Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Telly addicts

George Clarkes Council House Scandal

174 replies

HelenaDove · 24/07/2019 22:22

31 July on Channel 4

tvhighlights.bradfordzone.co.uk/television/tvprogrammes/george-clarkes-council-house-scandal-channel-4-31-july-900pm/

As council housing in the UK reaches its 100th anniversary, George Clarke embarks on his own personal campaign to kick start a new wave of council house building. A child of a council estate, Clarke looks at the reasons for the steep decline in affordable public housing, and meets those who have suffered due to the acute shortage of homes. In a bid to realise his own ambition to create social housing of quantity, and quality, he meets visionary architects of the past, and visits the best and worst examples of housing currently on offer. A trip to Vienna, where social housing can come with indoor and outdoor pools, proves inspirational for his housing vision for the future. George lobbies government to reform housing policy, before taking matters into his own hands in a bid to start a housing revolution. Prod Co: Amazing Productions

on next Wednesday

OP posts:
stumbledin · 30/08/2019 19:03

This is one of the few groups trying to challenge local authority housing plans that exclude or even displace local residents. focuse15.org/2019/08/30/plan-developed-by-carpenters-residents-hangs-in-the-balance-will-the-estate-be-saved/

HelenaDove · 30/08/2019 21:23

Yes i see @stumbledin But i posted the link about Bridport House because it has echoes of Balfron Tower.

The post about the refuges i posted a while ago And what you said then was duly noted So yes i did get the memo.

Im well aware that it is a cross party problem. New Labours record was bloody bad too As ive said on here a lot of the regeneration where council house residents were displaced because CH was actually lost AND the transfers from council to HA under LSVT were under New Labour They just carried it on. Im well aware that it is a cross party problem.

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 30/08/2019 21:25

My link about Bridport House is on the previous page.

OP posts:
OP posts:
HelenaDove · 30/08/2019 21:29
Confused
OP posts:
CurlyhairedAssassin · 31/08/2019 15:58

I’ve only just watched this programme today. I was intrigued by the Vienna flats. I thought it was about providing affordable housing, yet George said “anyone on an income of £50k can come and live here”. How is THAT affordable?! Unless the average salary there is extremely high, or I’ve just misheard what he said??

Could anyone clarify?

CurlyhairedAssassin · 31/08/2019 16:02

Ah I think I may have misunderstood. I guess it’s UP TO 50k a year?

HelenaDove · 03/09/2019 19:23

speyejoe2.wordpress.com/2019/09/02/the-clarion-affordable-rent-scandal-tenants-overcharged-50m-pa/?fbclid=IwAR0KHLkiH9gtqwZhnw8qR856h0phcTwYjN7pUwSr5kOxssqXCSvUxSAie4I

" Clarion Housing Group has overcharged its tenants by unlawfully setting its average affordable rent levels at 135% of market rent. In a sample of 1,477 Clarion 2 bed rents the 2018 overcharging comes to £10.2 million alone and Clarion had eight times that number of AR properties at 11,903 so the total overcharge could be over £80 million for that year alone though an actual figure closer to a £50 million overcharge is likely, an overcharge of a cool £1 million per week"

The comments underneath are really something else. Disgusting.

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 08/09/2019 17:23

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/08/unlearned-lessons-death-of-woman-housing-mental-health-crisis?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

Mother searches for answers a year after daughter set herself on fire in council housing office

Grieving mother still has questions over daughter’s death which followed months of anxiety over eviction threat

Emma Graham-Harrison and Maeve Shearlaw

Sun 8 Sep 2019 09.00 BST
Last modified on Sun 8 Sep 2019 09.12 BST

Shares
323
“This didn’t need to happen – that’s the thing that hurts,” said Melanie’s mother.
“This didn’t need to happen – that’s the thing that hurts,” said Melanie’s mother. Photograph: Karen Robinson/The Observer

It is a year since Melanie Smith walked into the housing offices of Barnet council and set herself on fire.

Yet her mother, Marie Bennett, fears vital lessons that could protect others have not been learned. “This didn’t need to happen – that’s the thing that hurts,” Bennett said. “I don’t think anyone has taken on board that they could maybe prevent other deaths.”

Bennett is also still waiting for answers to her questions, including about Smith’s final conversation with council housing officers, after having experienced months of anxiety about being evicted from her home of two decades. “No one has told me who spoke to her that day, or what was said,” she explained.
Advertisement

The nature of the tragedy that played out last August in north London seemed almost unprecedented in modern Britain

The desperation that drives someone to self-immolation is more familiar from foreign news reports: the protests of Tibetan monks in China, of demonstrators against Soviet tanks during the Prague spring, or the Tunisian fruit seller whose suicide sparked the Arab spring.

Several people have threatened to set themselves on fire in British welfare offices in the past decade: one man is reported to have badly burned his legs. But the tragedy in Barnet House, the concrete high-rise where the council housing offices were based until recently, appears to be the only death on record.

An Observer investigation has uncovered the pressures that were building in the months before Smith’s devastating decision, and how safety nets that could have protected her in a double crisis of housing and mental health failed at the most critical moment

There is no way to untangle the web of factors that contributed to Smith’s despair. But austerity policies have been linked to tens of thousands of extra deaths and a rise in suicides, studies have found, although most are private tragedies, not public protests.

“It’s the level of desperation that I find frightening,” said Barry Rawlings, a Labour councillor in Barnet, of Smith’s death. “It’s an individual tragedy but it’s also an indication of harm in our society. It suggests there needs to be a national review of policies on housing and welfare.”
Advertisement

Smith arrived on that afternoon in August 2018 to speak to the council’s “statutory homelessness” team, using an internal telephone system that separated staff from petitioners.

At some point during or after that conversation, she shouted: “Don’t make me do it.” An eyewitness said: “I thought maybe she was going to attack someone.”

But the desperation was turned only against herself. A security guard rapidly extinguished the flames and Smith, who was in her fifties, was airlifted to hospital, but she died after several months in intensive care

Despite the extremity of the protest, once she was carried away in the air ambulance, she all but vanished from the public eye.

The council ordered its employees in Barnet House not to talk about the incident to journalists, sources claimed. Police confirmed only that there had been an incident and the local paper noted simply that a woman had been taken to hospital with burn injuries.
Get Society Weekly: our newsletter for public service professionals
Read more

Smith’s housing crisis began when an eviction notice arrived through the post in April 2018, warning that her landlord had started legal proceedings to remove her from her home.

She had rent arrears of more than £700, which her mother said were a result of the bedroom tax. In theory, she could have moved to a smaller home, but across London there are severe shortages of social housing.

Councils have moved tens of thousands of families out of their areas and many out of the city entirely, government figures show. Residents in Barnet said they had been left with no option but to move as far away as Leicester. Smith was not offered an alternative home by the council, her mother said, and knew her chance of finding one in Barnet was extremely low. But her life was rooted in the area. An artistic woman who loved painting and writing poetry, she kept in touch with a global network of friends and family on Facebook, followed national and international politics and regularly visited a sick relative who lived near by

She liked art galleries, and going on marches,” Bennett said. “Some of her poems were very long, some were political, some about love and life in general.”

Smith had also wrestled with mental health problems, including at least one suicide episode. Her problems were severe enough that she qualified for a free transport pass.

Two weeks before her death, she saw a doctor and reported suicidal thoughts, her mother said. She had also visited the surgery before the tragedy at Barnet House, to ask about a form that could have exempted her from council tax on the grounds of mental impairment, helping to balance the bills.

She said things were getting on top of her and she was finding it difficult to cope. But this was beyond anything you would expect
Marie Bennett, mother

Advertisement

The doctor certified Smith as healthy, however, and when she tried to speak to someone from the practice, she was turned away by the receptionist, she told her mother.

The local clinical commissioning group said it was unable to comment on individual cases. Depression was given as a partial cause of her death, along with burn injuries

I feel she was let down in such a cruel way really,” Bennett said. “She said things were getting on top of her and she was finding it difficult to cope. But it was beyond anything you would expect to happen in life. Sometimes I still think I’m going to wake up [and find it was a dream], then it hits me again, the full facts.”

Smith had several meetings with Barnet council as the eviction notices built up, but staff were apparently unable to provide her with reassurance that she would be able to stay in her home. A council spokesperson said it carried out a safety review after the incident, and remained “committed to working together with our partners in helping to support vulnerable people”, but declined to comment on an individual case.

Judges handing down eviction orders ask for proof that landlords have made genuine efforts to find a negotiated solution. So a housing association would normally send several letters and make home visits to a renter who faces losing their home.

Smith’s landlord, the Home Group, said it was unable to speak to her because she “chose not to continue to communicate with us” after falling into arrears, but had informed the council about her situation

Given her refusal to engage, we were unable to have the conversations we really wanted to have, which were to help her find a solution in line with what she could afford, given her level of housing benefit,” said Matt Forrest, Home Group’s director of operations. “Our thoughts were at the time, and remain with, our customer and her family and friends.”

It is unclear what Smith was told in the council offices, but her mother believes she felt that eviction proceedings were already under way and could not be stopped.

“I believe she thought they were going to repossess her home,” Bennett said. “That’s the reason it was too much.”

Names have been changed.

OP posts:
OP posts:
OP posts:
OP posts:
HelenaDove · 21/09/2019 00:14

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-49743535?fbclid=IwAR0eOC9X-t1YJKzJiYvQqEF07SRfee8BS_s-zYZgG9J9aEHovQ3z7gEqG2o

Patricia Gavaghan died 'after 11-day boiler repair wait

"A "stressed, angry and cold" pensioner died of a heart attack following an 11-day wait for her boiler to be repaired, an inquest has heard.

Patricia Gavaghan, 80, died at her home, which was maintained by Morgan Sindall, in Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire, on 22 December 2017.

She asked a call handler at the firm if she was "meant to sit in her coat" and wait, the court was told.

At the time there was an amber weather warning due to a prolonged cold spell.

The hearing at Huntingdon Law Courts was told Mrs Gavaghan lived alone in Sycamore Road, in a bungalow owned by Clarion Housing and maintained by Morgan Sindall.

Her family claimed the boiler system was more than 15 years old and engineers struggled to get parts to make repairs.

Mark Waterhouse, of Morgan Sindall, told the inquest the company took on the maintenance contract in October 2017 and call handlers were "unable to cope" with the high number of inquiries.

The firm expected to take an average of 1,870 calls a month - but received 6,079 that October.

He said the firm's target of sending an engineer out within 24 hours could not be achieved in Mrs Gavaghan's case and an appointment was given for 11 days' time.

An engineer had been due to attend her home on the day she died but "ran out of time", he added.

Mrs Gavaghan should have been given priority because of her age and the fact she lived alone, the court heard.

Consultant cardiologist Dr William Davies said the fact Mrs Gavaghan was "stressed, angry and cold" meant she was vulnerable to heart attack "triggers" caused by "high levels of adrenalin".

Mr Waterhouse apologised "unreservedly" to her family for failing to provide the "proper service" she was "entitled to and fully deserved".

The inquest continues"

OP posts:
OP posts:
HelenaDove · 29/10/2019 23:40

Re. West Hendon. Here is Brian Coleman trying to justify the conditions on the Victoria Derbyshire show this morning.

twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/1189135511668936704?s=20

OP posts:
OP posts:
OP posts:
HelenaDove · 17/11/2019 18:36

17.11.2019
It’s Time to Be Honest about Housing
By
Glyn Robbins
For decades terms like 'affordable,' 'social,' 'mixed' have been used as cover for market failures in housing - it's time to move on from those schemes and commit to a real solution: council housing.

Join our mailing list
Email Address Here
SUBMIT

Subscribe today for just £15 and get our conference issue.

When it comes to housing, language matters. Politicians, bureaucrats, big business and self-appointed experts have become well-versed in using words that convey one thing, but mean another. This doublespeak has been deliberately used to underpin a particular policy approach which, at root, favours the failed capitalist market over socialist alternatives.

But whatever the political outlook, there’s no denying we have an acute housing emergency. As we approach a general election in which tackling the crisis will be a vital issue, it’s imperative to challenge and change the misleading terminology that’s been used as cover for policies that are causing huge damage to working class communities – and in some places, the reputation of the Labour Party.

If you want to get a laugh out of someone eager to hop on the housing ladder, say “affordable housing” – because most people know how little it means. The abuse of the term began in 2010 when the Tory-led coalition government defined affordable rent as anything up to 80% of the full market level. This opened a door, which was already ajar, for private developers to get planning permission while purporting to provide affordable homes, but at prices well beyond the means of most people and bearing no relationship to local housing need.

Another discredited term is “social housing.” This has been used as a convenient catch-all to disguise important differences between different types of non-market rented homes.

The prime culprits for this deliberate distortion are Housing Associations (HAs), particularly the big ones who have become virtually indistinguishable from private developers. The origins of this charade was in the Blair-Brown era policy of stock transfer, which drove two million council homes – and the land they stand on – out of public ownership into the private sector, a bigger transfer of wealth than any of the Thatcher-era privatisations.

This could usually only happen after tenants had voted in favour of the move. To persuade them, HAs needed to create the subterfuge that they were more or less the same as councils. They’re not. HAs are legally defined, constituted and operated as private businesses, and their tenants have significantly weaker legal rights and higher rents. Referring to HAs as “social landlords” providing “social housing” hides these facts.

The next item in the linguistic three-card trick is “mixed communities.” This term has assumed sacred status in urban policy and government circles, without any evidence to support it. The concept is that bringing people from different socio-economic backgrounds together in one place produces multiple benefits. On its surface, that seems plausible.

But in practice, what might be a laudable aim is based on deception, hypocrisy and class prejudice. The reality of “mixed” housing developments is often physical separation by tenure, as graphically illustrated by Guardian journalist Harriet Grant’s exposure of the segregation of children’s play areas. Commonly, so called “mixed” housing means social renters in one building, private owners in another, where they enjoy better facilities and probably a better view.

The mixed mantra suggests it’s better for working class communities to have middle class people living with them, acting as role models and bringing trickle-down wealth and cultural diversity to an area, reflected in new shops and coffee bars. I once discussed this with a property developer, who worked for a HA. He said “we thought it was going to be better for the estate as a whole to have a Tesco there that didn’t sell out of date milk and the odd bottle of twenty year old Blue Nun… we’d have thought we’d arrived if there was a Starbucks there or a deli, as well as the pound shop.”

The prime targets for such social engineering are council estates subject to large scale “regeneration” projects, another word that’s become heavily loaded. Again, some of the responsibility for this lies with New Labour. In 1998, Tony Blair launched the New Deal for Communities at the Aylesbury estate in south London. Today, the area is testimony to how housing policies dominated by private developers have reshaped working class communities and the role of HAs in this.

The Elephant and Castle neighbourhood is being physically, socially and ethnically transformed. This started with the demolition of the Heygate estate, a classic for stigmatised perceptions of council housing and the people who live in it. As the local 35% Campaign has meticulously documented, a succession of promises to Heygate residents were broken to arrive at a situation where 1,214 council homes were demolished, to be replaced with 2,704 new homes, of which only 82 (3%) are for social rent. The HA partner was London and Quadrant. To be eligible for the cheapest one-bedroom home built by them on the Heygate site, people needed a minimum household income of £57,500. The average household income in that part of Southwark is £24,324

There are numerous similar examples from other places around the country, where a seductive lexicon has been used to camouflage brutal profit-seeking and displacement. At Labour’s 2017 conference, Jeremy Corbyn correctly referred to such practices as “social cleansing.” There is also a strong element of institutional racism in policies that favour better-off home owners and seek to recreate an area in their image – as James Baldwin bluntly put it, “urban renewal means negro removal.” But the other critical point about the policies that lie behind the words is that they don’t work! We’ve had over 20 years of the developer-led, public-private partnership model and the housing crisis has only got worse.

It is essential that the Labour Party breaks with the misleading, dishonest and failed housing policies of the past. The first step for doing this is restoring real council housing to the mainstream, as the centrepiece of a comprehensive rethink. The opportunity is there. Party conference has unanimously adopted a raft of transformative measures, including ending right-to-buy, improving rights for private tenants, using publicly-owned land to build publicly-owned homes and reforming HAs. They must be included in the election manifesto.

For too long, mealy-mouthed Labour politicians have seemed embarrassed by council housing. This has allowed the language of housing to be captured and twisted by corporate interests. Council housing cuts through the verbiage. Working class communities know what it means, how it works and why it’s important. Sometimes those qualities can be taken for granted, so it’s worth repeating them.

Only council housing offers genuinely affordable rents and secure tenancies that can form the foundation of people’s lives. Only council housing is directly linked to the democratic process. Decisions are taken in public, by elected politicians who can be voted out. Another linguistic distortion by hostile forces is that council housing is “subsidised,” when, in fact, it generates a net surplus and receives far less public money than the private market.

Council housing also has the capacity to link to wider social policy objectives, particularly around environmentalism. Climate change won’t be stopped through the individualism fostered by the ideology of private home ownership. Above all, council housing works because it’s not subject to the whims of the speculative property market.

It’s a supreme perversion of language that council housing is sometimes attacked because it provides “a home for life.” Labour needs to turn that around and say that’s exactly what we want.

OP posts:
HeIenaDove · 04/02/2020 17:18

dchkingston.wordpress.com/

HeIenaDove · 06/08/2020 00:57

www.insidehousing.co.uk/comment/comment/the-end-of-section-106-is-a-transformative-moment-which-could-threaten-social-housing-delivery-67414

The end of Section 106 is a transformative moment which could threaten social housing delivery
COMMENT
05/08/20
BY PETER APPS
The new zonal planning system in England will see Section 106 replaced with a fixed levy on development to fund infrastructure. This is a transformative moment, which puts the current level of affordable housing supply at risk, writes Pete Apps

The Section 106 era is coming to an end. As part of the sweeping planning reform being imposed by housing secretary Robert Jenrick, the mechanism - which gives councils the power to demand a certain percentage of affordable housing in new schemes - will be abolished.

In its place will come an infrastructure levy, which will constitute a fixed sum equivalent to a portion of the development value of the scheme. This will create a pot of cash which will fund “new roads, upgraded playgrounds and discounted homes for local, first-time buyers”.

While we await more detail about how exactly this system will work, such a move could mark another new era for the social housing sector: a change as transformative as the grant reductions in 2010 and the rent cuts announced in 2015.

It also threatens to fatally undermine affordable housing at a time when the need has never been higher.

When Section 106 was first introduced in 2001, it delivered only around 2,000 of 33,000 overall affordable homes, with the lion’s share at the time funded by government grant.

That picture has now changed. With grant rates receding due to austerity, Section 106 has become the primary vehicle for affordable housing delivery – with 48.9% of 57,185 affordable homes built in 2018/19 coming through the mechanism.

Over the last five years, it has accounted for for 82,490 affordable homes – 46% of all those built – and has been particularly important in maintaining a supply of socially-rented properties (13,458 in five years – 52% of the total).

In short, it provides a route to the delivery of affordable housing in a low-grant environment and offers local planning authorities a say on the tenure type which can resist central government’s drive away from low cost rented housing.

We now face an era where grant is both low and Section 106 does not exist: unprecedented in the post-war history of affordable housing in this country.

The new mechanism will generate cash to fill this void, but there are number of reasons why it does not look like being an adequate replacement.

First, if it is linked to value, the taxes raised will be meagre in lower value areas. This risks depriving already deprived areas of affordable housing, and widening the north/south divide this government has staked so much political capital on closing.

Second, a cash sum is very different from an affordable house. The current system has a mechanism for developers to pay cash in lieu of providing housing, but it does not bode well. The money is prone to remain stuck in council coffers for years without being converted into an actual house.

Planning gain on the other hand offers an affordable house ready and waiting for tenants to move in as soon as the private scheme is built. Despite being undermined by poor doors and segragated playgrounds, it also creates mixed communities, whereas a cash-based scheme creates separate blocks for the rich and poor

Finally the tone of the government’s press release is ominous: the reference to ‘local, first time buyers’ appears to suggest this money will be used first for Robert Jenrick’s pet ‘First Home’ initiative, where properties are sold with a 30% discount.

This may make nice headlines, but it will not be of any use to the 88,330 households in temporary accommodation.

And First Homes are not the only thing which will be competing for cash with more traditional forms of affordable housing. A long list of infrastructure is promised and getting money out of developers can prove tough. Housing may well not be top of the list, with a lot of calls set to be made on a relatively small pot.

Then there is the impact on the affordable housing sector. Section 106 remains an important mechanism for development by housing associations. Despite a shift away from it among some of the bigger players, 40% of the 48,183 homes built or acquired by the biggest providers last year came via Section 106.

Scrapping it will change the sector: the only development game in town will be land-led. Doing this in a low-grant environment entails cross-subsidy from market sale and the commercial nous to compete directly in the land market.

While many have gone down this route already, there are plenty who have so far resisted it. That option no longer exists. With the cross-subsidy model more precarious than ever, calls for higher grant rates will intensify. Without them, it is hard to see how some smaller organisations will be able to develop,

There are other ripple effects. What, for example, will become of the new for-profit entrants to the market who have staked their chips on buying up Section 106 units in bulk from developers? If development sites in the ’growth’ areas are snapped for private housing, where will we put the affordable?

Only last week, the (cross-party) Housing, Communities and Local Government select committee reviewed the evidence and concluded there is “compelling evidence” of the need for 90,000 socially rented homes per year, saying it should be “top of the government’s agenda” post COVID-19.

The evidence would suggest this message is further from being heard than ever

mrwalkensir · 02/09/2023 23:07

Caught GC on a radio 4 programme about public housing recently. Very calm, polite and angry. He's a good egg.

JenniferBooth · 03/09/2023 15:24

He was supposed to be doing a follow up to this programme I assume that didnt happen because of Covid

New posts on this thread. Refresh page