightly different in that they are social housing and rented.

Social housing was for everyone and was not dependent upon income. Well not until very recently anyway. And social housing is only difficult to get because a lot was sold off and little has been built. And until recently (2000s) people didn’t want to live in the bits of London where the most social housing was. It’s only recently people have become jealous of other people being able to live in Tower Hamlets it Hackney.

HelenaDove · 14/04/2019 01:15

It really shows that Grenfell has changed fuck all The same sinister undertone and attempt to silence is at play in both cases.

OP posts:
Jengnr · 14/04/2019 07:17

Also, the Guardian isn’t social media; it’s just the media.

And what kind of CUNT goes out of their way to programme a lift to only stop on the floors of the owners? That’s going out of your way to be fucking spiteful.

Some people seriously baffle me.

MaybeitsMaybelline · 14/04/2019 07:23

It’s down to cost though surely. The less things like lifts that have to be installed the less that have to be maintained and the more money there is for other things such as providing more homes.

I would imagine the home owners are paying for their lift through extortionate monthly maintenance fees.

Softleftpowerstance · 14/04/2019 10:55

Yes service charges for lifts are very high. It will probably save the social tenants at least £50 a month by not having to pay for the lift.

Same with barring access to gyms and concierges. They are not free for private owners!

At face value the HA’s response is shocking but I wonder what else has gone on.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 14/04/2019 10:56

It’s steep service charges that the council won’t want to foot. A block near us charges about £10k a year 😲.

LizzieBananas · 14/04/2019 11:02

I’m a private renter who needs a lift (I live on the ground floor) and I know that’s only because I was born to well-off parents that I was given the opportunities that allow me to rent privately.

If this was my building (mine doesn’t have a lift), I’d be apoplectic. Ask if your friend knows her neighbours and they can go to the press. Yeah, social housing can be smaller, have less of a view, less wanky “features” but it needs facilities.

The point above about a primary doesn’t shock me. Well, I’m slightly surprised a new development is anywhere near a primary anyway.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 14/04/2019 11:25

It if you need a lift then you should be housed where there is access to a lift (like my grandmothers were). Well you would if they hadn’t sold off the social housing stock...

HotChocolateLover · 14/04/2019 11:34

I don’t think people should keep having kids they can’t afford.

GregoryPeckingDuck · 14/04/2019 11:40

Very entitled attitude. I agree completely that the issue of disabled residents access should have been highlighted through the appropriate channels. But he really shouldn’t have got his wife pregnant, yet again, if he can’t afford the children he already has. I can understand why the HA is cautious. If they turn out to be bad tennants then their neighbours as well as the HA will suffer for it.

sluj · 14/04/2019 11:43

Having separate facilities is all about the service charge. Social landlords would never be able to let a property if the price includes charges for gyms, excess lifts, concierge etc. That can add hundreds to the weekly cost. Not all of that will be covered by housing benefit so the tenant would have to pay for it themselves.
As for the chap in the Guardian, I doubt we have all the facts here and the landlord is frustratingly bound by data protection.

Palominoo · 14/04/2019 11:45

Basically people that have the money (usually from working hard) get to buy their flats and have access to all facilities including lifts etc and do so by paying a hefty premium from their hard earned wages. It’s possible that these people will only have one or two or even no children as they are aware of the expense.

Meanwhile Mr Sperm knocks his wife up four times and is given free social housing in the same block but can’t afford to pay for the extras so goes off bleating to the press about it.

Bicyclethief · 14/04/2019 12:22

Four kids!

waterrat · 14/04/2019 12:24

Anyone who considers a lift some sort of plush extra that disabled families don't deserve because they aren't private owners needs to look at the gaping hole where their soul ought to be

Private developers are now the main builder of both affordable and social homes in the UK. They have to provide these or they don't get planning permission.

Allowing profit hungry companies to build homes for our most vulnerable families isn't working - we need a large scale building programme of proper council housing.

And all housing should be of a fair and decent standard. The housing market in this country is an absolute disaster and there is a crisis at the bottom end where vulnerable individuals and families are given the worst possible homes.

twattymctwatterson · 14/04/2019 12:25

given free social housing. Is social housing free? Why didn't anyone tell me? I've been paying for mine for 8 years!

Swipe left for the next trending thread