South Kilburn: When is a tenant not a tenant?

I wasn't sure when I saw this what exactly a 'Tenants' Steering Group' is - is it tenants steering themselves or some other organisation steering the tenants? I asked a South Kilburn tenant and he said:

"Open to all secure council tenants within the regeneration area"? Not if the regeneration area is South Kilburn, whether your block is due to be regenerated soon or not. Members of our Tenants & Residents Association committee who went to one of the meetings were told it was not for them, but they could sit quietly at the back if they wished.

It is not a "Tenants' Steering group" (i.e. run by Tenants), but an organisation run by the Council at which people can raise their particular housing situation. The information people can get at these meetings is no more "independent" than if it was provided directly by Mo Butt.

Communities First LINK

Brent council housing now back in-house

Brent council housing officially came back in house yesterday making the demise of the arms length organisation Brent Housing Partnership.

Brent Council yesterday published the following information for tenants and leaseholders:

The council housing management services, previously provided by Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), have transferred back to Brent Council today.

The move follows a 12 week consultation with tenants and leaseholders earlier this year and a raft of improvements to council housing are planned over the next year including:

• More investment in up-to-date technology, such as a new smartphone app for simple transactions
• More joined up approach between housing and other council services, to provide a better customer experience for tenants and leaseholders
• A more responsive and flexible repairs service
• More and better targeted investment in estates, blocks and houses
• Review of service standards, to ensure we are delivering what residents want
• Better engagement of residents in decision-making about their homes and estates.

Tenancies are already held by the council so residents do not need to do anything differently and will still receive all the services they had access to under BHP. However, council tenants and leaseholders will notice a change of branding back to Brent Council which will appear on all official items including estate signage, website, social media, letters and ID cards of staff and contractors.

Councillor Harbi Farah, Lead Member for Housing at Brent Council said: “Housing is one of our most important services so it’s great that we’ve been able to bring it back in-house. Our tenants and residents can be sure that we’re committed to building on BHP’s good work and will know that we’re determined to deliver an excellent service across the board.”

Anyone who would like to help shape the new housing service can get involved by:

1. Taking part in a survey – to help with the new Customer Strategy. Surveys can be completed via this link: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HousingCustomerStrategy  
2. Attending a workshop – to ensure that information about Service Standards is clear, useful and complete
3. Taking part in some testing – of designs for a new smartphone app

Please visit the housing website for dates of workshops, app testing and further information.

It is time for Genesis Housing Association residents to get organised!

-->

 From Genisis Residents

Why? Actually it is pretty straightforward.

The board and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) have been campaigning to ‘de-regulate’ or ‘de-register’ Genesis. Meaning they want to get out of most of government control or become private completely.

Do you remember the mutual building societies which went private about twenty years ago? The same kind of thing. They all ended up in the hands of banks.

In addition Genesis now clearly have a policy of raising rents so they can obtain more loans on the private money markets to build out-of-reach homes. In one recent case Genesis has asked the rent officer for an over 90% rent increase for a secure tenant. Hopefully the Rent Officer will not give in - but there is no guarantee.

Recently Genesis advertised a home for sale for £1,000,000. And another one bedroomed home was offered at a rent of £1,950 per month. I don’t suppose there are many readers who can pay that kind of rent.

The CEO publicly announced back in 2015 that Genesis would not build any good quality low rent houses. He said: “That won’t be my problem.”

He also explained how he looked at the homes of the residents: ‘[We are] really looking at our asset base and seeing what the value of that is and how we can get our hands on that value, (our emphasis) by changing its tenure, by churning it, by selling it and using those proceeds to build more homes.’

Nice! These are our homes he is talking about.

So residents have a fight on their hands and we have created a new residents organisations called ‘Genesis Residents.’

The next meeting for residents is in Harlesden on Thursday 16th February from 6:30.

It will be held in the Harlesden Methodist Church, 25 High Street, Harlesden, NW10 4NE

All the details can be found on our Facebook Page or you can e mail us at the address below

https://www.facebook.com/genesisaction

genesis.residents.action@gmail.com

Hopefully we will see you there.

High Speed Rail Project can't deliver low speed public notices to those affected by test drilling in South Kilburn

This image does not necessarily  reflect the views of our guest blogger

Guest blog by Pete Firmin, resident on the South Kilburn Estate

Just a few notes from the exhibition event HS2 held in South Kilburn studios on Monday, which might be useful for those who couldn’t make it (and even for some who did).

As ever, lots of boards with maps and lots of HS2 people standing around waiting to sell you their  pet project. Though whenever I asked a question it was never the person I asked who could (attempt to) answer it. We, of course, are expected to understand every aspect of what is going on. While I was there (late afternoon) there were not many members of the public (maybe 6 during the 3/4 hour I was there). As ever, this may well get portrayed as a lack of interest, taking no account of the fact that of those who heard about the event (see below) many would have felt there wasn’t much point in going, or couldn’t make the times (3-7) it was held. Funny how they could send everybody a letter (twice) by recorded delivery saying they might need to CP0 their property, yet can neither rescind these notices (by sending everybody a letter) nor ensure delivery of letters they consider less important).

My first question was about distribution of the notice of the event, knowing that I only knew about it by other means and at least some others in Gorefield House had not had notice. First reaction – as always – was to say it had been delivered, then to retreat into “I know there was at least one block the contracted delivery firm couldn’t get into and we asked for them to send them via Royal Mail, I will check if that happened”. I pointed out that I live on the ground floor with direct access, but that didn’t seem to compute. I also said that it was bit late if they found out now that it never happened.  This is a recurring problem, whether with the Council direct or others (such as the film company last year). They either don’t bother to deliver, or do not check if it has happened.

Another issue which comes up regularly is the maps that are used (people may remember that at the parliamentary enquiry into HS2 we pointed out the inaccuracy of their maps). In this case it seemed questionable as to whether they recognised that Canterbury Road does not continue on to Coventry Close, but that there is a section which is just footpath. Cathedral walk was certainly not named on any of their maps. Maybe this is why some people seem to think it is okay to drive vehicles along the footpath.

Part of the significance of Cathedral Walk is that during their test drilling, and later during the main work, they may find they have problem with utility pipes etc, in which case they would need to do work on them, which could mean taking up part of Canterbury Road and Cathedral Walk, something they will otherwise not need to do.

This event was primarily just about the test drilling, not the main construction. Even so, I was able to ask again about lorry movements etc. This will be of particular interest to people in Albert Road and Canterbury Terrace. For the main construction there will be 100 heavy lorry movements a day (50 in, 50 out). They will enter the site along Albert Road from the Queens Park end, entering  the site through the railway entrance at the end of Albert Road. They will leave through Canterbury Works and turn into Canterbury Terrace and back down Albert Road. When I raised (again) the issue of the narrowness of Albert Road to take these vehicles, I got the response from the “traffic guy” that he had just realised this and they would need to look at how they overcame the problem! We’ve only been pointing this out for years, after all. One thing they will probably do is make Albert Road one way (for other traffic, not HS2) with a diversion.

Their plans also show the loss of 15 parking bays on Albert Road during construction. When I asked where those people were expected to park, I was told wherever they can. No provision will be made for alternative parking. When I pointed out the lack of parking spaces in the estate already, I got a shrug of the shoulders. I also asked where site workers were going to park and was told they would be `expected’ to use public transport. When I asked `yes, but what if they do bring their cars”, he said they would need to pay for parking. And what if they use residents parking bays, as was a constant problem with the construction site on Alpha Place? `That’s up to the Council to enforce’. More wry laughter from me.

An issue of particular concern to many of us is working hours and enforcement of them. I was told that working hours are restricted to 8-6, BUT that they are allowed half an hour each side for preparation. They said they would also take account of the fact that they would be next to the school, but I could not get an answer as to what this concretely means. From bitter experience, I asked how all this would be enforced and was told “these are top tier contactors who will know that have to keep to the rules”. I pointed out that Wilmott Dixon is also considered a pretty “top tier” construction company and had repeatedly flouted the rules, I was told this wouldn’t happen with HS2. When I asked about enforcement, I was firstly told the Council (wry laugh from me!) and that people could send in reports and photos of infringement. As if we hadn’t been doing so for years with no effect. They gave me a copy of their “Residents Charter” and their “Code of Construction Practice”, but we have seen such promises before. Hopefully these are worth more than the paper they are written on, but we will obviously need to keep a close watch.

Lastly, I have been asking at every opportunity for years whether it creates problems that they will be tunnelling for HS2 underneath the Bakerloo line and never got an answer. Finally spoke to someone who knew what he was talking about, who said, yes, there are particular issues and `we will need to monitor whether our tunnelling causes the Bakerloo tunnels to sink. We don’t expect them to, and we don’t foresee having to close the Bakerloo line (or the mainline nearby) at all’.

Tenants demand 'If BHP goes its replacement must be better and include tenants representation'

Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee met last night to discuss options for a new housing management system system in the borough which will go to Cabinet on Monday. LINK

The meeting was extremely well attended by Brent Housing Partnership tenants and lease holders. At least two of the options would mean the end of BHP which is an ALMO (arms length management organisation) and semi-independent from Brent Council.

Tenants were forthright in stating that any return to an in-house housing management service would have to be much better than that which existed in Brent before BHP was formed.

Strong contributions to the discussion were made by Cllrs Conneely and Nerva but there may have been others as I arrived late from the Planning Committee which met at the same time.

In the current Brent Cabinet structure an in-house service would be monitored and overseen by an operational director and the lead member for housing.

This was felt to be be unsatisfactory given that lack of accountabulity and monitoring  contributed to BHP's current difficulties.

The first strong recommendation  from Scrutiny therefore was that if housing management is brought in-house there has to be a formalised, housing specific, oversight/scrutiny/sub-committee made up of councillots and residents represenattives of all types of tenure (eg tenants, leaseholders) preferably elected and with clear links with other levels of residents association.

A further recommendation was that if the in-house option was chosen that there should be complete transparency regarding the HRA (Housing Revenue Account) and it should be ring-fenced. 

Thirdly a much better and effective communications strategy needs to be put in place.

Lastly. if Cabinet opts for a joint venture any contract must come back to Scrutiny before being agreed.
 

Some vital additional information on South Kilburn for Brent Cabinet

The South Kilburn Regeneration is on the Cabinet agenda tonight and members are updated on progress. They are given an officer's report that went to Scrutiny Committee but not a report from Scrutiny Committee itself.

So that they can be informed I print below the Minutes of that meeting including points made by Pete Firm for the residents and tenants and the Committee's request for further information.

Readers may be interested to hear that another report reveals that the South Kilburn Trust has c£6m in its coffers LINK  

The Chair invited Pete Firmin, Chair of the Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association to address the committee.  He referred to the circulated report and stated that whilst it updated the committee there was no reference to some of the problems that had arisen from the redevelopment of the area.  There was a need to critically appraise the project, review the balance between the provision of private and social housing and the implications of the delays to the project.  He stated that the experience of contractors working with local people had not been all good.  A new health centre was being provided but this was needed for the existing population before it increased from the new housing being provided.  Pete Firmin also referred to a lack of consultation on the changes resulting from HS2.  He felt that as the regeneration project moved forward there needed to be a new commitment to work with local residents.  In response Richard Barrett (Operational Director, Property and Projects) replied that the report before the committee provided a broad outline of activity.  He acknowledged that there was now a need to engage local people in the review of the South Kilburn masterplan.  Councillor McLennan (Lead Member for Housing and Development) reminded the committee that the remit of the South Kilburn regeneration programme was to provide new housing with every secure tenant being offered housing within the redeveloped scheme.  She responded to the suggestion that there was a lack of consultation and assured the committee that there was engagement with the local community and the regeneration scheme was giving hope to people that things would get better. 

Questions were asked regarding how many units of social housing were being provided as compared to private housing.  Councillor McLennan undertook to provide this figure.  It was pointed out that successive schemes within the project appeared to result in the provision of less social housing. Concern was expressed that as budgets got tighter less social housing would be provided.  Richard Barrett clarified that the target was to provide 50% social housing within the regeneration scheme overall. 

Members enquired about the slippage to the programme and how local residents were informed of this.  Richard Barrett stated that he attended a tenants steering group every 2-3 months to keep them up to date.  He agreed that the delays were unwelcome and led to longer periods of disruption for local people.  However, the scheme still offered local people the best opportunity for moving into better accommodation.   

Reference was made to complaints received from residents about the behaviour of some contractors.  It was explained that it was the responsibility of Brent Housing Partnership or the housing associations to work with the contractors. It was recognised that the Catalyst scheme had been the worst managed scheme and this had been raised with the developer and lessons learnt from it. 

Questions were asked about employment opportunities within the area created by the regeneration programme.  In answer to a question about Coventry Close, Richard Barratt explained that this was outside the regeneration area but the opportunity was being taken to try to influence the improvement of the area. The Committee heard how work with the police attempted to design out trouble spots within the new redevelopments.  Members were interested in receiving more information on this. 

Members were also concerned that the planned expansion of local schools would provide sufficient places for local children.  Richard Barrett explained the plans for the expansion of Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Park Junior schools.  He explained that discussions were ongoing to get agreement to an arrangement that both schools supported but that it was at an early stage.

Members expressed their continuing concern over the need to provide better outcomes for local people and not just provide new housing.  At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Conneely addressed the committee and stated that local people were very concerned about the way they were being decanted and moved back into the area.  There was concern that local communities were being split up and the implication of this particularly for older people.  She wanted to see the process completed on time and people treated fairly.  Richard Barrett replied that every tenant was visited to assess their needs for the property they were moving in to.  In partnership with the housing service, decanted flats were being used for temporary accommodation.  Members asked for more detail on how this arrangement was working. 

The Chair thanked Councillor McLennan and Richard Barrett for their attendance.  

Requests for information:

·         accurate figures on the number of social housing units existing pre redevelopment and the number post redevelopment compared to the number of private units provided.

·         members to be provided with a schedule of rents for the area including a comparison with the pre redevelopment level of rents.

·         a population profile for the area showing how the number of people was projected to rise.

·         information on employment in the area so that it could be seen if the regeneration of the area was leading to a rising employment rate.

·         more information on how the plans for the area attempted to design out potential crime and the involvement of the police in this.

·         more information on the use of decanted units to house homeless people, including the number involved, the timeframes involved and the financial considerations.

“Considerate Constructors” in South Kilburn – Really?

Guest blog from Pete Firmin, Chair, Alpha and Gorefield Houses and Canterbury Court Tenants and residents association

Readers of Wembley Matters may have noticed on many building sites around Brent posters showing “this site is registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme” [CCS]. Very impressive, and their website http://www.ccscheme.org.uk/    sounds good too: “Considerate constructors seek to improve the image of the construction industry by striving to promote and achieve best practice under the Code of Considerate Practice”. My understanding is that being registered under this scheme is a requirement for getting contracts with Brent Council (and many others).

Having had problems with how (in)considerate Wilmott Dixon are towards those neighbouring their site behind Kilburn Park station in South Kilburn, members of our Tenants and Residents Association checked further.

The code of practice has various sections “Care About Appearance”, “Respect the Community”, “Protect the Environment”, “Secure Everyone’s Safety” and “Value their Workforce”. It would be interesting to know to what extent Councils monitor any of this, but our concern is with the “Respect the Community” section, where it states “Constructors should give utmost consideration to their impact on neighbours and the public; Informing, respecting and showing courtesy to those affected by the work; minimising the impact of deliveries, parking and work on the public highway; contributing to and supporting the local community and economy; working to create a positive and enduring impression, and promoting the Code.”

Having felt over the 3 years in which Wilmott Dixon have been our neighbours that we have not been treated with anything like the implied levels of consideration, we decided to submit a complaint to the scheme. Easily done via the CSC website, which also says

“When a complaint is received that is relevant to the Scheme’s Code of Considerate Practice, the site manager or company contact will be told what the complaint is about, and given the name and contact details of the complainant (with the complainant’s permission). Advice might also be offered as to how they might deal with the complaint.

The Scheme will stay in contact with the complainant until the site or company has investigated and responded to the complaint and until the Scheme is satisfied that the site is adhering to the Code of Considerate Practice, at which point the complaint will be taken off the ‘active’ list.”

Inconsiderate vehicle movements endanger children in South Kilburn development

 We submitted a lengthy complaint, covering a multitude of issues, such as frequent arrival of delivery vehicles before the permitted time of 8 a.m., , frequent working outside of permitted hours, building workers parking in residents’ spaces, construction vehicles moved via a footpath which is supposed to be only used by emergency vehicles, operations being carried out in a narrow street during times when parents and children were passing on the way to the local primary school, refusal to pay compensation to residents when cables have been cut. That’s the shortened version.

To be absolutely clear, all of these relate to issues (except not cutting cables) which Willmott Dixon committed to even before they began work on the site. Breaches have been complained about to Willmott Dixon, Catalyst Housing, Brent Council officers and Councillors throughout (usually with photographic evidence where appropriate). Very little has changed, even though occasional promises were made that it would. Rather, we found that Council officers had sanctioned some of these practices – they endorsed the idea that Wilmott Dixon did not need to pay compensation to those whose utilities were cut off (we were told that WD “didn’t mean to do it”). Council officers gave permission for WD to move vehicles between site entrances along the footpath (this was eventually reversed, but only after vehement complaints by residents).

We submitted that catalogue of complaints to the Considerate Constructors Scheme in April. We immediately got a response saying the registration of that site under the scheme had lapsed! Interestingly, the first response of the senior Council officer this was referred to was to suggest it be on the table for a future meeting. It had to be pointed out to him that maybe Brent should enquire as to why this had happened, which he subsequently did. The posters proclaiming the site a registered one came down sharpish. The registration fee was later paid retrospectively.

Early in May, because of concerns about our complaints, a meeting was held with TRA representatives, a senior Council Officer, local Councillors, a Brent Housing Partnership representative and local and senior representatives of both Catalyst Housing and Wilmott Dixon, at which we laid out our complaints fairly comprehensively. During the course of this meeting it emerged that there had been several site visits by the Considerate Constructors Scheme during the course of the work. However, WD had not thought (!) to inform tenants and residents reps of this, when we could have raised our complaints. They undertook, under pressure from their more senior representatives present, to invite us to a future such site visit (apparently they are known as ‘Open Days’).

Under the CCS, a registered site is under obligation to log all complaints received about their behaviour. At this meeting they undertook to provide us with a copy of this log and a full response to our catalogue of complaints, both of which we duly received. It should be noted that the log only contains those complaints sent by email, not those made by phone or verbally, clearly a shortcoming.

Not long after, there was indeed a visit by an investigator from the CSC. However, it turned out that he did not know we would be present, had not seen our list of complaints, and what’s more he had not known the size of the site he was visiting! We were treated as unwelcome guests and shunted out after a brief exchange. We have yet to hear anything further from CSC.

Just before this site visit, Wilmott Dixon excelled themselves. At the meeting one of the issues which came up was their poor communications, often informing residents late in the day about progress in the work, changes to access etc.. Our TRA had its Annual General Meeting coming up, and as ever, invited WD, Catalyst BHP etc. to give reports. WD asked if we wanted them to distribute our notices, to which we replied “no thank you”, we would distribute them ourselves to all residents as usual. A few days later WD put out their occasional bulletin with an update through residents doors, except that this time the second sheet was an adulterated version of our AGM notice changed to appear as if it came from WD! When we complained that, among other things, this made it appear we are somehow linked to WD they just didn’t “get it”. In fact they claimed that they were “being helpful”. How helpful is it when you are asked not to do it and go ahead anyway?

Have things improved since that meeting? Not really, we still have vehicles arriving early, we still have building workers using residents’ parking spaces and we still have work carried out outside ‘permitted’ hours, and cut cables again.  What has changed is that the building work is nearing completion (though it is still the case that every estimated completion date we are given is overshot), so not so much heavy work is taking place. Moreover, many of those who have complained have now given up because nothing changes and are just hoping it is all over soon.

Brent Council? There has never been any sign that Council officers monitor the performance of the developers. If we are lucky they occasionally respond to our complaints, encouraging WD to pull their socks up. If they are doing more, they certainly don’t tell us.

Last year our frustration was such that we passed a lengthy motion at our Annual General meeting in July covering 3 aspects – regeneration as social cleansing; problems with the proximity of new buildings to existing ones; and the attitude of the developers to local residents. Readers may have seen the article in the Kilburn Times about this. That resolution was sent to the lead member for regeneration, Councillor Margaret McLennan. Despite promising a written response on several occasions, we have yet to have one from her nearly one year on.

To be clear, our Kilburn Councillors have taken up our complaints strongly and have got as frustrated as us with the response from Council officers.

CCS? It is a self-regulated scheme, so maybe we shouldn’t have expected anything anyway. And WD sits on its board and has received awards under the scheme. But given that Brent and other Councils expect builders to be members of the scheme, you might expect (hope?) that they would pay some attention as to whether they fulfil their commitments under the scheme. Rather, Brent turns a blind eye, if anything siding with the builders in their inconsiderate behaviour.

To add insult to injury, after 3 years of this, Brent is pushing for HS2 to build its vent shaft next to our flats and the local primary school. So after 3 years of living on a building site, we are expected to accept another 6 years of the same. Or, rather, worse, given the vehicle movements predicted for the building of the vent shaft.

One last point, Brent like some other Councils, has taken a stand against blacklisting, saying it will not award contracts to any company that blacklists. Excellent, but maybe Councils should push for such a commitment against blacklisting to be written into the CCS, especially as so many companies which are known to have blacklisted in the past (including Willmott Dixon) are members.

Housing and anti-gentrification campaigns are building up all over London

Housing campaigns are springing up all over London as developers move into areas of social housing to build luxury flats that existing residents cannot afford. Social cleansing and gentrification are forcing families to move away from their workplaces, children's schools, family and social networks. However, resistance is building.

Regeneration and Gentrification in South Kilburn

Following his recent guest blog about South Kilburn, Pete Firmin, took me on a tour of the estate and talked about some of the issues confronting residents. In particular we discussed the HS2 vent which HS2 want to site on a carpark next to Queens Park Bakerloo and Overground station but which Brent Council wants to site next to St Mary's Catholic Primary School.

It is estimated that the building the vent will take 6 years and at the construction peak will necessitate 187 truck trips into the site and then 187 out again.

It is not clear that people moving into the new flats have been made aware of the disruption that awaits them.

In this video Pete highlights the issues:

West Hendon Public Inquiry hears comprehensive account of mistreatment of tenants

Paulette Singer, former community organiser on the West Hendon Estate, got a warm round of applause for this statement that she read out at the Public Inquiry yesterday evening:

1) I am writing this letter in objection to the Compulsory Purchase Order as the former Community Organiser on the West Hendon estate and ongoing supporter of the residents group ‘Our West Hendon’.

2) I spent a year and a half working on the West Hendon estate up until November 2014. My role, paid for by central government as part of the Community Organisers Programme was ‘building relationships in communities to activate people and create social and political change through collective action’.

3) Part of my work involved taking on volunteers from within the community whose role was to assist with the door-to-door listening process. In March last year a group of these residents formed ‘Our West Hendon’ in a attempt to both campaign about the perceived unfair treatment residents were experiencing through the regeneration process and also in order for them to have a support group in place to deal with individual housing cases. Along with several volunteers I listened to over 300 people across the estate and in the local area.

South Kilburn anger as Council denies them a voice on being dumped with ventilation shaft

A recurring theme of this blog has been the lack of democracy and poor consultation in matters involvng Brent Council: the views of library users over the transformation project, Willesden Green residents over the redevelopment of the library site, human rights campaigners over Veolia's multi-million public realm contract and more recently the denial of residents' requests to speak at Council meetings on matters that affect them.

Here a South Kilburn tenant outlines the latest case of 'democracy denied'.

Last year Brent Council changed the rules so that residents can no longer address full Council meetings about issues of concern, however much support they have. The claim is that this is unnecessary, since petitioners can address the committee meetings or Executive where the issues are discussed, and there are all sorts of consultations where there views can be heard. 

 

Even when such opportunity exists – committees and consultation forums – this is inadequate, since it is only when an issue comes to full Council that all Councillors are present to hear the issues.

 

But what happens when an issue comes to full Council without going to any committee or consultation beforehand? Isn’t it obvious that in such a situation those affected should be heard? It would be a simple matter of suspending Council standing orders for this to happen

 

Far from it. A report is going to Full Council on Monday (March 3rd) about the affect of the HS2 Bill on Brent. This report notes that the HS2 Bill allows for the acquisition of 2 blocks of (Council) flats and St Mary’s school in South Kilburn, and also calls on HS2 to move the planned ventilation shaft, currently proposed to be next to Queens Park station to a site next to St Mary’s school and those flats.

 

That report has not gone to any committee or the Executive. Affected residents were not informed of its existence by any Councillor or Council Officer, despite their Tenants and Residents Association asking for over 2 years now how they would be affected by HS2 and Brent Council being unable or unwilling to provide them with answers. Residents received recorded letters from HS2 last year saying it might want to acquire their property, and still Brent Council was unable to provide advice on what this might mean. And, of course, residents have not been consulted on their attitude to having the shaft moved next door. This in a situation where residents have made numerous complaints about the effect of living on a building site – being in the middle of regeneration with all the dirt and disruption involved.

 

Yet despite all this, Councillors are denying residents the right to put their views to the Council meeting. There have been attempts to fob them off by saying that their Councillors are able to speak and represent their views. Some of those saying this have no idea whether the Councillors and TRA have the same view on the issues concerned! But the very idea is patronising – who better to put their views forward than residents themselves, especially when so directly affected.

10 lessons for social landlords on the bedroom tax

Brent Housing Action campaigner at Chalkhill on Saturday

Brent Housing Action has circulated the following useful item from the Guardian which was provided by Jennie Bibbings of Shelter Wales LINK

Lesson 1: Communicate with tenants
We have clients who have still not had any communication from their landlord about how many bedrooms they are considered to have and whether they are likely to be affected. The lack of information from their landlord, combined with the extensive media coverage of the bedroom tax, meant that our clients became extremely confused about their situation.

Many housing benefit teams are sending out letters detailing appeal rights. However, some are failing to include information about how to challenge decisions – which is crucial, since tenants have only one month to challenge from the date they are notified.
 
Lesson 2: Ensure data on property size matches tenancy agreements
Compiling accurate information on property size has been a challenge for some landlords. We have numerous clients whose landlords have told them they have more bedrooms than appear on their tenancy agreements. One social landlord in south-west Wales only compiled a list of property sizes in September 2012 and relied on the local authority to tell it which tenants would be affected.
 
Lesson 3: Housing benefit departments need to process discretionary housing payment applications quickly
When we rang to apply for discretionary housing payments for a disabled client living in an adapted home, the housing benefit officer specifically asked whether our client was disabled. The application was dealt with as a priority and the award was made within two weeks.

Unfortunately our clients have not had such efficient service everywhere. In some areas applications are taking six weeks or more to be processed. Although landlords are showing willingness to delay eviction proceedings until decisions have been made, the length of time is still leading to significantly more arrears being accrued.
 
Lesson 4: Be sensitive to tenants' needs – and don't make them feel bullied into leaving their accommodation
We have a client who is a tenant of a small housing association. Following the breakdown of his relationship, and his children growing up and leaving home, he is now the sole tenant of a three-bedroom house. He told us that he was strongly encouraged to sign a notice to quit at the landlord's office as he would not be able to manage the shortfall caused by bedroom tax.

Lesson 5: Now is not the time to start demanding the first month's rent in advance from housing benefit claimants
One large social landlord is now demanding the first month's rent in advance before accepting new tenants, even when a person is transferring to smaller accommodation due to the bedroom tax. This approach is a barrier to people on housing benefit being able to access social housing, and is going to prohibit tenants from downsizing.

Lesson 6: Extra help for tenants can make a big difference
Many landlords are employing additional staff and setting up assistance funds to help tenants manage the impact of the bedroom tax. Pembrokeshire Housing Association offers tenants up to £500 to cover moving costs or reduce arrears to allow them to move to accommodation more suited for them, while Powys county council offers up to £1,500 to assist older people that are under-occupying with moving costs.
 
Lesson 7: Exercise flexibility in allocations
We had a homeless client who was eight months pregnant and looking for accommodation in south-west Wales. She came out top of the list when she bid for a two-bedroom property. However, the landlord refused to allocate to her as, until the baby was born, she only qualified for a one-bedroom house. Before a formal challenge could be made, the landlord had already allocated the property to someone in a lower band.
 
Lesson 8: Ensure transfer policies do not prevent people from downsizing
Not all landlords have changed their transfer policies to allow people in arrears caused by the bedroom tax to downsize. Some of our clients are in a catch 22 situation with rising arrears but unable to downsize due to restrictive transfer policies.
 
Lesson 9: Housing benefit should not place onerous burdens of proof on claimants
In south-east Wales we have clients who are a disabled couple, living in an adapted property with one spare bedroom. Neither has the capacity to care for the other at night, so they have overnight carers for six nights a week. The local authority is requesting numerous pieces of evidence before they will accept that the couple need the extra room for a carer. This is despite the fact that they already have proof they meet the relevant disability living allowance and attendance allowance criteria.

Lesson 10: The courts may not be on your side
Our caseworkers have encountered a local district judge who is suggesting he may refuse possession where there are bedroom tax arrears, but instead may take other measures such as inviting the press and public into the court and using Human Rights Act legislation to deny possession. Landlords need to be aware that not all judges will look favourably on possession proceedings.

Brent Council to provide incentive for council tenants to downsize

With the 'Bedroom Tax' leading to protests across the country and some Labour Councils joining Brighton and Hove Green Council in announcing that they will not evict tenants in arrears solely because of the tax, Brent Council has announced that it will introduce an incentive for tenants to down-size.

So far neither they or their arm's length Brent Housing Partnership have defined what constituents an 'extra bedroom'. Some housing associations have reclassified small extra rooms as boxrooms rather than bedrooms thus avoiding tenants getting caught by the tax.

This is the  proposal to be discussed by the Executive at tonight's Brent Town Hall meeting:

"The Size Criteria, or ‘Bedroom Tax’ will be implemented for underoccupiers of social housing stock from the 1st April 2013, and tenants will receive a reduced amount of Housing Benefit to pay the rent with. Given the current demand on social housing, particularly from homeless households who will be affected by other Welfare Reform measures, transferring underoccupiers to right sized accommodation is favoured, and needs to be encouraged. The currently financial incentive offered to households to motivate the move is a flat rate of £1,000. The proposal is to increase this to £2,000 per bedroom released, per household (to a maximum amount of £6,000) to encourage underoccupiers to move to smaller homes. The cost of providing the increased incentive payments is offset against savings to both the Temporary Accommodation (TA) budget and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA)."

Brent housing crisis strategy meeting on Tuesday March 19th

Overcrowding is one response to high rents

A message from Brent Fightback

Everyone is now aware of the deepening crisis in Housing in London.  We are aiming to bring together people from across our community for a more united response: individuals (especially those with housing problems), Tenants and Residents Associations, housing and advice workers, community and council representatives, trade unions and political organisations.

We want to hold an initial strategy meeting so we can begin to: 

• build connections and share ideas/ experiences about the challenges that are hitting residents in Brent,
• discuss what we can do to raise awareness of what all these changes mean,
• help people who find themselves struggling to cope; make their voice heard and develop strategies to meet these attacks
• develop a campaign around policies which would begin to meet real housing needs in the borough

We hope you will be able to attend and publicise this meeting to others who may want to be involved:

6.30pm-8.00pm , Tuesday 19^th March 2013,

Brent Mencap offices 379-381 High Road, Willesden, London, NW10 2JR

Contacts: Robin Sivapalan, robsivapalan@hotmail.com, 07974 331 053 and Ken Montague, kenmontague@msn.com

(some of) what’s happening now: ·         Inflated rents and house prices, huge shortage of social housing, overcrowding… ·         …reduction in the Local Housing Allowance (housing benefit for private accommodation), the Universal Credit benefit cap… Brent will be the worst affected area if the Universal Credit cap is introduced. ·         …’Bedroom Tax’, charging Council Tax on Benefits, “Affordable” rent being defined as 80% of the market rate…. ·         ….Cuts to legal aid, advice, support and language services… ·         …Low pay, rogue landlords and mortgages companies, loan sharks…

Brent Fightback is an alliance of workers and service users campaigning against privatisation and cuts to jobs and services.

Taking action on the housing crisis

Following the November housing crisis meeting at the Town Hall which was organised by Barry Gardiner MP for North Brent, Jacky Peacock has circulated the following notes on behalf of the Tenants Steering Group:
Comments and additional ideas on how to take things forward for private tenants are welcomed:

email jacky.peacock@bptrg.org

WEBSITE: www.bptrg.org

 

HOUSING CONDITIONS IN THE PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR

FOLLOW UP ON MEETING AT BRENT TOWN HALL ON 20 NOVEMBER

What is wrong	What should we do about it?
RENTS Rents are increasing by 5.7% annually -> due to increasing demand in renting properties (fewer people can afford to buy their own) Excessive rents are pushing poorer individuals out from the capital On average, the rent for a two-bedroom apartment in London costs 1,600 pounds -> 2.5 times more than in the rest of the UK As a result, poorer people will be squeezed out from the private market People spend so much money on rent that they will not be able to afford to buy their own property in many years in the future Average salary in Brent is 22,000 pounds/year which means that due to the Housing Benefit Cuts, many people will not be able to afford housing in Brent anymore Young people can’t afford to leave the parental home	It is legally possible to challenge unreasonable rent increases If people could not afford to live in Brent, they should move out Rent control - we should not focus on controlling the initial rent, but rather on controlling rent increases
HOUSING BENEFIT CUTS As a consequence, thousands of people will not be able to afford to pay for the rent Tenants receiving housing benefit comprise about a half of all the tenants living in Brent
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Over a third of private rented homes fall below the Decent Homes Standard Many homes are very energy inefficient There is a positive relationship between health and adequate living standards  Tenants suffer from “fuel poverty” -> individuals would rather go to bed to keep themselves warm than pay for the gas because they cannot afford it	Energy poverty needs to be eradicated Energy bill will stop landlord letting the most energy inefficient homes but not until 2018. We could be campaigning for Government to highlight need for landlords to start improving properties now.
MANAGEMENT Many private tenants face harassment by their landlord and illegal evictions are common Letting agents rip off private tenants	Implement the Landlord Accreditation Scheme Campaign to expose bad practises.
GENERAL This is the worst housing crisis during the last 80 years There is no more social housing available in Brent 350,000 individuals have been placed on the Council’s waiting list for social housing Brent Council found private lets for 548 families last year The landlord/tenant relationship is weighted heavily in favour of landlords Why does the private rented sector remain unregulated? The local authority should have more power over the housing situation Councillors do not have answers to all the questions Housing crisis has a negative impact on the education of young people Brent is focusing its cuts on middle management and will be merging Housing Resource Centre (dealing with homelessness) and Housing Solutions (advice and rehousing into private renting)  Private Housing Services  (deals with enforcement of physical standards) hasn’t been reviewed yet.	The issue of empty houses in Brent -> they could be converted into usable houses Brent is committed to developing a CPO policy with teeth Why does not the Council have hostels in Brent?  Good quality hostels for young people used to be appreciated.  They were affordable and provided social life for those who had recently left parental home. Landlords would listen to the tenants if many people organized themselves into a larger group Housing & economic growth -  create more jobs in the construction sector How do we build a consensus on the need for better standards?  Access to a decent home is a basic human right. Petitions may help to get heard Letters from bishops get published – can’t we get them on side? If we all used the social media effectively on this issue we could build a groundswell of opinion – should we organize a workshop to learn how this is done? How can we influence decision on the Council’s services?  How could enforcement be made more effective?  Selective Licensing? We need more events like this one Can we use the Mayoral election next year to be raising profile of conditions in private renting? Politicians don’t give enough priority to private rented sector because most private tenants aren’t registered.  Should we mount campaign to increase registration? Labour Party is in listening mode as it develops its housing policies – how can we take advantage of that? We need to coalesce with other campaign groups like the National Private Tenants Organisation, Housing Voice, Pro-Housing Alliance, anti-cuts campaigns.