# Brixton Clifton Mansions former squats - background, 2011 evictions and latest news



## editor (Jun 23, 2011)

I've heard some strong rumours that local shopkeepers have been tipped off that there will be a large eviction of Clifton Mansions taking place on July 12th (or 14th?) at 8.30am.

As far as I know, the people living there haven't received any official notification.

Edit: eviction party starts 8pm Mon 11th -  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=215345531839847


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 23, 2011)

For squatting, it could obv. be an awful lot quicker.

Need to be correctly served the Court Order first.


----------



## mr minet (Jun 23, 2011)

a friend who lives there has heard this too, this is unlawful surely? How long have these buildings been occupied? Do the council have plans for them??


----------



## spring-peeper (Jun 23, 2011)

Welcome to U75, mr minet.


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2011)

mr minet said:


> a friend who lives there has heard this too, this is unlawful surely? How long have these buildings been occupied? Do the council have plans for them??


I'm sure they have plenty of plans to flog them off to the nearest quick-buck-earning developer and kick out the long-term residents, some of whom have lived there for up to 15 years.


----------



## past caring (Jun 23, 2011)

Friend of mine was in one for ages - not squatting - but some complicated stuff with them having been leased to a housing association. Was definitely paying rent. I know there was a court case but he eventually gave up on it due to wanting to move out of London anyway. There were a fair few in a similar position but I'm not sure what became of the court case.....


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 24, 2011)

past caring said:


> Friend of mine was in one for ages - not squatting - but some complicated stuff with them having been leased to a housing association. Was definitely paying rent. I know there was a court case but he eventually gave up on it due to wanting to move out of London anyway. There were a fair few in a similar position but I'm not sure what became of the court case.....


"short-life tenancies" perhaps


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jun 24, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm sure they have plenty of plans to flog them off to the nearest quick-buck-earning developer and kick out the long-term residents, some of whom have lived there for up to 15 years.



Is there not an ownership issue when people are 'in situ' (sp) after X amount of years... they should be able to claim ownership? will check it out....


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 24, 2011)

Not if there were short-life licences.  Also, they keep moving the goal-posts when it comes to 'X'.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jun 24, 2011)

Gutted for them  Been coming for a long time though.


----------



## colacubes (Jun 24, 2011)

I've hear the rumours too  But I've heard the 12th rather than the 14th


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jun 24, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Not if there were short-life licences.  Also, they keep moving the goal-posts when it comes to 'X'.



I thought they were squatting... And what I was thinking of may not work unless they kept records.. bills etc???



> What is Adverse Possession?
> 
> Adverse possession is in layman’s terms what used to be known as squatters rights – If you can prove that for a minimum period of time (usually 12 years) you have had exclusive possession of a piece of land or a building you can apply to the Land Registry for the first registration of that title, this basically means you can apply to become the owner of the land.  Adverse Possession is much simpler to do with unregistered land rather than land that is already registered.  See here for information regarding claiming unregistered land. An alternative is to try and locate the owner of unregistered land which can be easier as you can buy the land and have it as your own immediately rather than waiting 12 years and then letting land registry decide if you should be entitled to own it.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 24, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> I thought they were squatting... And what I was thinking of may not work unless they kept records.. bills etc???


I'd have to confirm, but most old squats were given short-lifes in the 80's.   Still technically 'squatters' in that the licence grants no tenure, they don't even have to give you notice.

Btw, most short-lifes get umpteen notices to quit which never actually get actioned.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jun 24, 2011)

Im not too sure either but have sent feelers out... at the very least a crew should be easy enough to gather up in solidarity...


----------



## subtonic (Jun 25, 2011)

The police said it was to happen on 12 July but then when asked again they claimed to not know about it. I live in Clifton mansions for 5+ years and have, as have many others, communicated and co-operated with Lambeth council (well as much as I thought i should!) to hear of this eviction through word of mouth, with no written notice is a real shock. We have been trying to contact the council to get answers but they don't return my phone calls or reply to my emails. 

We have already been to court and possession orders were granted but the council was sitting on them, allowing us to stay due to being "the devils they know". The council said they would give us a months notice, it's now less than 3 weeks!!!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2011)

nipsla said:


> I've hear the rumours too  But I've heard the 12th rather than the 14th


 
I was told by shopkeeper that it was the 12th. The Police visited shopkeepers to tell them that the road would be blocked off and it would start at 8.30am


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> I'd have to confirm, but most old squats were given short-lifes in the 80's.   Still technically 'squatters' in that the licence grants no tenure, they don't even have to give you notice.
> 
> Btw, most short-lifes get umpteen notices to quit which never actually get actioned.



As far as I know most of the London & Quadrant "Short Life" people went. The block has been mostly squatted.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2011)

Let me change the thread title to reflect the fact that two dates seem to have been suggested.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2011)

subtonic said:


> The police said it was to happen on 12 July but then when asked again they claimed to not know about it. I live in Clifton mansions for 5+ years and have, as have many others, communicated and co-operated with Lambeth council (well as much as I thought i should!) to hear of this eviction through word of mouth, with no written notice is a real shock. We have been trying to contact the council to get answers but they don't return my phone calls or reply to my emails.
> 
> We have already been to court and possession orders were granted but the council was sitting on them, allowing us to stay due to being "the devils they know". The council said they would give us a months notice, it's now less than 3 weeks!!!



I not sure what links u have with the Council. But u could try local Cllrs to find out what is going on. This is Coldharbour Ward. If the Council told u they would give u 3 months notice this is possibly an issue for Cllrs.

Also if the police go ahead with this it will be high profile. So the South London Press may be interested. There is sympathy from sections of the local community for u lot in Clifton. 

Unless the Council have plans for this building then eviction is unnecessary.  

The journalist who I rate highly is Nadia. She has covered Brixton issues before.

http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/contact.cfm

Lambeth Reporter - Nadia Gilani
Tel: 020 8710 6445 - nadia.gilani@slp.co.uk


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 27, 2011)

I emailed my friendly local Cllr about this and expressed my concerns about this. The local Cllr had not been informed about this and is taking it up with the Police/Council to find out what is happening. Several locals had contacted the local Cllr about this.


----------



## nick h. (Jun 28, 2011)

One of the residents told me earlier that water bombs and a film crew would be laid on for the bailiffs. Licensed premises will be closed. I suppose the police don't want any drunk protesters.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 28, 2011)

nick h. said:


> One of the residents told me earlier that water bombs and a film crew would be laid on for the bailiffs. Licensed premises will be closed. I suppose the police don't want any drunk protesters.


 
They can't close all the pubs in London though....


----------



## story (Jun 29, 2011)

Are these guys still active? 

http://www.cliftonmansions.org.uk/

Are they still involved?


----------



## subtonic (Jul 1, 2011)

Resist*the evictions at
Clifton Mansions July 12

Clifton*Mansions On Coldharbour Lane is a community of squatters in the heart
of Brixton. *Squatted since the 1990's the 22 flats are home to a*large and diverse group of people. *The residents have repaired and
maintained the properties after Lambeth Council left them empty and
neglected. *Clustered around a central courtyard Clifton Mansions is
a safe and vibrant community where violence and abuse are not*tolerated.

On*Tuesday 12 July 2011 the police plan to block off Coldharbour Lane
and enforce the eviction of all the people living in Clifton*Mansions. *Making the astonishing claim that evicting Clifton*Mansions will somehow solve the problem of drug crime in Brixton, the*police failed to consult with local councillors before pushing ahead
with this plan. *Clifton Mansions residents have received only two*weeks notice that they are to be evicted from their homes.

Following*the evictions, Lambeth Council will pay Camelot, a private company,
to provide “live-in guardians” to occupy Clifton Mansions. *The*squatters have been providing a free guardian service for years. *Why
make people homeless and then pay a multinational company to occupy*their homes?

Eventually*Lambeth wants to sell Clifton Mansions to property developers,*further reducing Lambeth's social housing stock in central*Brixton. *Clifton Mansions will be turned into luxury flats priced*well beyond the means of the local community.

Please*contact the council and the police to let them know what you think.

Show*your support on eviction day:
12*July – 8am – Clifton Mansions – 429 Coldharbour Lane

They're*closing the street so lets have a party!


** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **


----------



## nick h. (Jul 1, 2011)

A party's not such a bad idea.    Are you expecting everyone to have been turfed out by ten past eight, or will proceedings be a bit more drawn out? 

If you want drinks from House of Bottles you'll have to stock up the night before. Or on eviction day you can walk all of 100 yards to the offies on Brixton Rd/Acre Lane.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 1, 2011)

Are there really 22 flats in there? They must be tiny!


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2011)

The building goes back quite far, and it's 4 storeys tall. 22 Flats, no bother.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2011)

subtonic said:


> On*Tuesday 12 July 2011 the police plan to block off Coldharbour Lane
> and enforce the eviction of all the people living in Clifton*Mansions. *Making the astonishing claim that evicting Clifton*Mansions will somehow solve the problem of drug crime in Brixton, the*police failed to consult with local councillors before pushing ahead
> with this plan. *Clifton Mansions residents have received only two*weeks notice that they are to be evicted from their homes.



My local Cllr has told me that they were not informed about this. 

I live not far from Clifton Mansions. Does not seem to cause trouble to me. If the Police want to do something about drug dealing they could look at KFC. Perhaps KFC should be evicted?


----------



## nick h. (Jul 2, 2011)

I've seen deliveries being made to a dealer in front of the building. But I don't see how the eviction will change anything.  The demand will be just as high, and it's very easy to satisfy it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2011)

And if there are issues with certain flats then the Police can deal with that. These problems happen in , for example, on estates. The Police dont have to tar everyone with the same brush.

It does show the importance of keeping a firm control over the building one is occupying. There are people on the look out for places to use for various activities. Especially in central Brixton.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 2, 2011)

It's just typical Police Doublespeak. Any operation which attracts criticism has to be justified by a nonsensical public statement.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2011)

ur right on that.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 2, 2011)

Not sure about a party - it's on a Tuesday from 8.00am onwards.....


----------



## Rushy (Jul 2, 2011)

subtonic said:


> On*Tuesday 12 July 2011 the police plan to block off Coldharbour Lane
> and enforce the eviction of all the people living in Clifton*Mansions. *Making the astonishing claim that evicting Clifton*Mansions will somehow solve the problem of drug crime in Brixton,


 
Seems an ambitious claim. Where did they say that?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2011)

Got this from Defend Council Housing:



Please support this campaign and protest against the eviction of the squat at Clifton Mansions which has been going since the 1990's. 


Resist the evictions at Clifton Mansions July 12 8am


Clifton Mansions On Coldharbour Lane is a community of squatters in the heart of Brixton. Squatted since the 1990's the 22 flats are home to a large and diverse group of people. The residents have repaired and maintained the properties after Lambeth Council left them empty and neglected. Clustered around a central courtyard Clifton Mansions is a safe and vibrant community where violence and abuse are not tolerated.


On Tuesday 12 July 2011 the police plan to block off Coldharbour Lane and enforce the eviction of all the people living in Clifton Mansions. Making the astonishing claim that evicting Clifton Mansions will somehow solve the problem of drug crime in Brixton, the police failed to consult with local councillors before pushing ahead with this plan. Clifton Mansions residents have received only two weeks notice that they are to be evicted from their homes.


Following the evictions, Lambeth Council will pay Camelot, a private company, to provide “live-in guardians” to occupy Clifton Mansions. The squatters have been providing a free guardian service for years. Why make people homeless and then pay a multinational company to occupy their homes?


Eventually Lambeth wants to sell Clifton Mansions to property developers, further reducing Lambeth's social housing stock in central Brixton. Clifton Mansions will be turned into luxury flats priced well beyond the means of the local community.


Please contact the council and the police to let them know what you think.


Show your support on eviction day:

12 July – 8am – Clifton Mansions – 429 Coldharbour Lane



They're closing the street so lets have a party


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2011)

I cannot confirm if the Police have been saying that this is about drugs, whether the Council are getting Camelot in or if the Council are going for quick sale.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 3, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> I cannot confirm if the Police have been saying that this is about drugs, whether the Council are getting Camelot in or if the Council are going for quick sale.


 
I don't think it is about drugs.  The council is definitely planning to sell. They have a legal responsibility to get the best open market price they can for it so will want to sell it with vacant possession  - I guess they are unable to guarantee that with the current occupants. They got Camelot in on Rosslyn and the other block on Rushcroft after the eviction so guess they plan to do the same here.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 3, 2011)

Clearing squats is part of the council's long-term plan.

From  item five of the minutes of the Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee Thursday, 23rd June, 2011



> 7.2
> Lambeth Living, who is responsible for 136 of these 143 [squated properties], started their anti-squatting initiative in September 2010. This has resulted in 47 properties being repossessed and the number of squatted properties reducing from 93 to 66. Repossession of squatted properties was postponed after January 2011 in order to reduce incidences of re-squatting. Given the large number of long term vacant properties in the borough there were plenty of opportunities for evicted squatters to move into another void. The successful reduction in long term voids, currently only 92, makes re-squatting less likely so the last phase of the anti-squatting initiative is due to start in July. In preparation for this the Tenancy Enforcement Teams have already obtained Possession Orders on 60% of the 66 properties and most of the remainder have court hearing dates. The aim is to reduce the number of squatted properties to around 20 in this financial year and LL is well on target to achieve it.



Full minutes of the meeting here:
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7635


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2011)

What a curious turn of phrase:


> Given the large number of long term vacant properties in the borough there were plenty of opportunities for evicted squatters to move into another void


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 4, 2011)

Fwiw, I was curious about the 'hotel' on Coldharbour that was talked about in another thread and so popped in there; turns out it's not a hotel in the usual sense but is entirely booked out indefinitely by Lambeth BC  for people on the housing list - no cash ever involved, just direct debits straight from Lambeth to the owner/s.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 4, 2011)

That's fairly common in London. Westminster often houses people in "hotels" in Hackney.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 6, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Got this from Defend Council Housing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
you might want to edit out that email address


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2011)

ok done that. Just thought it was ok as it was sent out on group email.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 8, 2011)

well, there's an event on farcebook for a party Monday night 20:00 onwards till the pigs come home


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2011)

I met some people loading up a van outside Clifton on Sat. I asked them if they were really going. They said yes.

Makes me sad and angry that people can get pushed out of Brixton in this way.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2011)

800 people now attending the party tomorrow night!
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=215345531839847


----------



## Maggot (Jul 11, 2011)

So is there any evidence that the evictions are happening this week, or is it just rumours?


Why would the council/police tell people about the date in advance?  Surely it's in their interests to turn up out of the blue.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

Legal eviction, date set by Court Order.  3 weeks notice given.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 11, 2011)

Maggot said:


> So is there any evidence that the evictions are happening this week, or is it just rumours?
> 
> 
> Why would the council/police tell people about the date in advance?  Surely it's in their interests to turn up out of the blue.


 
wrong.
by letting them know in advance they make sure that most people will have cleared their possessions out and have arranged alternate accommodations in case it does happen (which it most certainly look like it will) therefore making the whole process easier for the council/police and saving them the expense of having to put the squatters possession in storage (as their are duty bound to do).
Or it could just be a bluff, as did happen with St Agnes Place for example, the rationale behind this being: you can only cry wolf so many times before people ignore you and cease turning up to support you; it certainly worked there.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 11, 2011)

The police seem to be gearing up for it. Lots of plain clothes activity.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 11, 2011)

i'm sad for those losing their home like that and hope people are coping. 
I also hope there will be organised local opposition to any future sell off of these flats.


----------



## mr minet (Jul 11, 2011)

I wonder if people who enjoy the "cheap" rents of Camelot et al realise that they are playing a part in making others homeless


----------



## Emet (Jul 11, 2011)

Clifton Mansions was destroyed as a decent place to live by crack dealers - ++++++ and his assorted dogsbodies. They controlled much of the trade in central Brixton. R+++ in particular, was, and remains, very violent. Until about 2004, it was a great place to live, and then ++++++ moved in. He tried unsuccessfully to drive various residents from their homes, thumping folk and kicking in doors as he went. For a while he would stand in the courtyard of Clifton Mansions and proclaim that he would burn the building down.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 11, 2011)

had the council/police tried to just get the crackers out?


----------



## SW9 (Jul 11, 2011)

Will he be at the party?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 11, 2011)

Not everyone seems happy about the party that has been planned:



> WHOSE FUCKING IDEA IS THIS??? I've been living in one of the 22 flats for the last 10 years, with my young son... There r few more children and all sort of people living here at the moment..No way we r gonna let some stupid teen agers high on E trash the place we call 'home'... night before the eviction or not... BE AWARE


----------



## Emet (Jul 11, 2011)

There were numerous meetings with the police and council, mainly about ++++++' violence. The crack trade was certainly mentioned. We had the opportunity to have ++++++ ASBOed but the squatters were too scared to put their names against any statement even though their names, according to my understanding, would not have been uttered in open court but only, in private, in judge's chambers.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

Where was the nameless person two posts up when the ASBO was needed?


----------



## gabi (Jul 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Not everyone seems happy about the party that has been planned:


 
Um, yeh. coz thats exactly what's gonna happen. teenagers loaded on E trashing the place. yeh.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2011)

Emet said:


> There were numerous meetings with the police and council, mainly about Reynolds' violence. The crack trade was certainly mentioned. We had the opportunity to have Reynolds ASBOed but the squatters were too scared to put their names against any statement even though their names, according to my understanding, would not have been uttered in open court but only, in private, in judge's chambers.


 
Sadly ive heard rumours about some heavy people moving in. Its the downside to squatting.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Where was the nameless person two posts up when the ASBO was needed?


 
I was living in E.8...but perhaps you didn't mean me.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

*Name removed from Emet's posts for what I hope are rather obvious reasons. I just went past the building now and saw some _anar-keeeest _types heading in.

I note that the Facebook event is now marked as cancelled.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 11, 2011)

He's a scary bugger. I know someone who has to wear a colostomy bag thanks to him. He went to trial for that, but witnesses were too scared to testify. He won't be missed. But I bet he's found somewhere else in the neighbourhood.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

I've just got back from work, but is anyone at the party yet? Is it happening?


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

Now this is the fucking limit. Some wanky estate agent website has nicked my photos of Clifton Mansions and stuck them on their shitty property page.







http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs...ch/2011/07/squatters-enforced-to-move-on.html


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jul 11, 2011)

sue the buggers!


----------



## ddraig (Jul 11, 2011)

proper tossers


> However, you could also argue the view that it's about time these people got moved on and started conforming to 'the system'. After all they maybe able to afford it, after not paying any rent or tax for the past 15 years or so, or maybe not...


----------



## ajdown (Jul 11, 2011)

He's used your Monument photos too - although there is a credit of sorts. http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/london-residential-research/2011/07/up-the-monument.html


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

We're all drinking in the Albert at the moment. We popped over to the Mansions earlier on but no sound system yet.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

It's well old school here! Love it!


----------



## Emet (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Where was the nameless person two posts up when the ASBO was needed?


 
If you mean me, I put my name to a long and very detailed statement about the evil barber, which was submitted to the Police. I very much regret that we didn't get him prosecuted or ASBOed.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Nope, your post was above mine, not two up.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

I've just come back from the party and feel quite sad. Instead of celebrating and respecting this old Brixton squat, there's fucking twats on the roof throwing shit onto the people below and dickheads trying to trash the place. 

Some residents have wisely kept their doors closed and only let in friends, while a load of Facebook tossers think it's cool to piss wherever they feel like it and just act like arseholes.

We left after getting sprayed by piss that some pathetic twat had thrown off the roof. Some people near us got soaked. 

 It's a read sad footnote to what was once a thriving community.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

You know when you hear about these parties that get trashed because a load of idiots from Facebook have turned up...?


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

Eme's post summed it up well:


> Misguided me sharing that Clifton Mansion party link... there was me thinking it'd be solidarity with the people losing their homes & marking it with a good old school brixton party, there was you braying into mummy's phone & lobbing stuff off the roof onto us below. Feel sad & naive.



Elsewhere, the Indie has run a piece on the squat:



> A community of squatters that has lived in a set of artists' flats in south London for more than 10 years is to be evicted today as part of a larger clampdown on the unauthorised occupation of the country's vacant properties. The local council will pay for "live-in guardians" to look after the flats until they are sold at auction.
> 
> Lambeth Council is to evict about 50 people from Clifton Mansions, a block of 22 flats in the centre of Brixton that has become known for housing alternative musicians and artists, including members of the Irish punk-folk band The Pogues and the Turner Prize winner Jeremy Deller.
> 
> ...


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 12, 2011)

amen.  that was fucking depressing.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

shame it turned ugly. sounded mental from up from where i am. glad i didnt go down.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

chopper circling over coldharbour at the mo. bit OTT if its for the eviction.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2011)

gabi said:


> shame it turned ugly. sounded mental from up from where i am. glad i didnt go down.


 
Only heard about this very late last night. 
Was too tired to go but sounds like a bit of a sad exit.


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

I drove past about 7.30am, it looked like a bit of a barricade being built at the front gates, and a few groups of people sitting on the pavement waiting for something.  Also noticed the helicopter above.

There seemed to be a lot of rubbish along that stretch of the road too, a lot more than a normal morning.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2011)

gabi said:


> Um, yeh. coz thats exactly what's gonna happen. teenagers loaded on E trashing the place. yeh.



Erm...you were saying? 



editor said:


> I've just come back from the party and feel quite sad. Instead of celebrating and respecting this old Brixton squat, there's fucking twats on the roof throwing shit onto the people below and dickheads trying to trash the place.
> 
> Some residents have wisely kept their doors closed and only let in friends, while a load of Facebook tossers think it's cool to piss wherever they feel like it and just act like arseholes.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

Yep, coz it was teenagers loaded on E trashing the place eh?  Right back at ya


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2011)

gabi said:


> Yep, coz it was teenagers loaded on E trashing the place eh?  Right back at ya


 
Probably not...but to all intents and purposes it got hijacked by twats trashing the place which is what the resident posted she was worried about in the first place. Whether they were e'd up or not is besides the point.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

Well, Facebook is not only used by spotty teenage dickheads...

They were fully grown dickheads, the ones i saw anyway


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

CHL is not blocked off. I cant see much going on outside Clifton.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

I'm hearing that the Living Bar got attacked last night by these doofuses. Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## EastEnder (Jul 12, 2011)

There's been people on the roof for the last few hours, they've been chucking plant pots & paint tins into the courtyard behind my flat.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

they're just blocking off the road now


----------



## colacubes (Jul 12, 2011)

Looks blocked from Electric Lane.

Glad I gave it a miss. Had a horrid feeling it might end like this once it went all over facebook


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

shitloads of plain clothes cops turning up. its like a field day for the pricks.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 12, 2011)

Went past around 8:30. didn't see much going on at all.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 12, 2011)

that party sounds depressing


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

I'm hearing a helicopter above.


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm hearing a helicopter above.


 
It was hovering around at 7.30am when I drove past this morning.


----------



## EastEnder (Jul 12, 2011)

I can practically see the pilot!


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

Fucking hell. That 'copter is making a hell of a racket.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

lots more uniformed coppers showing up now. and yeh the choppers fucking annoying.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2011)

editor said:


> Fucking hell. That 'copter is making a hell of a racket.


 
Yup, could hear it indoors over by the Hoot. Very heavy traffic on Effra Road for this time of day. Hope it is not too ugly down CHL?


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

Noted on BBC Travel now.

A2217 London - A2217 Coldharbour Lane in Brixton closed in both directions between the A204 Effra Road junction and the B223 Atlantic Road junction, because of a police incident.


----------



## Chilavert (Jul 12, 2011)

There must've been half a dozen police vans outside, along with the fire brigade and an ambulance (I think) when I walked past earlier.


----------



## netbob (Jul 12, 2011)




----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

Just been down for a look. Former tenants sitting on the ground in tears, Lambeth council staff standing around chatting happily about last nights telly. Love Lambeth council.


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

Gotta love the rubberneckers out in droves...


----------



## netbob (Jul 12, 2011)




----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

I wouldn't call em rubberneckers. Just locals a bit pissed off at the situation.


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

Seems an awful lot of people for a tuesday morning that's all *shrug*


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

There's more council staff and hilariously badly disguised plainclothed pigs there tbh


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

ajdown said:


> Seems an awful lot of people for a tuesday morning that's all *shrug*


 
As opposed to rubbernecking it on the Internet, you mean?


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

It's a local forum for local people.  Shouldn't I be interested in local affairs?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

And those people outside aren't?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 12, 2011)

ajdown said:


> It's a local forum for local people.  Shouldn't I be interested in local affairs?


 
maybe they're keeping an eye on the police and bailiffs, no?


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

I'd have thought that hanging around watching people doing their job - unpleasant as it may be - would only be adding to the tension that's already there.


----------



## netbob (Jul 12, 2011)

ajdown said:


> Seems an awful lot of people for a tuesday morning that's all *shrug*


 
It's brixton market, it's normally busier. Also a lot of the people I saw live on the street, working in the shops/market or live on adjoining roads (supplemented with a few "why the fuck cant I get the P13!"ers).


----------



## ddraig (Jul 12, 2011)

ajdown said:


> I'd have thought that hanging around watching people doing their job - unpleasant as it may be - would only be adding to the tension that's already there.


 
so everyone should just trust the police and bailiffs to behave?


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

Probably not, no.  But then I don't have any first hand experience of when things turn bad.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

tbf, you don't seem to have a lot of experience of a lot, except from behind a windowscreen and your net curtains at home.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

memespring said:


> It's brixton market, it's normally busier. Also a lot of the people I saw live on the street, working in the shops/market or live on adjoining roads (supplemented with a few "why the fuck cant I get the P13!"ers).


 
Yes a lot of locals were there. Many of whom were not happy to see Clifton Mansions go like this. Also looked like independant media covering the event. Might have made the Police think twice about being to heavy handed.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

Nice shots from Memespring.

Ive got a few from a bit earlier I will put up later today.

They started later than I thought they would. At about 9am.


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> tbf, you don't seem to have a lot of experience of a lot


 
Maybe having got to my age and not had trouble with the police is not a bad thing...?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 12, 2011)

ajdown said:


> Maybe having got to my age and not had trouble with the police is not a bad thing...?


 
I have had and seen plenty of trouble with the police where no one was doing anything illegal. 
going to leave this now as it is a derail and you are a wind up, if you can't see why people feel they need to keep an eye on the police then that is your oversight


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2011)

This eviction just got a full 10 second story on the radio news.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Quite a few pics here: http://www.demotix.com/news/753583/police-evict-clifton-mansions-community-squat-brixton


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Nice shots from Memespring.
> 
> Ive got a few from a bit earlier I will put up later today.
> 
> They started later than I thought they would. At about 9am.


Can I add them to an article I'm about to post up, please?


----------



## story (Jul 12, 2011)

ajdown said:


> Maybe having got to my age and not had trouble with the police is not a bad thing...?


 
I'm sure there are plenty of things that I might consider part of a rich, interesting and fulfilling life that you have not experienced, ajdown. Doesn't mean either one of us has had more of a "good" or "bad" life. Your values are different, not better.

People going to CHL this morning may have been there simply to support the Clifton Mansions people.

On the other hand, _Homo sapiens_ being an inherently curious and inquisitive species, they may simply have been responding to an instinctive tendency to watch, witness, observe, learn.

What happened last night (which was bloody horrible) and this morning is part of the unfolding story of our community. I'd go so far as to say that it marks a watershed. It's not odd that Brixton folk should want to witness the events first hand. There was nothing prurient or voyeuristic about the watching crowds this morning (unlike those facebook fools last night).

Eye witness accounts are valuable. Books, telly programmes, lectures, opinions and policies are based upon eye witness accounts. Local people wanted to bear witness to this morning's events. What's bad about that?


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

Last night's shit party: http://www.urban75.org/blog/clifton-mansion-squats-eviction-party-takes-place-in-brixton/


----------



## Rushy (Jul 12, 2011)

Thanks for the pics. Looks like a great place.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 12, 2011)

is that a TOX11 i spy in Ed's pictures!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 12, 2011)

Dan U said:


> is that a TOX11 i spy in Ed's pictures!


 
I noticed that.  Bet anyone could spray that though!


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2011)

Can confirm a fare share of idiots turned up intent on wrecking the place. A couple of us were attacked, broken nose and ribs ftw eh?


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> Can confirm a fare share of idiots turned up intent on wrecking the place. A couple of us were attacked, broken nose and ribs ftw eh?


 
This morning, or last night's party?


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2011)

last night


----------



## Dan U (Jul 12, 2011)

jesus christ


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> Can confirm a fare share of idiots turned up intent on wrecking the place. A couple of us were attacked, broken nose and ribs ftw eh?


 What?! That's terrible. What happened?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 12, 2011)

Really glad I didn't make this party now.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> Can confirm a fare share of idiots turned up intent on wrecking the place. A couple of us were attacked, broken nose and ribs ftw eh?


 
Oh dear, that is nasty


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 12, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> Can confirm a fare share of idiots turned up intent on wrecking the place. A couple of us were attacked, broken nose and ribs ftw eh?


 
Shit, that's awful.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2011)

Me and another urbanite sat down in a small well lit room (on the ground floor near the sound system) to roll a smoke, within seconds 3 guys walked in, immediately got a bad vibe from them so went to leave the room but they shut and barricaded the door and jumped us. A mate lost everything, two of us managed to keep our possessions but took a good few punches for the pleasure  Big thanks to some French geezer who was in the room who managed to get the door open again while we fought back, could have turned a lot nastier tbh, we got off fairly light in the end.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 12, 2011)

Bloody hell mate, glad it wasn't any worse


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Jul 12, 2011)

that sounds appalling. Last thing you need on a Monday night, I saw this advertised on f/b  so glad I didn't go.  I've had my ribs broken before and it's proper painful. Hope you recover from that soon Drew,


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 12, 2011)

well, party was definitely full of idiots on the roof, atually had quite a pleasant time in one of the flats with some friends and outside on the road with others too.
I remember leaving about 4ish
only made it home about 8:30 (I've been told) with bruised face, blood all over no camera and no phone.
no idea what actually happened though but it's quite clear I got mugged somehow :/


----------



## Dan U (Jul 12, 2011)

Bloody hell mark 2


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> well, party was definitely full of idiots on the roof, atually had quite a pleasant time in one of the flats with some friends and outside on the road with others too.
> I remember leaving about 4ish
> only made it home about 8:30 (I've been told) with bruised face, blood all over no camera and no phone.
> no idea what actually happened though but it's quite clear I got mugged somehow :/


 
You been to the docs?  That's a fair chunk of time to be missing, especially if you've been attacked.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> well, party was definitely full of idiots on the roof, atually had quite a pleasant time in one of the flats with some friends and outside on the road with others too.
> I remember leaving about 4ish
> only made it home about 8:30 (I've been told) with bruised face, blood all over no camera and no phone.
> no idea what actually happened though but it's quite clear I got mugged somehow :/


 
shit


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 12, 2011)

fucking hell.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 12, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> You been to the docs?  That's a fair chunk of time to be missing, especially if you've been attacked.


 
well I know I was quite drunk by the time I left which would have accounted for missing time in a usual situation but the missing items and all my pockets actually being opened upon inspection and my phone being unavailable point to me being mugged, will go to get my ear checked as it's full of dried blood but I can hear fairly normally though which is a relief. A friend called another friend to say they have my bank card though... weird


----------



## nick h. (Jul 12, 2011)

No doubt there were plain clothes police there last night. Shame they couldn't prevent the muggings. I left before it turned ugly, but it was very pleasant having a quiet drink on the roof. Everyone was very friendly, people were helping each other up and down step ladders, sharing drinks etc.  Nice vibe.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 12, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> Me and another urbanite sat down in a small well lit room (on the ground floor near the sound system) to roll a smoke, within seconds 3 guys walked in, immediately got a bad vibe from them so went to leave the room but they shut and barricaded the door and jumped us. A mate lost everything, two of us managed to keep our possessions but took a good few punches for the pleasure  Big thanks to some French geezer who was in the room who managed to get the door open again while we fought back, could have turned a lot nastier tbh, we got off fairly light in the end.


 
what did the french geezer looked like? (just in case)


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2011)

Yeah spotted a couple of not very discreet ob taking pics of peeps when the roof first got taken. They stood out a mile, and looked pretty uncomfortable when they got called out, plonkers.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> what did the french geezer looked like? (just in case)


 
bout 6'2ft tall, skinny, short black hair, and think he was wearing a camo jacket. Nice fella, as were most of the peeps there tbh, just ruined by an idiot minority.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 12, 2011)

not me then, which doesn't help me piece together the end of my night


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> well I know I was quite drunk by the time I left which would have accounted for missing time in a usual situation but the missing items and all my pockets actually being opened upon inspection and my phone being unavailable point to me being mugged, will go to get my ear checked as it's full of dried blood but I can hear fairly normally though which is a relief. A friend called another friend to say they have my bank card though... weird


 
Perhaps you'd like to make that visit to the docs sooner rather than later.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 12, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Perhaps you'd like to make that visit to the docs sooner rather than later.


 
I'm going to have a wash first, not nice on them having to smell me otherwise 

just got a quick report on what happened to me though: instead of going home I went back into the mansions to find a room to crash in, went through a gang of youth and they jumped me in the stairs, that must have been outside my friends flat as they apparently got involved which explains why one of them has my bank card.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

Worst. Brixton. Squat. Party. Ever.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 12, 2011)

well, whoever made it a public event on farcebook hadn't quite thought it through I guess


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Jul 12, 2011)

Who goes to a squat party, especially one to celebrate one of the oldest community squats - to fucking jump people


----------



## Kanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Do you really think it was people that read about it on Facebook that were responsible? Or local opportunists?


----------



## Fingers (Jul 12, 2011)

We went down about 1am and didn't like the vibe at all so left. It was horribly shit.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 12, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Do you really think it was people that read about it on Facebook that were responsible? Or local opportunists?


 
could be either tbh
opportunists are everywhere


----------



## girasol (Jul 12, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Do you really think it was people that read about it on Facebook that were responsible? Or local opportunists?


 
Probably people who read about it on Facebook and are also local opportunists?  I remember this one party in Brixton a few years back, open door policy (but before Facebook existed), lots of things stolen


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

I dont recognise many if any of the people on the Ed's pics of last ngiht


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

Lots of plod still outside there this evening as I went past about 20 minutes ago.  Not sure if they were looking mean and tough, or just bored and pissed off.  It was hard to tell.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

OMG! I can't believe we're, like, in Brixton yeah. At a squat party yeah. Like, just us four.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Do you really think it was people that read about it on Facebook that were responsible? Or local opportunists?


 
Definitely Facebook, even local chancers were shocked at some of the behaviour.


----------



## T & P (Jul 12, 2011)

I look forward to Sophie's review of it...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

No one in the photo is 20 are they? Half of them wouldn't get a drink across the road, but I bet they've all got 300 friends on Facebook.


----------



## Winot (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> OMG! I can't believe we're, like, in Brixton yeah. At a squat party yeah. Like, just us four.


 
"Hi, yeah, Franco Manca, do you like, deliver?"


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

editor said:


> Can I add them to an article I'm about to post up, please?


 
Im going to put some of my photos up tonight. Yes u can use any of them.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

story said:


> What happened last night (which was bloody horrible) and this morning is part of the unfolding story of our community. I'd go so far as to say that it marks a watershed. It's not odd that Brixton folk should want to witness the events first hand. There was nothing prurient or voyeuristic about the watching crowds this morning (unlike those facebook fools last night).



Yes it felt like a watershed. Clifton was for many years London & Quadrant Short Life. There was as stable community there. With all the legal battles about trying to become official Council tenants dragging on most S/L left. The building started to be squatted.

Its sad to see its decline and ending in , from reports,  a crap party. 

This is nearing the end of an era. Eventually all the squats and S/L will have gone. An important part of Brixtons history. And not that well documented. Which is why the history of it (see thread on Railtion road and Gay squats "Brixton Fairies") is important.

 This wouldnt happen to Bankers.


----------



## smileandsubvert (Jul 12, 2011)

We helped a friend move his stuff out of his flat while the 'party' was in progress. He told us today he had 2 Polish friends who lived there. They'd moved most of their stuff out in the last week but were hanging out in their flat last night, laying on the mattresses. Two guys kicked their front door down, pinned them down and nicked their bikes and laptops


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Jul 12, 2011)

fuckit


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2011)

smileandsubvert said:


> We helped a friend move his stuff out of his flat while the 'party' was in progress. He told us today he had 2 Polish friends who lived there. They'd moved most of their stuff out in the last week but were hanging out in their flat last night, laying on the mattresses. Two guys kicked their front door down, pinned them down and nicked their bikes and laptops


 
FFS


----------



## salem (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> OMG! I can't believe we're, like, in Brixton yeah. At a squat party yeah. Like, just us four.


 
Or the blokes on the left "Yeh blud, manz gonna get merked, gotta make the dolla bills"


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2011)

Tbf most of the young uns downstairs were alright, not braying at all, and nothing like some of the divvy captions people are coming up with here. It was the fucking dickheads running round the building and roof trying to smash everything up that were the real problem.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 12, 2011)

This afternoon I told two police in front of the building about the robberies. Their response: "we couldn't get near the place because we were being bottled." Maybe the crims anticipated that a squat party would be a lawless free for all?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 12, 2011)

more pics on demotix
post eviction 'clean up'
http://www.demotix.com/news/753753/post-eviction-clean-brixtons-squatted-clifton-mansions

feeling any better drew? what a fuckin nightmare


----------



## salem (Jul 12, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> Tbf most of the young uns downstairs were alright, not braying at all, and nothing like some of the divvy captions people are coming up with here. It was the fucking dickheads running round the building and roof trying to smash everything up that were the real problem.



Mind was totally sarcastic (sorry if that wasn't conveyed well) point being that they all look fine and the kind of people who do a party no harm.



nick h. said:


> This afternoon I told two police in front of the building about the robberies. Their response: "we couldn't get near the place because we were being bottled." Maybe the crims anticipated that a squat party would be a lawless free for all?


 
Sadly it's not uncommon at squat parties at all. There are known gangs who prey on them for that very reason. It's a tough one for the police as well, they'd neither have wanted to go in nor would they have been welcomed, especially given the reason for the party. It's an environment that needs to be self policed. Fortunately in the case of wemakeyousoundb it sounds like it was to an extent.

Sorry to hear about the two victims on this thread, hope they are OK and that everyone else had a better time.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 12, 2011)

This makes for really depressing reading.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 12, 2011)

My pics are rubbish,  but here they are.

On the roof:













Cordon in the street this morning:











Two residents being evicted. The blokes in the white climbing helmets are high court bailiffs. The riot police are from the Lambeth anti-terrorist unit, based in Kennington.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 12, 2011)

The fire brigade turned up in their special Inter Agency Liaison bibs, but didn't have anything to do.






The usual suspects couldn't resist an excuse to get extra pissed, extra early. They goaded the police for a remarkably long time before they were given the taxi to Canterbury Crescent.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

nick h. said:


> My pics are rubbish,  but here they are.
> 
> On the roof:


That one almost begs a 'caption competition'!


----------



## T & P (Jul 12, 2011)

nick h. said:


> The fire brigade turned up in their special Inter Agency Liaison bibs, but didn't have anything to do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The two female rozzers are rather hot, it's got to be said.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 12, 2011)

And the one in the pointy hat would make quite a good tranny.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 12, 2011)

gaijingirl said:


> This makes for really depressing reading.



Ditto.

Hope you're not too sore drew!


----------



## nick h. (Jul 12, 2011)

Somebody left their cat behind. It's ginger and white, not fully grown. I've given the bailiffs some food for it. It might go to Battersea or somewhere tomorrow, or it might come and stay with me.   The bailiffs aren't sure of the correct procedure.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Somebody left their cat behind. It's ginger and white, not fully grown. I've given the bailiffs some food for it. It might go to Battersea or somewhere tomorrow, or it might come and stay with me.   The bailiffs aren't sure of the correct procedure.


You need to check that it's not been chipped first. It may have run off when all the Facebook fuckwits arrived.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

This was before eviction started. The road was blocked off first.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 12, 2011)

The Daily Mail has a big story. I hate to increase their hit rate, but it's well worth a look. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lares-hundreds-evicted.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

Here we go. Here we go


----------



## nick h. (Jul 12, 2011)

editor said:


> You need to check that it's not been chipped first. It may have run off when all the Facebook fuckwits arrived.


 
It's got a litter tray, so it must have an owner.  It seems happy enough for the moment.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

At the gates.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

Opening the gates of Clifton and pushing people back.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

This guy was a bit out of it and decided to stage dive the cops. He wasn't attacking them.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

I like my job.


----------



## salem (Jul 12, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> This guy was a bit out of it and decided to stage dive the cops. He wasn't attacking them.


 
   - actually lol'd when I saw that pic. Not sure it's quite a valid defence mind!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

Last shots


----------



## colacubes (Jul 12, 2011)

nick h. said:


> It's got a litter tray, so it must have an owner.  It seems happy enough for the moment.



I've heard it's going to be looked after from what several Albert regulars have said 

That Daily Mail article's something.  Picture of 1 person I know being nicked, and 2 people I know having their twitter feeds used for content   Although, to be fair, given the Daily Hate's normal style it's actually not too horrific an article.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

salem said:


> - actually lol'd when I saw that pic. Not sure it's quite a valid defence mind!


 
Here is Evening Standard. The paper had photo of him diving.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...tters-fight-police-in-bid-to-beat-eviction.do

A man hurled himself at police today as about 50 squatters were evicted from a block of flats in south London.

One policeman was taken to hospital after he was injured during the eviction of the 22-flat Clifton Mansions in Brixton which has been occupied by squatters - including members of Irish punk-folk band the Pogues and Turner Prize-winning artist Jeremy Deller - for more than 10 years.

A 35-year-old man, who has not been named, was arrested for assault. Lambeth Council said it is evicting the residents in a bid to cut down on "anti-social behaviour" and to raise "vital funds".

The eviction has caused controversy after it emerged that the council has not yet managed to sell the property and will have to pay up to £250 a week to employ "live-in guardians" to protect the properties. Alex Morton, 22, a graphic design student, said: "All of the flats here are well maintained and looked after.

"I have turned my life around because of this place and it's part of London's history."

He added: "There is so much homelessness and now the Government wants to throw us out of empty buildings to pay others to live here. It is insane."

However, Lambeth Council claimed that the costs will be minimal and recovered when the flats are sold.

Councillor Lib Peck, Lambeth's cabinet member for housing, said: "The occupants have no right to be there - taxpayers are essentially paying their bills for them.

"These buildings could be put to better use and the proceeds of any sale used to protect vital services for residents at a time of when central Government is making major cuts to front-line services."


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

nick h. said:


> And the one in the pointy hat would make quite a good tranny.


 
Nice shots nick h. 

The WPC on the left is really fit. Im with T & P on attractive WPCs


----------



## ajdown (Jul 12, 2011)

Just found a video from this morning on Youtube.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 12, 2011)

editor said:


> That one almost begs a 'caption competition'!


 
Something like: older residents upset by influx of younger residents coming to Brixton?

They look no different to a White Horse or Plan B crowd! Go on the tube in rush hour any day and you'll see people similar. I'm stunned people think these are 'a Facebook crowd'. Not doubting some were but that pic just looks like regular Brixton residents.... Just younger ones, probably buying up the cheap 2 bed conversions around Brixton because it's more affordable than Clapham etc...


----------



## salem (Jul 12, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> The eviction has caused controversy after it emerged that the council has not yet managed to sell the property and *will have to pay up to £250 a week to employ "live-in guardians"* to protect the properties.


 
What? So these companies get money from the council and the guardians? Amazing!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

I talked to someone who was a live in Guardian. He said that u have no security at all. That they come and check up on u. That there are lots of rules. Like no one to stay with u.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 12, 2011)

I think that 250 per week figure bears some examination. Anyone got a breakdown?  Camelot's guardians aren't employed in the way that security guards are - they pay rent. It's only a fraction of the market rate, but they're not paid to live there. Camelot no doubt take a management fee from the owner of the building. For all we know that 250 figure could be the management fee for the whole block.


----------



## s3m.nome (Jul 12, 2011)

some of the photos i took this morning

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lidiakk/sets/72157627180957152/


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Something like: older residents upset by influx of younger residents coming to Brixton?
> 
> They look no different to a White Horse or Plan B crowd! Go on the tube in rush hour any day and you'll see people similar. I'm stunned people think these are 'a Facebook crowd'. Not doubting some were but that pic just looks like regular Brixton residents.... Just younger ones, probably buying up the cheap 2 bed conversions around Brixton because it's more affordable than Clapham etc...


You weren't there so you really haven't a clue what you're on about, but here's a clue:  a White Horse or Plan B crowd generally don't stand on the roof throwing piss and bottles down onto locals in the street below, or go around smashing peoples homes up for no reason.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

s3m.nome said:


> some of the photos i took this morning
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/lidiakk/sets/72157627180957152/


Nice pics!


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

nick h. said:


> The Daily Mail has a big story. I hate to increase their hit rate, but it's well worth a look. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lares-hundreds-evicted.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


 The shame! They've quoted BrixtonBuzz.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 12, 2011)

editor said:


> You weren't there so you really haven't a clue what you're on about, but here's a clue:  a White Horse or Plan B crowd generally don't stand on the roof throwing piss and bottles down onto locals in the street below, or go around smashing peoples homes up for no reason.


 
No, I wasn't. I was just going by your 'caption competition' photo..... What point were you trying to make with that photo?


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

Kanda said:


> No, I wasn't. I was just going by your 'caption competition' photo..... What point were you trying to make with that photo?


Perhaps if you bothered to show up you might know. Anyway, this thread is too important to be driven off topic by some dull point scoring exercise, so - sorry - I'm not playing ball.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Who is point scoring? I'm just saying the people in your pic look just like normal Brixton residents to me. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Who is point scoring? I'm just saying the people in your pic look just like normal Brixton residents to me. That's all I'm saying.


 
stop digging


----------



## Kanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Lol. Digging?? 

Geezus.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Councillor Lib Peck, Lambeth's cabinet member for housing, said: "The occupants have no right to be there - taxpayers are essentially paying their bills for them.


 
What bills, exactly, are "taxpayers" paying?


----------



## g force (Jul 13, 2011)

Ah she used the "essentially" get out clause which actually means "no link whatsoever".


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 13, 2011)

you know, "the bills".
It's always like this with "them".
underclass dole scrounging parasites the lot of them.


----------



## Onket (Jul 13, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Who is point scoring? I'm just saying the people in your pic look just like normal Brixton residents to me. That's all I'm saying.


 
And you're quite right.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 13, 2011)

The bailiffs say nobody has tried to get back in yet. But I suppose it would be pointless because the high court judgement means they wouldn't have squatters' rights next time around.

I've emailed the Clifton Mansions Initiative about the cat, and they're putting the word out. I hope the bailiffs are being nice to it.


----------



## ajdown (Jul 13, 2011)

It only looked like some plywood nailed across the gates this morning, so unless there are more fortifications behind it, I don't know if it would take a lot of effort for someone to get back inside.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 13, 2011)

I asked them if they'd found some keys yesterday or if these would have been saved during the "clean up" and they'd told me there hadn't been a clean up yet.

Latest I heard on my misadventure is that I apparently tried to stop someone being robbed by a gang who then turned on me, not much details yet though so I guess I'll have to wait to catch up with more people to get the final word on this.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 13, 2011)

ajdown said:


> It only looked like some plywood nailed across the gates this morning, so unless there are more fortifications behind it, I don't know if it would take a lot of effort for someone to get back inside.


 
I think they already have some live in guardians in there.
At the very least there was lights in one fo the front flats when I walked past late last night.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2011)

did you go to the docs?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 13, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> did you go to the docs?


 
not yet  
am feeling fine though except for some weird hearing in the right ear and the obvious annoying slight pain from the bruises where I got hit. 
No headache or dizziness or other worrying symptoms.


----------



## ajdown (Jul 13, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> I think they already have some live in guardians in there.


 
Unless there's another way in, then I don't know how they got in because it didn't look like there was a door.  Maybe I just didn't see it as I drove past.  Could the lights being on have been left on by one of the ex residents?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> What bills, exactly, are "taxpayers" paying?


 
Rent.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Rent.


 
Does. Not. Compute.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Rent.


 
LOL


----------



## story (Jul 13, 2011)

ajdown said:


> Unless there's another way in, then I don't know how they got in because it didn't look like there was a door.  Maybe I just didn't see it as I drove past.  Could the lights being on have been left on by one of the ex residents?


 
There are other ways in.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 13, 2011)

The bailiffs have stayed in since since the eviction. The light last night was theirs. They are also keeping a permanent lookout from one of the first floor windows. If anyone were to get past the new wooden sheeting across the arch (which incorporates a functioning door) I think they would find that all the doors and windows accessible from the courtyard have been secured. There have been plenty of locksmiths and glaziers at work.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Does. Not. Compute.


 
Rent. _noun._ A regular payment from a tennant to a landlord for the use of property or land.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Rent. _noun._ A regular payment from a tennant to a landlord for the use of property or land.


 
How are the taxpayers paying it?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2011)

Well, I suppose the people who lived there paid tax


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> How are the taxpayers paying it?


 
She said taxpayers are _essentially_ paying their bills for them. The people who live in the building are not paying rent to the people who own the building. They are living there for free. They are not paying their fair share.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Sorry, how is that taxpayers essentially paying their bills? What are the taxpayers paying?


----------



## ajdown (Jul 13, 2011)

nick h. said:


> The bailiffs have stayed in since since the eviction. The light last night was theirs. They are also keeping a permanent lookout from one of the first floor windows. If anyone were to get past the new wooden sheeting across the arch (which incorporates a functioning door) I think they would find that all the doors and windows accessible from the courtyard have been secured. There have been plenty of locksmiths and glaziers at work.



Makes sense I guess.  Not having ever visited the place I don't know what it's like inside, but if there is a door as you say then I guess they get in and out.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Sorry, how is that taxpayers essentially paying their bills? What are the taxpayers paying?


 
Taxpayers are paying the squaters' share of the cost of owning the building.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Taxpayers are paying the squaters' share of the cost of owning the building.


 
What costs are they?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 13, 2011)

a weird video arty montage of the eviction  here:

I don't think it's been posted yet


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> What costs are they?


 
I'm not sure. I'm no estate agent. Did someone say 22 flats? Perhaps £500k each. That's about £11m.

The squaters are making use of something worth £11m and not paying their fair share.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Taxpayers are paying the squaters' share of the cost of owning the building.


 
Sorry dont get you. 

The Council has owned the building for years and put no investment that I know of it into it. If anything the presence of the squatters has stopped the building deteriotating further. Old buildings like this deteriotate quickly if not lived in. Thus keeping its value up if, as likely, its sold. 

Now the Council will have to pay to keep the building secure.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I'm not sure. I'm no estate agent. Did someone say 22 flats? Perhaps £500k each. That's about £11m.
> 
> The squaters are making use of something worth £11m and not paying their fair share.


 
Where are these figures from?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 13, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Sorry dont get you.
> 
> The Council has owned the building for years and put no investment that I know of it into it. If anything the presence of the squatters has stopped the building deteriotating further. Old buildings like this deteriotate quickly if not lived in. Thus keeping its value up if, as likely, its sold.
> 
> Now the Council will have to pay to keep the building secure.


 
this
+
it would have very quickly become drug abuse central if it had not been squatted.

let's wait for the "jump the queue" bit


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2011)

Shall I do this for Laughing Toad now?

"These evil squatting layabouts jump the housing queue ahead of ordinary decent hard working families."


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> this
> +
> it would have very quickly become drug abuse central if it had not been squatted.
> 
> let's wait for the "jump the queue" bit



Oh, so the squatters were acting out of charity! My mistake. I thought they were just a lawless mob who wanted something for free instead of paying for it like the rest of us.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Here is Evening Standard.
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...tters-fight-police-in-bid-to-beat-eviction.do
> 
> 
> ...



To put this in perspective this comment is from a member of a party which gave Bankers a big helping of "Corporate Welfare" as the economist Stiglitz calls it.


----------



## girasol (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I thought they were just a lawless mob who wanted something for free instead of paying for it like the rest of us.



It's all about perspective and common sense really.  I see them as people who can't afford the really expensive rents in London but who have the initiative and courage to do something about it.  If the properties are empty why shouldn't they be put to good use?

oh, no, sorry, they should be sold to a developer who can then make tons of money instead, yeah, that's the right way of doing things...


----------



## ddraig (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Oh, so the squatters were acting out of charity! My mistake. I thought they were just a lawless mob who wanted something for free instead of paying for it like the rest of us.


 "the rest of us" 
bit of a simplistic view you have no?

1. do you think it is good/decent/maskes economic sense to leave such buildings empty and rotting?
2. do you think people living in and looking after such buildings is a better option than leaving them empty and rotting?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

ddraig said:


> "the rest of us"
> bit of a simplistic view you have no?



Most people pay for where they live.



> 1. do you think it is good/decent/maskes economic sense to leave such buildings empty and rotting?



No. It should have been sold years ago.



> 2. do you think people living in and looking after such buildings is a better option than leaving them empty and rotting?


 
It doesn't seem like they were looking after the building to me.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It doesn't seem like they were looking after the building to me.


 
What makes you say that ?


----------



## Casaubon (Jul 13, 2011)

If anyone wants to debate the morality of squatting in Clifton mansions I think they need to understand the history, so I've pasted below a section of my post from March 2009. Full post at:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-Rushcroft-Road-Brixton?p=8869080#post8869080

Please bear in mind that any reference to Rushcroft Rd applies equally to Clifton Mansions, as they both formed part of the deal with London and Quadrant, and the ensuing shambles. 

*'        June ’09 will be the tenth anniversary of the case in the House of Lords that was meant to definitively resolve the tenure/occupation issues of Rushcroft Rd (edit: and Clifton Mansions)
I was intending to end my long lurk by using the boards to ask whether there have been any developments on Rushcroft, as I’ve been horrified that Lambeth council still hasn’t resolved the issues – TEN YEARS AFTER THE HOUSE OF LORDS JUDGEMENT. 

Now it seems that Lambeth have decided to act, in typically insensitive and stupid fashion.
Does anyone know if Lambeth has any coherent or realistic plans for Rushcroft Rd (other than dumping the properties at auction as soon as possible)?

I think it’s worth pointing out that the situation on Rushcroft Rd (and Clifton Mansions) has been a scandal since at least 1979. 
- Around 110 flats in Rushcroft and Clifton were handed by Lambeth to London & Quadrant (L&Q) without any formal agreement or contract (back of an envelope in the Trinity Arms is my bet).
- From around ’79 Lambeth ceased to collect any rent for these properties. All rent was kept by L&Q
- L&Q never carried out any meaningful maintenance on the properties, because they never had any sort of long-term tenure. Most of the blocks have deteriorated shockingly. 
- L&Q and Lambeth maintained the fiction that occupants were not tenants, but ‘Short-Life Licensees’, with no security of tenure beyond 28 days. Some people lived with this ‘security’ for more than 20 years. 
- The House of Lords decision destroyed the ‘short-life’ sham, and said that the L&Q ‘licencees’ had always been tenants of L&Q, and actually had some rights, contrary to what we were told for 20 years.
- L&Q reacted to the Lords decision by simply running away, renouncing any tenures that may have existed. Lambeth, instead of insisting that L&Q rectify the results of their neglect, paid L&Q’s legal bills as well as their own. (Around £200K for this one case alone. And there were several others going on simultaneously)
- L&Q tenants (around 90 on Rushcroft by 1999) were told that their tenancies with L&Q were void, and they were now illegal occupiers. 
- Lambeth refused to accept rent from the occupiers, as this would establish a new tenancy
- Lambeth hasn’t had a penny of rent from around 90 flats for 10 years, the properties have decayed to a genuinely alarming extent, and the households of Rushcroft Rd have had to put up with 10 unnecessary years of stress. 

The community of Rushcroft Rd provided a relatively stable and peaceful population in a ‘difficult’ part of Brixton, during the most difficult period of Brixton’s history. 
The community should have been supported by Lambeth – not for any ‘worthy’ reasons, but because it had evolved organically into a functioning community which could have provided a meaningful basis for regeneration.
Instead, Lambeth council has spent years, and hundreds of thousands of pounds, destroying the community while watching their property fall apart.'*

Casaubon


----------



## ajdown (Jul 13, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Shall I do this for Laughing Toad now?
> 
> "These evil squatting layabouts jump the housing queue ahead of ordinary decent hard working families."



Don't they also take all our jobs, claim benefits we aren't able to, and steal all our women too?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Most people pay for where they live.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
so paying people to live there instead is a better solution is it?
and the manpower and expense of yesterday is also justified?
what do you know about whether they looked after the building or not?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Oh, so the squatters were acting out of charity! My mistake. I thought they were just a lawless mob who wanted something for free instead of paying for it like the rest of us.


 
out of charity: I guess not tbh.
lawless mob?  ffs, which world do you live in? 
There were families living there with kids, hardly your idea of what squatters are I guess. But if your only source of misinformation is the general press you'll never see the true picture.
I'm not going to say that all squatters are angels of do-goodery, just like in any randomly selected sub section of the whole population you will get idiots/rude/criminal types. The thing is it's only those that ever get reported in the papers, hardly ever will you find a positive story about squatters who happen to be well integrated within the local community and actually earn respect from their neighbours because there are nice and considerate. 
Most squatters given the choice of paying rent for where they live would actually do so, they just happen to generally fall into the categories which mean they are pretty much at the bottom of the housing list forever and they also don't have the means to pay the outrageous rent charged by most private landlord (buy to let, ffs) so they get on their bike (as someone said) and find an empty property to live in; more often than not this implies spending time money and effort fixing the place up to a decent standard simply because you're likely to keep a squat a lot longer if you go for a run down property than a fully fitted up ready to move in one.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> What makes you say that ?


 
For instance, on the night before they were evicted, they had a big party, at which people were apparently throwing things off the roof. I don't let people in my home if I think they're likely to put hot cups on the living room table, let alone lob random projectiles off my roof.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> For instance, on the night before they were evicted, they had a big party, at which people were apparently throwing things off the roof. I don't let people in my home if I think they're likely to put hot cups on the living room table, let alone lob random projectiles off my roof.


 so nothing to do with the other 20 yrs they lived there then?
might you let people put hot cups down if you were being evicted the next day?


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> For instance, on the night before they were evicted, they had a big party, at which people were apparently throwing things off the roof. I don't let people in my home if I think they're likely to put hot cups on the living room table, let alone lob random projectiles off my roof.


 
Hijacked by idiots after pretty much everyone had already moved themselves out means that they didn't look after the building? Righto...

And how exactly would you have stopped these people from running riot? Cos the Police sure didn't want to know at the time.


----------



## T & P (Jul 13, 2011)

Do not feed the troll.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> For instance, on the night before they were evicted, they had a big party, at which people were apparently throwing things off the roof. I don't let people in my home if I think they're likely to put hot cups on the living room table, let alone lob random projectiles off my roof.


Really piss-weak, feeble, ignorant stuff.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I'm not sure. I'm no estate agent. Did someone say 22 flats? Perhaps £500k each. That's about £11m.
> 
> The squaters are making use of something worth £11m and not paying their fair share.


 
You said taxpayers are essentially paying bills for squatters. What bills? What costs of owning building?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Oh, so the squatters were acting out of charity! My mistake. I thought they were just a lawless mob who wanted something for free instead of paying for it like the rest of us.


 
Shift goalposts much?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> For instance, on the night before they were evicted, they had a big party, at which people were apparently throwing things off the roof. I don't let people in my home if I think they're likely to put hot cups on the living room table, let alone lob random projectiles off my roof.


 
You're one anal cunt aren't you?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> But if your only source of misinformation is the general press you'll never see the true picture.



My only source of information is this thread.



> I'm not going to say that all squatters are angels of do-goodery, just like in any randomly selected sub section of the whole population you will get idiots/rude/criminal types. The thing is it's only those that ever get reported in the papers, hardly ever will you find a positive story about squatters who happen to be well integrated within the local community and actually earn respect from their neighbours because there are nice and considerate.
> Most squatters given the choice of paying rent for where they live would actually do so, they just happen to generally fall into the categories which mean they are pretty much at the bottom of the housing list forever and they also don't have the means to pay the outrageous rent charged by most private landlord (buy to let, ffs) so they get on their bike (as someone said) and find an empty property to live in; more often than not this implies spending time money and effort fixing the place up to a decent standard simply because you're likely to keep a squat a lot longer if you go for a run down property than a fully fitted up ready to move in one.


 
I also would like to live in a home better than I can afford, without paying any rent.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

What costs LT?


----------



## girasol (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I also would like to live in a home better than I can afford, without paying any rent.



You think squats are luxury homes?  have you ever actually been in one?  lol


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

ddraig said:


> so nothing to do with the other 20 yrs they lived there then?
> might you let people put hot cups down if you were being evicted the next day?


 
No.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> anal cunt


 
No, sorry, can't quite work that one out... 

Laughing Toad - I see you hate people getting something for free. If you pay for it, so should everybody else, right? Why not the other way round? What's so crazy about a desire for _lowering_ the cost of housing for everyone?


----------



## HandinHand (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> My only source of information is this thread.


 
Enough said I assume.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> What costs LT?


 
The costs of owning a building. I've said that already.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The costs of owning a building. I've said that already.


 
specifically, what costs? You must know.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> No, sorry, can't quite work that one out...
> 
> Laughing Toad - I see you hate people getting something for free. If you pay for it, so should everybody else, right? Why not the other way round? What's so crazy about a desire for _lowering_ the cost of housing for everyone?


 
Yes, lower the cost of housing for everyone. Increase supply, build on greenbelt etc. I'm with you there. There was a leading article in the Economist advocating just that a while back.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Yes, lower the cost of housing for everyone. Increase supply.


 
Empty homes in London, 2009: 75,706 (source)


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> specifically, what costs? You must know.


 
Some buildings cost a lot, some buildings cost much less. Perhaps I've been looking in the wrong estate agent's windows, but I've not heard of any buildings which are free.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 13, 2011)

keep diggin slimey!


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> No, sorry, can't quite work that one out...


 
Anally-retentive cunt. That better?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The costs of owning a building. I've said that already.



The cost was there squatters or not.
Squatters were in effect live-in guardians as it happens; at no cost to the council, unlike now.
+ they kept the place maintained and secure, whereas it would have turned into a crack den a long time ago otherwise.

Anyway, I guess next year it'll probably be Rushcroft road time to go through the eviction process :/


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 13, 2011)

It is difficult to condone squatting of council properties with the high levels of street homelessness and badly housed on waiting lists etc But there are staggering numbers of empty council properties  - 1,332 empty council homes in the LB borough. They should be occupied if the councils are not trying to bring them back to use - otherwise they attract anti social behaviour. If councils were able to guarantee these properties will be used to house the very vulnerable I'd support that. That is unlikely as social housing in the UK is on the way out. Soon there won't be any public housing even for the very vulnerable and elderly.

http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/news.cfm?id=5711


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I also would like to live in a home better than I can afford, without paying any rent.


Would you also be looking for a _totally insecure_ stay in a cold, damp and leaking building that is falling apart because there's been no maintenance for years? Sound good to you?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Empty homes in London, 2009: 75,706 (source)


 
2.28% of the total.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Some buildings cost a lot, some buildings cost much less. Perhaps I've been looking in the wrong estate agent's windows, but I've not heard of any buildings which are free.


The building wasn't for sale, silly. It had effectively been abandoned by the council and if the squatters hadn't taken over it probably would have been declared unsafe by now.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> 2.28% of the total.


 
ah that's ok then! how much of a % is acceptable to you?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> 2.28% of the total.


 
Still a lot. And lots of sites worth building on too. But govt. policy does not want to increase housing supply too much, for fear of collapsing house prices and wiping out a major source of "wealth" in this country. The whole housing market is a distortion.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

editor said:


> Would you also be looking for a _totally insecure_ stay in a cold, damp and leaking building that is falling apart because there's been no maintenance for years? Sound good to you?


 
Self-evidently I would only live there if it were better than the alternatives.


----------



## HandinHand (Jul 13, 2011)

The point is the council did not have plans for the builidng and allowed the squatters to live in the house rent free, as an occupied building is always going to be better than an empty building they were providing a service to the area. When they were recently were asked to leave they did, to make way for high cost housing that no one in the local area can afford (it can only be assumed). So selling the buildings of has made them a lot more out of bounds for people than they were when they were squats (ie squating has not taken up hosing stock increasing the price of other houses, its private ownership aimed at high earning clients that will raise the price of housing).

I cannot see how you prefer the second option to the first. While we would all like to live for in a house for free we don't because most of us prefer the safety and comfort,  living in a place we can call our own. But the world is not as dull as that and some people for whatever personal reason choose to live in unoccupied builidngs which would otherwise be unused. 

The fact that you think luxury housing in an area is more preferable to an community art center speaks volumes about you. People need more than just housing we need areas to get together, interact, create and so on and so forth. If the whole world was just made up of houses and shops, which quiet a few places are, we would not get the chance to do any of the above. Please try to understand that not everybody is like yourself and since no harm was being done by these squatters, a live and let live attitude should prevail.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Self-evidently I would only live there if it were better than the alternatives.


 
well between what editor described and a cardboard box down the bullring (not actually there anymore...) which would you choose?

You also seem to have missed this part of what I said earlier: "Most squatters given the choice of paying rent for where they live would actually do so"


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Some buildings cost a lot, some buildings cost much less. Perhaps I've been looking in the wrong estate agent's windows, but I've not heard of any buildings which are free.


 
You seem to be conflating potential worth with running costs.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> "Most squatters given the choice of paying rent for where they live would actually do so"


 
Nonsense. They couldn't possibly afford it.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Nonsense. They couldn't possibly afford it.


 
Only goes to show you know fuck all about squatting.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You seem to be conflating potential worth with running costs.


 
You can't demand to live in a building and only pay the running costs.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Only goes to show you know fuck all about squatting.


 
Then why don't they go and live in any of the many buildings available for rent in the area?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Then why don't they go and live in any of the many buildings available for rent in the area?


 
Because occassionally they're trying to make a political point. Other times they merely prefer to spend their money on other things. There's this thing called "taking other people's perspective". You should try it one day.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> You can't demand to live in a building and only pay the running costs.


 
You said that taxpayers were paying the running costs of building. What costs? Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Because occassionally they're trying to make a political point. Other times they merely prefer to spend their money on other things. There's this thing called "taking other people's perspective". You should try it one day.


 
Perhaps I should hop on a bus, refuse to pay, and say that I am making a political point and that I prefer to spend my money on other things. Genius.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Perhaps I should hop on a bus, refuse to pay, and say that I am making a political point and that I prefer to spend my money on other things. Genius.


 
Give it a shot and report back. Nothing wrong with the political position as far as I can see - public transport could well be run free at the point of use. It couldn't get much worse in terms of bang for buck anyway.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Perhaps I should hop on a bus, refuse to pay, and say that I am making a political point and that I prefer to spend my money on other things. Genius.


 
that would be illegal

squatting is a civil offence
if you don't like it, tough toady


----------



## HandinHand (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Perhaps I should hop on a bus, refuse to pay, and say that I am making a political point and that I prefer to spend my money on other things. Genius.


 
Needless to say it costs money to run a bus service. It doesn't cost money to leave a building empty.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2011)

ajdown said:


> Don't they also take all our jobs, claim benefits we aren't able to, and steal all our women too?


 
Thought Id Laughing Toad the benefit of the doubt on that. I dont think he is quite that Daily Mail.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 13, 2011)

HandinHand said:


> It doesn't cost money to leave a building empty.


 
That's only true if you don't have any debt. The council has debt so every asset that they are not using and could dispose of is essentially costing them the interest on the equivalent value of the building. If they can get 3-4 million for selling it then they should be able either pay off debt (unlikely) or use the money to pay for services they will otherwise have to borrow in order to provide (more likely). On that basis, and assuming a borrowing rate iro 6%, retaining the asset costs £180-240,000pa.

If squatters are not paying council tax (I've no idea whether they are or are not) then they also have to calculate in that cost. That would be another £24,000.


----------



## HandinHand (Jul 13, 2011)

It would be losing that money regardless, if the squatters were there or not. Maybe I was a bit rash to say an empty building costs nothing, but if the building had been empty the council still wounldn't have had the money to turn it back into acceptable social housing. It has taken a very short term decision, deciding to sell off priceless assets to pivate landlords instead of allowing it to exist as housing for the poor.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2011)

It had far more real social value as a squat as it will as a one off financial bunce to the council and housing that is out of reach of most or as an unoccupied building.   the only thing that would have had more value would be the council renting it to the squatters or others as social housing and the council evidently have no intention of doing that.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 13, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> > It had far more real social value as a squat as it will as a one off financial bunce to the council
> 
> 
> My impression is that, rightly or wrongly, outside of these boards that view is shared by a pretty small minority.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Rushy said:


> My impression is that, rightly or wrongly, outside of these boards that view is shared by a pretty small minority.


 
So a squat that goes, what, 20 years back, hasn't put down roots in the community you think?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 13, 2011)

HandinHand said:


> > It would be lossing that money regardless, if the squatters were there or not.
> 
> 
> Yes - on that basis that the council is holding on to it and leaving it empty then the cost to the community is negligible (as long as it is a a trouble free squat) and I have sympathy with the squatters making use of a wasted asset. But now the council needs the cash and has decided to get rid of it that cost is no longer negligible.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Then why don't they go and live in any of the many buildings available for rent in the area?


Sometimes it's because the area in which they're living has been gentrified and thus they can no longer afford the market rents. People who have become part of a long-established local community are understandably reluctant to go live somewhere else, so squatting is often the only choice available to them.  

Of course, the irony is that it's often squatters who have helped make an area desirable in the first place, so I'm not surprised that some get pissed off when developers rock up and start pricing everyone out of town.


----------



## HandinHand (Jul 13, 2011)

Rushy;11930512][QUOTE=HandinHand said:


> But now the council needs the cash and has decided to get rid of it that cost is no longer negligible.


 
... and the squatters have left. So we are agreed that the squatter weren't a problem at any point. Whether the council should have sold the building off or not is a seperate issue which could fill another 13 pages of the board.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 13, 2011)

provided of course it isnt already sold seems like the thread might be moving towards an argument to prevent the sale of this important social asset; something similar happened in LB Hackney.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2011)

Rushy said:


> My impression is that, rightly or wrongly, outside of these boards that view is shared by a pretty small minority.




Probably.  But we are right and the rest are wrong.  


Obvs.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 13, 2011)

Can I just but in to say that some of the residents tried to pay rent to the council? The council wouldn't take it. Most of the residents seemed to be in creative industries which don't pay well unless you're one of the tiny, tiny fraction who make it big. The building's reputation as being full of junkies was ill-deserved.  By and large the residents didn't seem to be junkies. On the contrary they were welcome customers in the local shops, and they'll be sorely missed.  The building got its bad reputation from non-resident addicts who would go into the courtyard and stairwells to smoke crack or what have you. The police patrolled it a fair bit for that reason. 

Don't know if this has been covered but allegedly the building was once owned by someone who died intestate.  If that's true it's all the more unjust that it should have been taken away from people who were an asset to the community, for the benefit of private developers and a council with a long history of stealing and squandering public money.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 13, 2011)

When is this thread going to switch into talking about food, as per normal?

But ... seriously: it has been interesting to hear a number of arguments in favour of squatting, even if I am not quite persuaded by them.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

leanderman said:


> When is this thread going to switch into talking about food, as per normal?
> 
> But ... seriously: it has been interesting to hear a number of arguments in favour of squatting, even if I am not quite persuaded by them.


 
There's good squatting and bad squatting. Seems to me this was an instance of the former. Otherwise don't you think local law-abiding folks would've had them chucked out ages ago? It's not like they were out of sight.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 13, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Can I just but in to say that some of the residents tried to pay rent to the council? The council wouldn't take it. Most of the residents seemed to be in creative industries which don't pay well unless you're one of the tiny, tiny fraction who make it big. The building's reputation as being full of junkies was ill-deserved.  By and large the residents didn't seem to be junkies. On the contrary they were welcome customers in the local shops, and they'll be sorely missed.  The building got its bad reputation from non-resident addicts who would go into the courtyard and stairwells to smoke crack or what have you. The police patrolled it a fair bit for that reason.
> 
> Don't know if this has been covered but allegedly the building was once owned by someone who died intestate.  If that's true it's all the more unjust that it should have been taken away from people who were an asset to the community, for the benefit of private developers and a council with a long history of stealing and squandering public money.


 
Very good post


----------



## salem (Jul 13, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> It is difficult to condone squatting of council properties with the high levels of street homelessness and badly housed on waiting lists etc But there are staggering numbers of empty council properties  - 1,332 empty council homes in the LB borough. They should be occupied if the councils are not trying to bring them back to use - otherwise they attract anti social behaviour. If councils were able to guarantee these properties will be used to house the very vulnerable I'd support that. That is unlikely as social housing in the UK is on the way out. Soon there won't be any public housing even for the very vulnerable and elderly.
> 
> http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/news.cfm?id=5711



1,332 empty council homes in Lambeth is a disgusting figure. I presume that Lambeth won't be the only London borough with this figure either.

Now I'm sure they don't keep them empty out of spite. Would this be because the council are tied by the minimum quality levels for their homes? If they don't have funds to refurbish them they have to let them sit empty.

Couldn't the council employ it's own 'live in guardians' and in the process have some hand in seeing them handed out fairly? Perhaps support in cleaning them up and have that as a condition of the short term tenancy (made clear from the beginning of course).


----------



## mr minet (Jul 13, 2011)

salem said:


> Couldn't the council employ it's own 'live in guardians' and in the process have some hand in seeing them handed out fairly? Perhaps support in cleaning them up and have that as a condition of the short term tenancy (made clear from the beginning of course).


 
The just evicted occupiers were providing this!! They were in constant contact with the council who said they were happy that about the situation for the time being (in that at least they "werent junkies etc"), it was the police putting on pressure to the council that caused the eviction.  

Its also interesting the cake and barbers shop were not also evicted (both squatted too i believe) considering the outlined issue was "drug dealing"


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

mr minet said:


> The just evicted occupiers were providing this!!


 
So when the 'guardians' leave, do you think there will be a big party with people throwing stuff off the roof, or will they perhaps be taking greater care of the building?


----------



## nick h. (Jul 13, 2011)

Don't be a knob. You know perfectly well that residents weren't happy with the Facebook party invite and tried to cancel it. As far as I could tell, none of the residents who were still there the other night were participating with the party. They locked their doors and tried to discourage people from climbing on the roof.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 13, 2011)

> Would this be because the council are tied by the minimum quality levels for their homes? If they don't have funds to refurbish them they have to let them sit empty.


that s the standard response i think , which should be rephrased with this different emphasis:



> a council with a long history of stealing and squandering public money.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Don't be a knob. You know perfectly well that residents weren't happy with the Facebook party invite and tried to cancel it. As far as I could tell, none of the residents who were still there the other night were participating with the party. They locked their doors and tried to discourage people from climbing on the roof.


 
Yes, it was all somebody else's fault. I understand. The squaters were blameless. It's all a massive conspiracy. How silly of me not to have known that. Now that you've called me a knob, I fully accept your argument.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Yes, it was all somebody else's fault. I understand. The squaters were blameless. It's all a massive conspiracy. How silly of me not to have known that. Now that you've called me a knob, I fully accept your argument.


 
What argument would you accept then? None I'd guess.

Because there have been plenty of well reasoned responses to your obvious attention seeking, yet you've chosen not to respond to them. Shame dat.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Yes, it was all somebody else's fault. I understand. The squaters were blameless. It's all a massive conspiracy. How silly of me not to have known that. Now that you've called me a knob, I fully accept your argument.


 
If you'd read the thread which you're trying to derail you'd know that it WAS somebody else's fault. You can go on ignore with the other timewasters.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> So when the 'guardians' leave, do you think there will be a big party with people throwing stuff off the roof, or will they perhaps be taking greater care of the building?


 
Are you going to tell us what these costs are?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> What argument would you accept then? None I'd guess.



I'll accept any argument based on reason. You seem to have a romantic view of squaters as some sort of urban heroes, who can do no wrong. I think they are unsocial undesirables.



> Because there have been plenty of well reasoned responses to your obvious attention seeking, yet you've chosen not to respond to them. Shame dat.



Clearly we have different standards of 'well reasoned'. All I've read is cloud-cuckoo-land wishful-thinking about people who don't pay rent. I have responded with excruciating precision to every tedious piece of ignorant nonsense. People claim that the squatters looked after the building, and yet in the very same thread are accounts of people throwing stuff off the roof. People claim that the squatters are nice people, yet there is an account of a man being attacked and robbed. There was even one poster who claimed that it was alright to squat because it isn't a criminal offence, just a civil offence. Well that's alright then! 

Fortunately for the people of Brixton, the council and the police have taken my side, and not yours.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I'll accept any argument based on reason. You seem to have a romantic view of squaters as some sort of urban heroes, who can do no wrong. I think they are unsocial undesirables.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



your argument isn't based on reason - if we based who you are on the response to this thread you might think it was unfair to be judged on some comments on a website. So don't based squatting on a couple of accounts of something that happened on one night in Clifton Mansions Squats.

I believe that very middle class crockery designer Emma Bridgewater lived in a squat in Brixton at sometime. Please send her a message that she is an unsocial undesirable.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

boohoo said:


> your argument isn't based on reason - if we based who you are on the response to this thread you might think it was unfair to be judged on some comments on a website. So don't based squatting on a couple of accounts of something that happened on one night in Clifton Mansions Squats.
> 
> I believe that very middle class crockery designer Emma Bridgewater lived in a squat in Brixton at sometime. Please send her a message that she is an unsocial undesirable.



Message sent. She should pay rent like decent people.


----------



## T & P (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> People claim that the squatters looked after the building, and yet in the very same thread are accounts of people throwing stuff off the roof.


 Who weren't squatters, or known to them. 



> People claim that the squatters are nice people, yet there is an account of a man being attacked and robbed.


 Robbed by people who weren't squatters or known to them.

Do try a little harder, eh?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

T & P said:


> Who weren't squatters, or known to them.
> 
> Robbed by people who weren't squatters or known to them.
> 
> Do try a little harder, eh?



Well people like that haven't turned up to my home. Why do you think that would be?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Well people like that haven't turned up to my home. Why do you think that would be?


 
Cuz you're an anally retentive cunt. Do keep up.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Well people like that haven't turned up to my home. Why do you think that would be?


 
Has anyone ever put an open invite to a party at yours on facebook?   I've seen a few reports on the news about such things.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Message sent. She should pay rent like decent people.


 
Now about these costs. What are they? You must know, you must have some reason for posting what you did. Don't you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Message sent. She should pay rent like decent people.


 
yeh people should pay landlords' mortgages for them, or - where there is no mortgage - shovel money into their bank accounts. stands to reason, don't it, people should pay through the nose for somewhere to live.


----------



## T & P (Jul 13, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Has anyone ever put an open invite to a party at yours on facebook?   I've seen a few reports on the news about such things.


 This. In fact there have been various reports in the press in the last few years of well-to-do, middle-class families whose pretty houses have been vandalised by party guests.

So according to your brilliant logic, middle class homeowners = undesirable scum.

0.5/10. Must do better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

T & P said:


> This. In fact there have been various reports in the press in the last few years of well-to-do, middle-class families whose pretty houses have been vandalised by party guests.
> 
> So according to your brilliant logic, middle class homeowners = undesirable scum.
> 
> 0.5/10. Must do better.


i wonder how many working class homes - whether pretty or otherwise - have been vandalised by party guests over the last few years - or does this only happen to the posh?


----------



## nick h. (Jul 13, 2011)

Do stop feeding the troll and let the thread get back to being relevant.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2011)

What's your address LT?   Let's test the theory.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Has anyone ever put an open invite to a party at yours on facebook?   I've seen a few reports on the news about such things.


 
No. I wonder why that might be? Perhaps is has something to do with me not being a squatter.

Even if people did arrive at my door, I wouldn't let them in.

Even if they did come in, I wouldn't allow them onto the roof.

Even if they did get onto the roof and started throwing things off, I would call the police and have them charged with criminal damage.

And you can be sure that if I got an eviction notice, I would be fighting it in the courts, and not barricading myself into my home.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 13, 2011)




----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Do stop feeding the troll and let the thread get back to being relevant.


 
I thought you were ignoring me.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I thought you were ignoring me.


 
He can still see that you are posting, just not what you are posting.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> No. I wonder why that might be? Perhaps is has something to do with me not being a squatter.
> 
> Even if people did arrive at my door, I wouldn't let them in.
> 
> ...


 
Costs?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 13, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> What's your address LT?   Let's test the theory.


 
My address is well known, and it's on facebook, as it happens. You are claiming that the residents had nothing to do with the invites, so for the experiment to work, I'll have nothing to do with the invites to my house wrecking party. You have to spontaneously arrive without my help. Good luck.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> My address is well known, and it's on facebook, as it happens. You are claiming that the residents had nothing to do with the invites, so for the experiment to work, I'll have nothing to do with the invites to my house wrecking party. You have to spontaneously arrive without my help. Good luck.


 
What costs?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2011)

ddraig said:


> that would be illegal
> 
> squatting is a civil offence
> if you don't like it, tough toady


 
Luaghing Toad will be happy to know this Government wants to make it illegal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...law-criminalise-homeless?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Squatting in this country has a long history going back to medieval times. After WW2 ex servicemen squatted old army bases due to lack of housing.

The most recent new squatters are my East European friends. Watching Clifton being evicted  I met a Polish friend of mine who was passing by. As he said where are all those people doing low paid jobs supposed to live.

In the 60s squatting was about alternative ways of llfe. There was a lot of empty property in London. 

There has always been squatting by those who are not well off as well.

The main problem in London now is a lack of affordable housing. The last Government did little to remedy this. This present Government is out to destroy affordable housing.

Unlike other European Countries in this country private tenant rights have been eroded. Most are on 6 months ASTs. There is little or no private rent regulation. With the caps to Housing Benefit many will have to move. Private landlords have done well out of HB.

See here about Westminster Council report on effect of HB caps:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/p...ster-prepares-for-housing-benefit-cuts-exodus


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Luaghing Toad will be happy to know this Government wants to make it illegal:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...law-criminalise-homeless?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
> 
> ...


 
But but but.... they're not paying their rents! They're not like me! They're filthy lawbreakers! Bwa bwa bwa bwa!!!!!!!!!!! /Laughing Toad


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 13, 2011)

People who squat do so because they are in desperate need of housing. Government plans to legislate aside at the present time at least I don't thinks its possible in principle to condemn or condone squatting given ;how out of control the whole housing sector is - vested interests within what has emerged as a veritable homelessness industry, local authority corruption and so on.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2011)

A homelessness industry? Local authority corruption?

More like the power of developers to get there way to make the most profit. Developers fight tooth and nail to lower the amount of affordable housing in large schemes. They also sit on "Land Banks" to limit house building to help keep prices up.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> But but but.... they're not paying their rents! They're not like me! They're filthy lawbreakers! Bwa bwa bwa bwa!!!!!!!!!!! /Laughing Toad


 


Shall we start writing Laughing Toads posts for him? Save LT the bother. No he loves it attacking the feckless layabouts on U75

reminds me of Alf Garnett


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2011)

History of early squatting. A great British tradition:

http://www.inpressbooks.co.uk/cotte...en_history_of_housing_colin_ward_i016204.aspx

"Squatters were the original householders, and this book explores the story of squatter settlements in England and Wales, from our cave-dwelling ancestors to the squeezing out of cottagers in the enclosure of the commons. 

There is a widespread folk belief that if a house could be erected between sundown and sunset the occupants had the right to tenure and could not be evicted. Often enquiry into the manorial court rolls shows this to be the case. Unofficial roadside settlements or encroachments onto the 'wastes' between parishes provided space for the new miners, furnacemen and artisans who made the industrial revolution, while cultivating a patch of ground and keeping a pig and some chickens. Colin Ward's book, full of local anecdote and glimpses of surviving evidence, links the hidden history of unofficial settlements with the issues raised by 20th century squatters and the 21st century claims that 'The Land is Ours"


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 13, 2011)

> A homelessness industry? Local authority corruption?



Well, yes, i think so - there is Homelesslink, the umbrella membership body for the homeless sector as a whole, the likes of Shelter, Crisis , Centrepoint etc - none of which technically house anyone and so can afford resplendent refurbishment of their blazing, bright office builidings in the city. There are also real issues around data discrepancies relating to the different types of homelessness recognised by london boroughs and witin the homelessness sector itself.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 13, 2011)

Rough sleeping counts in Westminster are regularly fiddled. It's an open secret amongst homelessness services in that borough.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> History of early squatting. A great British tradition:
> 
> http://www.inpressbooks.co.uk/cotte...en_history_of_housing_colin_ward_i016204.aspx
> 
> ...


 
That thing about erecting a house between sundown and sunset is remarkably similar to some stories I've heard from Turkish mates. They've call squatters _gecekondu_ in Turkish, meaning something like "come by night".


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 14, 2011)

ddraig said:


>


 
I think this really needed to be a lot larger


----------



## HandinHand (Jul 14, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> I think this really needed to be a lot larger


----------



## madzone (Jul 14, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> I like my job.


 
He's fit as fuck


----------



## EastEnder (Jul 14, 2011)

madzone said:


> He's fit as fuck


Gramsci?


----------



## madzone (Jul 14, 2011)

EastEnder said:


> Gramsci?


 
I've never met Gramsci so it's hard to say. That cute little policeman however....


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 14, 2011)

No Im not as fit as that Copper.

More into hot WPCs myself.


----------



## EastEnder (Jul 14, 2011)

madzone said:


> I've never met Gramsci so it's hard to say. That cute little policeman however....


You're being superficial again... I've warned you about this!

You'll never become a good judge of character if you can't begin to appreciate inner beauty...



P.S. FWIW, coppers are not exactly known for radiating inner beauty...


----------



## madzone (Jul 14, 2011)

EastEnder said:


> You're being superficial again... I've warned you about this!
> 
> You'll never become a good judge of character if you can't begin to appreciate inner beauty...
> 
> ...


 
I don't want to marry him, I'd just like him to take down my particulars.


----------



## Onket (Jul 14, 2011)

Groundbreaking stuff, well done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

nick h. said:


> This afternoon I told two police in front of the building about the robberies. Their response: "we couldn't get near the place because we were being bottled." Maybe the crims anticipated that a squat party would be a lawless free for all?


 
You probably misheard the Old Bill. Going on their usual standard of behaviour, what they actually said would have been "we wouldn't go near the place because we're bottlers".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Oh, so the squatters were acting out of charity! My mistake. I thought they were just a lawless mob who wanted something for free instead of paying for it like the rest of us.


 
If you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd know that more often than not squatting is a _quid pro quo_. The presence of people preserves the fabric of buildings better than leaving them derelict. It's not about "charity", it's about acknowledging that it's more often advantageous for long-term empty stock to be squatted than to leave it to rot, which it'll do more quickly if unoccupied.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> For instance, on the night before they were evicted, they had a big party, at which people were apparently throwing things off the roof. I don't let people in my home if I think they're likely to put hot cups on the living room table, let alone lob random projectiles off my roof.


 
So despite the vast amount of _reportage_ detailing that the majority of partiers had fuck-all to do with Clifton Mansions, it's all the fault of the squatters?

You _schmendrick_.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd know that more often than not squatting is a _quid pro quo_. The presence of people preserves the fabric of buildings better than leaving them derelict. It's not about "charity", it's about acknowledging that it's more often advantageous for long-term empty stock to be squatted than to leave it to rot, which it'll do more quickly if unoccupied.


 
You wish.


----------



## Onket (Jul 15, 2011)

Get a room, FFS.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So despite the vast amount of _reportage_ detailing that the majority of partiers had fuck-all to do with Clifton Mansions, it's all the fault of the squatters?
> 
> You _schmendrick_.


 
The vast amount of reportage _claimed_ that the majority of partiers had nothing to do with Clifton Mansions. It's a completely unsubstantiated claim. Someone invited them, someone let them in, someone allowed them onto the roof, and nobody prevented them chucking stuff off. That is not the behaviour of responsible people. It's the behaviour of ner-do-wells. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that living in someone else's property against their will is an act of altruism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> You wish.


 
I don't need to wish, I've had on and off experience of the South London squatting scene since the early 1980s. As for dereliction, find me a builder, architect or other trade or profession involved with the fabric of housing, and ask them whether an unoccupied building degrades faster than an occupied building. They'll bear me out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Onket said:


> Get a room, FFS.


 
Fuck off. I wouldn't touch it with yours, mate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The vast amount of reportage _claimed_ that the majority of partiers had nothing to do with Clifton Mansions. It's a completely unsubstantiated claim.



Except for being substantiated by "locals" who were there, but of course *they* don't count, do they? 


> Someone invited them, someone let them in, someone allowed them onto the roof, and nobody prevented them chucking stuff off.


Now *those* are unsubstantiated claims!



> That is not the behaviour of responsible people. It's the behaviour of ner-do-wells.



I don't disagree. What I'm disagreeing about is whether the "ne'er-do-wells" were residents or not. 


> You are living in a fantasy land if you think that living in someone else's property against their will is an act of altruism.


 
Let's break the argument down into easily-digestible chunks for you.

1) Any property-owner whose property is occupied *against their will* can secure eviction. The owners have let many previous eviction notices lapse.

2) The owners of Clifton Mansions have been happy for the buildings to be occupied, because they understand, even if you do not, that an occupied building degrades more slowly than an unoccupied building.

3) I've never claimed that squatting is "altruism", I've said that it's often a _quid pro quo_, as was the case with Rushcroft and Clifton.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The vast amount of reportage _claimed_ that the majority of partiers had nothing to do with Clifton Mansions. It's a completely unsubstantiated claim. Someone invited them, someone let them in, someone allowed them onto the roof, and nobody prevented them chucking stuff off. That is not the behaviour of responsible people. It's the behaviour of ner-do-wells. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that living in someone else's property against their will is an act of altruism.


I was there. You were not. I know the people. You do not.

People got in because it has an OPEN courtyard with OPEN access to the roof. Quite a few of the squatters had already left so there was no one to stop them. 

The party was not put on with the approval of all the residents. The herberts on the roof were not known to locals - indeed the few I spoke all said that they'd only come because they'd seen the Facebook invite and knew nothing about what it was all about - it was just a groovy squat party in Brixton as far as they were concerned. 

Not all were twats though - some I spoke to were genuinely interested in the history and culture of the place.

You weren't there. You don't know what happened, so can you stop talking clueless, ignorant shit please? Thanks awfully.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

editor said:


> I was there. You were not. I know the people. You do not.
> 
> People got in because it has an OPEN courtyard with OPEN access to the roof. Quite a few of the squatters had already left so there was no one to stop them.
> 
> ...


 
Allowing an out of control party in your building is just irresponsible. Claiming that '_it was on facebook so there was nothing anyone could do to stop it_' is a defence I would expect from teenagers caught partying while their parents are away. People who care for their buildings don't allow this sort of thing to happen. To see how it's done, look at the current residents. They don't seem to be allowing massive irresponsible parties. That's why the owners want them, and not squaters.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't need to wish, I've had on and off experience of the South London squatting scene since the early 1980s. As for dereliction, find me a builder, architect or other trade or profession involved with the fabric of housing, and ask them whether an unoccupied building degrades faster than an occupied building. They'll bear me out.



In general, yes: occupied is better than unoccupied. But it really depends on the occupants.  Long term stable squats where there is an understanding between the occupants and the owners can definitely help. 

A lot of ex squats I have worked on have been high turnover and it would have been better not to have them occupied. I have seen rubbish clearance companies refuse to deal with the mess left behind after squatters. I once puked from the stench when I walked into a recently evicted squat.

Builders I have worked with turned up to start work on a project in Brixton and squatters had just moved in. Didn't break in of course - they just happened to see kids kick in the door and took advantage of the opportunity. In the five weeks it took to evict them they tore out several doors, smashed down internal walls to make it open plan, filled the building with unbelievable amounts of rubbish, left roof hatches off letting rain in and  pulled the entire heating system off the walls (although did not actually take any of it). Worst of all they turned on an isolated water mains causing severe leaks which over a short time would have significantly structurally degraded the building and damaged the neighbours'. The police called out in the middle of the night twice by neighbours because of fighting in the building and windows getting smashed into the street. The windows were boarded up with cardboard and plastic sheeting in such a way that it would have hastened rotting of the frames. 

Worst of all the small family building firm had to temporarily lay people off causing unrecoverable loss of income. They tried to negotiate with the occupants, mostly young backpackery types from America and Europe, who simply took the piss out of them. Not clever. Not desirable.

So as someone closely involved in the fabric of buildings, I would say it is far too simplistic to say occupied is better than unoccupied. The occupants have to be respectful of the building for it to be a benefit.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Allowing an out of control party in your building is just irresponsible.


It wasn't one building, you doofus. It was 22 flats in three buildings and as I've already explained - now listen carefully because I won't be repeating myself - the mansions had an OPEN entrance and by then many of the residents had moved out _because they were being evicted._

Were there any out of control parties before the council decided to evict them? No, so there goes your idiotic 'argument.' 



Laughing Toad said:


> To see how it's done, look at the current residents. They don't seem to be allowing massive irresponsible parties. That's why the owners want them, and not squaters.



There aren't any current full-time residents either, just a handful of people temporarily put there to protect the building before it's sold on.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> You wish.


 
Now about these costs...


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Now about these costs...


 
In post #296, Rushy suggested it was not true to contend there were no costs, saying:

"That's only true if you don't have any debt. The council has debt so every asset that they are not using and could dispose of is essentially costing them the interest on the equivalent value of the building. If they can get 3-4 million for selling it then they should be able either pay off debt (unlikely) or use the money to pay for services they will otherwise have to borrow in order to provide (more likely). On that basis, and assuming a borrowing rate iro 6%, retaining the asset costs £180-240,000pa.

If squatters are not paying council tax (I've no idea whether they are or are not) then they also have to calculate in that cost. That would be another £24,000."


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

editor said:


> It wasn't one building, you doofus. It was 22 flats in three buildings and as I've already explained - now listen carefully because I won't be repeating myself - the mansions had an OPEN entrance and by then many of the residents had moved out _because they were being evicted._



If what you say is true then why did these residents not lock the doors behind them when they moved out of these buildings? Isn't it just possible that the squatters left the doors unsecured behind them? Isn't it just possible that they weren't too bothered what happend to the buildings after they left? Landlords take deposits from tenants even after they have obtained references. There's a good reason for that.




> Were there any out of control parties before the council decided to evict them? No, so there goes your idiotic 'argument.'



The police called them drug dealers. 




> There aren't any current full-time residents either, just a handful of people temporarily put there to protect the building before it's sold on.



So a handful of people can protect a building, but all those squatters couldn't.

All the evidence from this thread shows that squatting is a selfish thing to do.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 15, 2011)

> All the evidence from this thread shows that squatting is a selfish thing to do.



It is selfish. Does that make it wrong? Not all squatters are irresponsible or unwilling to vacate properties when required. Leaving properties empty is morally wrong. One of the supreme moral problems. Empty properties lower the value of adjacent properties ... empty terraced properties attract flytipping, rodents and worse... empties in blocks if not maintained can create structural problems.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Rushy said:


> In general, yes: occupied is better than unoccupied. But it really depends on the occupants.  Long term stable squats where there is an understanding between the occupants and the owners can definitely help.
> 
> A lot of ex squats I have worked on have been high turnover and it would have been better not to have them occupied. I have seen rubbish clearance companies refuse to deal with the mess left behind after squatters. I once puked from the stench when I walked into a recently evicted squat.
> 
> ...


 
To be fair, I don't tend to see "lifestyle" squatters (people avoiding paying for holiday digs etc) as legitimate squatters. Most of the people I knew on the scene were long-termers who put a fair bit of work into maintenance because they wanted a home, not just a doss.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 15, 2011)

@Toad
All the evidence I've read points very strongly to you being a dickhead.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> It is selfish. Does that make it wrong? Not all squatters are irresponsible or unwilling to vacate properties when required. Leaving properties empty is morally wrong. One of the supreme moral problems. Empty properties lower the value of adjacent properties ... empty terraced properties attract flytipping, rodents and worse... empties in blocks if not maintained can create structural problems.


 
Of course it's selfish, if you define "selfish" as desiring a roof over your own head.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

peterkro said:


> @toad
> All the evidence I've read points very strongly to you being a dickhead.


 
Please elucidate.

E2A: I couldn't agree more.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 15, 2011)

peterkro said:


> @Toad
> All the evidence I've read points very strongly to you being a dickhead.


 
Or OB fishing for info


----------



## peterkro (Jul 15, 2011)

Sorry I was referring to Toad,I edited the post.I got waylaid while two more posts were added.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> Or OB fishing for info


 
Nah, don't think he's a pig, just a twat going by his posts on this thread and the Free School one.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 15, 2011)

leanderman said:


> In post #296, Rushy suggested it was not true to contend there were no costs, saying:
> 
> "That's only true if you don't have any debt. The council has debt so every asset that they are not using and could dispose of is essentially costing them the interest on the equivalent value of the building. If they can get 3-4 million for selling it then they should be able either pay off debt (unlikely) or use the money to pay for services they will otherwise have to borrow in order to provide (more likely). On that basis, and assuming a borrowing rate iro 6%, retaining the asset costs £180-240,000pa.
> 
> If squatters are not paying council tax (I've no idea whether they are or are not) then they also have to calculate in that cost. That would be another £24,000."


 they're not running costs. LT claimed there were running costs.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> So a handful of people can protect a building, but all those squatters couldn't.


Because it's all locked up and protected by security guards, you utterly clueless buffoon.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

peterkro said:


> @Toad
> All the evidence I've read points very strongly to you being a dickhead.


 
I'm expressing a (mainstream) view with which you disagree. You're responding with crude insults.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I'm expressing a (mainstream) view with which you disagree. You're responding with crude insults.


 
Running costs?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> they're not running costs. LT claimed there were running costs.


 
No I didn't.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> No I didn't.


 
Sorry, my bad. The costs of owning it. What costs.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

editor said:


> Because it's all locked up and protected by security guards, you utterly clueless buffoon.


 
Aren't security guards people? 

And anyway isn't most of that security to keep out the squatters? People who want to party and throw things off the roof are surely not the main threat here.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Sorry, my bad. The costs of owning it. What costs.


 
The opportunity cost of the capital employed.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I'm expressing a (mainstream) view with which you disagree. You're responding with crude insults.



If you want crude insults keep posting the drivel.

( by the way you are so far away from reality with your posts I'm not entirely sure where to start,so I give it a miss unless you insist on posting more idiocies)


----------



## peterkro (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The opportunity cost of the capital employed.



Yes Lambeth council should liquidate all it's housing assets and invest in the food futures much more profitable,all that capital sitting around in bricks and mortar,what a waste.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2011)

Some people were using an unused building.

The owner finally wanted it back. 

And the occupiers left peacefully.

End of story


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

leanderman said:


> Some people were using an unused building.
> 
> The owner finally wanted it back.
> 
> ...


 
No it's not. You missed out the end of the story. 

The occupiers went to live in ... instead. 

Anyone turfing anyone else out of their home on the basis that the law says they can is a cunt. The 'owners' gave up any rights to ownership the moment they left it empty imo.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The opportunity cost of the capital employed.


 
That's not a cost. I owe a grand on a credit card. I own a grands worth of camera equipment. It does not "cost" me to own the camera equipment.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 15, 2011)

> I'm expressing a (mainstream) view with which you disagree.



having worked for many years at the Empty Homes Agency - aka the Squatters Agency HAha ha - i don't think you are expressing the predominant mainstream view of squatting amongst people informed about this complex issue. In very simplified terms, the problem is not squatters -  it is landlords who leave their property empty. Your view appears to essentially focus on 'monetary loss' ... lost revenues. Whereas it is not squatters who have caused this - again it is the owners of the property. It will be very interesting to see how the pending legislation tackles the issue because any housing professional will tell you that the issues of squatting/homelessness/public housing are interlinked. I'd have thought that was obvious.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> That's not a cost. I owe a grand on a credit card. I own a grands worth of camera equipment. It does not "cost" me to own the camera equipment.


 
It does. The fact that you don't understand that explains why you don't understand why squatting is wrong.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It does. The fact that you don't understand that explains why you don't understand why squatting is wrong.


 
You're a moron.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> having worked for many years at the Empty Homes Agency - aka the Squatters Agency HAha ha - i don't think you are expressing the predominant mainstream view of squatting amongst people informed about this complex issue.



Labour run Lambeth council evicted these squatters. It seems likely that the Conservatives would have done the same, had they been in power. I'd call that a fairly mainstream view.



> In very simplified terms, the problem is not squatters -  it is landlords who leave their property empty. Your view appears to essentially focus on 'monetary loss' ... lost revenues. Whereas it is not squatters who have caused this - again it is the owners of the property. It will be very interesting to see how the pending legislation tackles the issue because any housing professional will tell you that the issues of squatting/homelessness/public housing are interlinked. I'd have thought that was obvious.


Empty homes account for about 3% of public housing, so you're 3% right, 97% wrong. Housing supply is more about population levels and new house builds. 

Homeless people are almost all in addiction or mentally ill, or both. You can't blame that on 3% of public housing being empty.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Empty homes account for about 3% of public housing, so you're 3% right, 97% wrong. Housing supply is more about population levels and new house builds.
> 
> *Homeless people are almost all in addiction or mentally ill, or both.* You can't blame that on 3% of public housing being empty.



I'm sure you can back this up with some stats?  A study perhaps?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I'm sure you can back this up with some stats?  A study perhaps?


 
It's been my overwhelming personal experience. If you talk to homeless people for more than a few minutes then they'll soon tell you about it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It's been my overwhelming personal experience. If you talk to homeless people for more than a few minutes then they'll soon tell you about it.



That's a no then.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> That's not a cost. I owe a grand on a credit card. I own a grands worth of camera equipment. It does not "cost" me to own the camera equipment.


 
Why not? Everything ultimately falls into assets and liabilities. Your credit card debt is a liability and your camera equipment is an asset. Just because your credit card debt is unsecured does not mean the cost of the debt can be negated.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

It doesn't "cost" me. The camera is an unrealized asset, not a cost. They are not the same. I do not pay out money due to owning a camera.


----------



## Winot (Jul 16, 2011)

It does seem a bit of a stretch to automatically count failure to realise an unrealised asset as a cost.  Theoretically we could rent out our spare room to a lodger - the fact that we choose not to do so does not mean it counts as a cost.  I very much doubt that Clifton Mansions counted as a cost in this way on Lambeth's balance sheet either.  

That's not to say that once an owner has been offered money for an asset it is improper for it to be sold, although it doesn't sound as if that is exactly what has happened here either, nor is it much comfort to people who have lost their homes (although I have to say that it seems to me that, if you are going to squat, you have to accept that the downside is lack of housing security).


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> To see how it's done, look at the current residents. They don't seem to be allowing massive irresponsible parties. That's why the owners want them, and not squaters.


Just to highlight how ridiculous this comment is and how clueless you are of the actual situation, the mansions are currently BOARDED UP and protected by security guards. The entrance is sealed and all doors padlocked. 

There are no "current residents" and you clearly have no idea what's going on, so perhaps it's best you either STFU or took time out to actually understand the situation correctly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The opportunity cost of the capital employed.


 
Are you sure that you understand the concept of opportunity cost?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

peterkro said:


> Yes Lambeth council should liquidate all it's housing assets and invest in the food futures much more profitable,all that capital sitting around in bricks and mortar,what a waste.


 
Reality is that opportunity cost doesn't really pertain because in terms of alternative uses for that capital, given local authority spending regulations, there is no "alternative use" allowed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

leanderman said:


> Some people were using an unused building.
> 
> The owner finally wanted it back.
> 
> ...


 
And that's what it is: A story, a fictional enterprise that diverges from the known facts.

For example, the owner was and is indifferent to repossessing their property. As it *was* it meant that 22 units of housing were in use, as it _is_, it means that Lambeth Housing have extra stress put on their services attempting to find/provide emergency housing for homeless people. Lambeth proceeded with this eviction not because they have an imminent use for the flats, but because of a combination of political and financial pressure.

All that will happen now, is that after several months/years with "guardians" in there, the place (more dilapidated than before, and therefore cheaper) will be sold off for an unreasonable small sum, and developed into "luxury housing". Just another bit of social cleansing in Lambeth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It does. The fact that you don't understand that explains why you don't understand why squatting is wrong.


 
No, it only "costs" him to own the equipment if he derives no use value from it. Just as Blagsta derives use value from owning his camera equipment, Lambeth derived use value from Clifton Mansions even while it was squatted (and in a condition such that Lambeth couldn't have rented flats there to its' own tenants) insofar as the use of 22 units of housing by squatters kept those squatters from having to use the services of Lambeth Housing and kept them from claiming Housing Benefit.

Don't tell people that they don't understand something, and then post shite that shows that *you* don't understand. It makes you look stupid.

Well, stupid*er*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> It doesn't "cost" me. The camera is an unrealized asset, not a cost. They are not the same. I do not pay out money due to owning a camera.


 
Ever wish that more people read and understood Marx?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> And that's what it is: A story, a fictional enterprise that diverges from the known facts.
> 
> 
> All that will happen now, is that after several months/years with "guardians" in there, the place (more dilapidated than before, and therefore cheaper) will be sold off for an unreasonable small sum, and developed into "luxury housing". Just another bit of social cleansing in Lambeth.[
> ...


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 16, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Camelot's guardians aren't employed in the way that security guards are - they pay rent. It's only a fraction of the market rate, but they're not paid to live there. Camelot no doubt take a management fee from the owner of the building. For all we know that 250 figure could be the management fee for the whole block.





editor said:


> Just to highlight how ridiculous this comment is and how clueless you are of the actual situation, the mansions are currently BOARDED UP and protected by security guards. The entrance is sealed and all doors padlocked.
> 
> There are no "current residents" and you clearly have no idea what's going on, so perhaps it's best you either STFU or took time out to actually understand the situation correctly.



I'm inclined to believe _nick h._'s account of Camelot's service, but either way, my point stands that responsible people don't allow facebook- partygoers to throw stuff off their roof. You can be sure that when I move from one home to another I make certain that the buiding is secure. And I'm guessing you probably do the same.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> It doesn't "cost" me. The camera is an unrealized asset, not a cost. They are not the same. I do not pay out money due to owning a camera.


 
You've confused costs with payments.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I'm inclined to believe _nick h._'s account of Camelot's service...


I don't give a fuck what you're _inclined to believe_, because the actual facts are simple. 

There are no full time residents living there, the entrance to the block is currently boarded up and the only people in the building are a handful of security guards. 

So your 'point' remains one that is woefully ill-informed and made from a position of complete ignorance.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 16, 2011)

editor said:


> I don't give a fuck what you're _inclined to believe_, because the actual facts are simple.
> 
> There are no full time residents living there, the entrance to the block is currently boarded up and the only people in the building are a handful of security guards.
> 
> So your 'point' remains one that is woefully ill-informed and made from a position of complete ignorance.



Are you telling me that the squatters boarded up the building to prevent party-goers from hurling objects from the roof? I thought not.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Are you telling me that the squatters boarded up the building to prevent party-goers from hurling objects from the roof? I thought not.


Here's what you said:



			
				Laughing Toad said:
			
		

> To see how it's done, look at the current residents. They don't seem to be allowing massive irresponsible parties. That's why the owners want them, and not squaters.


This proves beyond doubt that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

There are no "current residents" so you're talking utter horseshit here, and the previous residents didn't allow "massive irresponsible parties" either, on account of the fact that just about all of them _had already moved out_ and NONE had taken place during the entire time of their tenure.

It's obvious that you really have no idea or understanding about this situation, so perhaps it really is time you either educated yourself or just stopped spouting such embarrassingly ignorant rubbish.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> You've confused costs with payments.


 
No I haven't.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 16, 2011)

editor said:


> Here's what you said:
> This proves beyond doubt that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
> 
> There are no "current residents" so you're talking utter horseshit here, and the previous residents didn't allow "massive irresponsible parties" either, on account of the fact that just about all of them _had already moved out_ and NONE had taken place during the entire time of their tenure.
> ...


 
Ok well let me change the language slightly for you.



> To see how it's done, look at the current _people-who-are-looking-after-the-building_. They don't seem to be allowing massive irresponsible parties. That's why the owners want them, and not squatters.



The point is after 9am on Tuesday there haven't been _lets-throw-stuff-off-the-roof_ parties. Or drug dealing for that matter.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 16, 2011)

editor said:


> There are no full time residents living there, the entrance to the block is currently boarded up and the only people in the building are a handful of security guards.



Very nervous looking security guards as well from what I've seen.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> No I haven't.


 
I think Toad may think you are in X amount of debt because your camera is worth X...meaning you are in debt because you brought that particular camera.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I think Toad may think you are in X amount of debt because your camera is worth X...meaning you are in debt because you brought that particular camera.



I'm not in debt cos I bought the camera.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The point is after 9am on Tuesday there haven't been _lets-throw-stuff-off-the-roof_ parties. Or drug dealing for that matter.


There weren't any when the place was fully occupied either. For 15 years.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I'm not in debt cos I bought the camera.


 
I know...toad clearly doesn't!


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 16, 2011)

> why squatting is wrong.



LT’s costing theory assumes the circumstances surrounding all squats are the same. When some squats would be considered “management vacant” ie. ready for use only after minor repairs. Properties uninhabited for six months are usually considered unfit to meet the Tolerable Standard, the current legal minimum standard acceptable for habitable properties.



> Labour run Lambeth council evicted these squatters. It seems likely that the Conservatives would have done the same, had they been in power. I'd call that a fairly mainstream view.



Noone here is arguing that landlords should not take responsibility for their property. There are empty council properties in LAs controlled by each of the parties. IME the mainstream view, the predominant concern, is that property should not be left wasted to contribute to urban decay and when there are people in need. Squatting can provide a solution.



> Empty homes account for about 3% of public housing, so you're 3% right, 97% wrong. Housing supply is more about population levels and new house builds.



Ding Dong! Your emphasis is wrong: what you have written here is irrelevant. I said the issues are interlinked. Most pernicious is this snide circularity of reasoning attributed to me: 





> Homeless people are almost all in addiction or mentally ill, or both. You can't blame that on 3% of public housing being empty.


 Yes, homelessness is about more than housing but nor is it true that most homeless – even most users of night shelters and hostels - are homeless because of addiction and/or mental health issues. 

The last available government housing figures (England) are from 2009/10 available here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1785484.pdf

Some extracts: 

In 2009-10, the majority of homeless households in priority need accepted by local authorities lost their last settled home due to their relatives or friends no longer being willing or able to provide
accommodation (34 per cent). Twenty per cent were made homeless due to a relationship breakdown
with their partner. Only 6 per cent of homeless households had their last settled accommodation
repossessed or other loss due to mortgage or rent arrears (Table 6.4). . 

It is estimated that unrecognised, “hidden” homelessness affects 400,000 people in the UK at any given time: http://www.streetsoflondon.org.uk/about-homelessness. Most LAs count squatted homes as empty, including council owned. For that reason few squatters are included in official housing or homeless statistics.

Contrasted with those 51,300 households placed into temporary accommodation (only 15 per cent of which were placed into LA/HA stock (see Figure 11), are an astonishing 34,000 LA & 37,462 HA dwellings stood empty. Also, the number of additional affordable homes provided increased by only 2,160 (4 per cent) between 2008-09 and 2009-10. It is the 72, 062 total empties relative to the number of homeless – people in need of a home! - that is relevant not the % of public stock that is empty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

leanderman;11938255][QUOTE=ViolentPanda said:


> And that's what it is: A story, a fictional enterprise that diverges from the known facts.
> 
> 
> All that will happen now, is that after several months/years with "guardians" in there, the place (more dilapidated than before, and therefore cheaper) will be sold off for an unreasonable small sum, and developed into "luxury housing". Just another bit of social cleansing in Lambeth.[
> ...


 
Contrary to the occasional stories in the yellow press, most squatters aren't earning enough to sock bugger-all money away. For every well-off squatter the _Daily Mail_ has written a story about, there's probably another 50 scraping by on temp and/or agency work, income fluctuating week by week.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 16, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> LT’s costing theory . . . .



It's not a theory, it's a principle. You can prove it just by _thinking_ about it.

See posts 381 and 296.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 16, 2011)

> It's not a theory, it's a principle.



The point is most squatted council properties are not going to be sold off in principle. That squatters are not paying CTax is irrelevant if the property would otherwise be sitting empty and not collecting CTax anyway. 

Is it to be assumed that you make a distinction between the rights and wrongs of squatted public and private properties?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It's not a theory, it's a principle. You can prove it just by _thinking_ about it.
> 
> See posts 381 and 296.


 Lol


----------



## peterkro (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It's not a theory, it's a principle. You can prove it just by _thinking_ about it.
> 
> See posts 381 and 296.



OK wise guy prove to me that there is a difference between a theory and a principle.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 16, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> Is it to be assumed that you make a distinction between the rights and wrongs of squatted public and private properties?


 
No. Don't assume that. Both are wrong. People wanting to live somewhere should get the owner's consent.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 16, 2011)

> No. Don't assume that. Both are wrong. People wanting to live somewhere should get the owner's consent.



It was suggested above that LB Lambeth had informally consented to Clifden Mansions allowing the squatters temporarily occupy the flats but would not accept rent. I'm interested to know if you think that was wrong.


----------



## Emet (Jul 16, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> It was suggested above that LB Lambeth had informally consented to Clifden Mansions allowing the squatters temporarily occupy the flats but would not accept rent. I'm interested to know if you think that was wrong.


 
I lived there for almost nine years and never heard that.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 16, 2011)

Emet said:


> I lived there for almost nine years and never heard that.


 
So what was the understanding of the people who lived there?


----------



## Emet (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad's moral strictures are neither here nor there. Like morality, property is never absolute. Property is always wrapped up in legal conditions.

It is often in the interests of property owners that own empty properties to have squatters in them. The alternative is having tramps. Tramps destroy buildings, usually by fire.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 16, 2011)

Emet said:


> Laughing Toad's moral strictures are neither here nor there. Like morality, property is never absolute. Property is always wrapped up in legal conditions.
> 
> It is often in the interests of property owners that own empty properties to have squatters in them. The alternative is having tramps. Tramps destroy buildings, usually by fire.


 
TBF a small but infortunately very visible minority of squatters act more like tramps than responsible adults.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 16, 2011)

Emet said:


> It is often in the interests of property owners that own empty properties to have squatters in them. The alternative is having tramps. Tramps destroy buildings, usually by fire.


 
Is this some sort of hierarchy of who deserves to have a roof over their head?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 16, 2011)

stephj said:


> Is this some sort of hierarchy of who deserves to have a roof over their head?


 
I see you didn't get the memo. It's not about hierarchy, but some people, for various reasons, do very poorly at living without some serious support.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I see you didn't get the memo. It's not about hierarchy, but some people, for various reasons, do very poorly at living without some serious support.


 
I know that some people aren't able to live/cope well without support, it was more just the tone, or perhaps how I read, Emet's post that I was getting at.


----------



## Emet (Jul 16, 2011)

The council accepted our presence. As far as I know, the council didn't have contact with us, as a group, until 2004. We initiated the contact because of the violence of the person I posted about on page 3, his use of the courtyard as a commercial jerk chicken kitchen, his homophobic attacks on lesbians in the building et al. The situation got quite unmanageable, with threats of violence at every turn. The police came along too. 

My take is that the council couldn't sell some buildings to finance the rehab of others. Having us there was the least costly option. We had shown ourselves to be, I think, reasonable and constructive in discussions and worth talking to, for management reasons, if no other.  In the summer of 2009, they were finally able to announce a program of sale and rehab.  They invited Cliftoners and folk from Rushcroft Rd along to a meeting and told us how they intended to proceed. That is the history, as far as I know. I went to most of the meetings.


----------



## Emet (Jul 16, 2011)

The distinction between tramp and squatter is crude, and very general. But, I have seen the distinction in many a charred building.


----------



## Emet (Jul 16, 2011)

stephj said:


> Is this some sort of hierarchy of who deserves to have a roof over their head?


 
No, that's not my point.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 16, 2011)

Emet said:


> No, that's not my point.


 
Get ya.


Either way, it still all comes down to capitalism's failure to cater for that very basic need - a roof over your head.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 16, 2011)

Emet said:


> The council accepted our presence. As far as I know, the council didn't have contact with us, as a group, until 2004. We initiated the contact because of the violence of the person I posted about on page 3, his use of the courtyard as a commercial jerk chicken kitchen, his homophobic attacks on lesbians in the building et al. The situation got quite unmanageable, with threats of violence at every turn. The police came along too.
> 
> My take is that the council couldn't sell some buildings to finance the rehab of others. Having us there was the least costly option. We had shown ourselves to be, I think, reasonable and constructive in discussions and worth talking to, for management reasons, if no other.  In the summer of 2009, they were finally able to announce a program of sale and rehab.  They invited Cliftoners and folk from Rushcroft Rd along to a meeting and told us how they intended to proceed. That is the history, as far as I know. I went to most of the meetings.


 
Emet, was there any talk at these meetings of forming some sort of cooperative to run the buildings?

Also, could you tell us why, in your opinion, did the council get a notice of  eviction in court. Why did they not just ask you to leave, and why do you think there were so many police officers present on Tuesday?

Also, have you ever considered being a guradian with Camelot? Do the people who work for them have something you don't?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Also, have you ever considered being a guradian with Camelot? Do the people who work for them have something you don't?


 
Capital probably.


I must admit though, this 'guardian' system seems pretty dubious to me - and the likes of private companies such as Camelot being involved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...9/housing-property-guardians-squatters-rights



> The "guardians" make payments to these companies to live in empty buildings, and to protect the private owners of the properties from squatters. This is touted as the "guardian scheme" solution to the housing problem.
> 
> One serious problem is that contracts between the property managers and the "guardians" do not mention the word "tenant" at all. The "guardians" have none of the rights enjoyed by tenants or even squatters. Camelot advertises a "watertight legal framework" for property owners: the occupier is described as a "licensee" paying a "fee", with no occupation or other rights.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Also, have you ever considered being a guradian with Camelot? Do the people who work for them have something you don't?


How would you fancy living under these terms?


> Vacant property protection companies such as Camelot have recognised this as an issue for landlords; for every market problem there is a market solution and so they side-step the issue of tenants’ rights by doing away with the concept of a tenant altogether. Instead, they have “guardians”. These companies are creating a new class of pseudo-tenants, inhabitants of a property paying to live where they’re living but with none of the rights of tenants.
> 
> Anyone wanting to live in a building being managed by Camelot must, after passing background checks, giving character references and handing over a security deposit, sign the Temporary Occupation Licence Agreement. This agreement sets out very stringent rules for those living in Camelot managed properties. Guardians are required to give 24 hours notice before having any guests round – so a friend that calls by because they happen to be in the area would, technically, have to be turned away at the door and told to come back tomorrow. Guardians must not be away from the property for more than 3 nights in a row.
> 
> ...


----------



## Emet (Jul 16, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Emet, was there any talk at these meetings of forming some sort of cooperative to run the buildings?
> 
> Also, could you tell us why, in your opinion, did the council get a notice of  eviction in court. Why did they not just ask you to leave, and why do you think there were so many police officers present on Tuesday?
> 
> Also, have you ever considered being a guradian with Camelot? Do the people who work for them have something you don't?



Yes, a co-op was mentioned. People weren't interested for a variety of reasons. We would have had to buy the building. The figures have gone from my memory, but the price seemed very high. No one would brook the guy I mentioned on page 3. Some weren't interested in the responsibility. There were a lot of foreigners, some quite young, who came here because London was booming and there was no work where they came from, but might go home if things improved. One or two were against paying rent on any conditions. Some had no good reason. Nothing came of it anyway.

The council were terrified of anything that looked like a formal agreement. Apparently, to the courts, it looks like a tenancy agreement and must be avoided. I would have gone if there had been an agreement. Even better if they had pointed me to an empty building to 'look after'.

They pretty near had a riot at St Agnes Place when that was decanted. Maybe that was the reason. I found most of the squatters there to be very neighbourly but not politically cohesive. I thought the police action looked like overkill. Most of us were gone by Sunday. I was, and didn't
go back for the 'party'.

I'm homeless and I don't have job - perhaps I'll apply! Hadn't thought of it before.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> TBF a small but infortunately very visible minority of squatters act more like tramps than responsible adults.



Fuck off that's a nasty slur on tramps (and squatters).

Incidentally if anyone knows where there are any off those groovy "this property is protected by Camelot guardians " signs are that are gettable at (the only ones I've seen are behind glass not on the outside of buildings ) could they let me know I could do with one for my flat.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 17, 2011)

peterkro said:


> Fuck off that's a nasty slur on tramps (and squatters).
> 
> Incidentally if anyone knows where there are any off those groovy "this property is protected by Camelot guardians " signs are that are gettable at (the only ones I've seen are behind glass not on the outside of buildings ) could they let me know I could do with one for my flat.


 
Hmmmm. Maybe my usage of the word tramp is poor. I meant no disrespect to the homeless. FWIW I'd use the word tramp about any person who seems utterly unwilling to make an effort towards preserving the integrity of themselves and their surroundings for whatever reason, regardless of whether they have a home or not.

Some squatters are filthy selfish bastards, same as some people who own or rent a place. I'd feel that if I squatted I should make an extra effort at keeping the place in good nick. Most squatters do, the ones that don't ruin things somewhat for the majority.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> It was suggested above that LB Lambeth had informally consented to Clifden Mansions allowing the squatters temporarily occupy the flats but would not accept rent. I'm interested to know if you think that was wrong.


 
your posts interesting Aquamarine. AS you know about the housing sector.

I think Emet is part of the squatters who moved in after the London & Quadrant "Short Life" residents moved out. Along with Rushcroft Road Action Group (RAG) the Short Life residents tried to show that they had security of tenure. The reason that the Council did not want to receive rent from them was that it would prove they had security of tenure- that they were in fact Council tenants. There was a whole protracted legal battle over this.

Short Life was used to provide occupancy of buildings that the Council had no immediate plans to use. It meant they got Council Tax on those properties. It also meant that some of the problems that can happen with squatting ( though this is not always the case) were avoided. 

Short Life was a good way to keep otherwise empty buildings occupied.

See here on House of Lords judgement :

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990624/bruton.htm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It's not a theory, it's a principle. You can prove it just by _thinking_ about it.
> 
> See posts 381 and 296.


 
For it to be a principle, there needs to be demonstrable mass applicability of your theory.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> No. Don't assume that. Both are wrong. People wanting to live somewhere should get the owner's consent.


 
Who owns local authority social housing?

Ultimately, the people of the borough. The people the housing is effectively held in trust for.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Emet, was there any talk at these meetings of forming some sort of cooperative to run the buildings?
> 
> Also, could you tell us why, in your opinion, did the council get a notice of  eviction in court. Why did they not just ask you to leave, and why do you think there were so many police officers present on Tuesday?
> 
> Also, have you ever considered being a guradian with Camelot? Do the people who work for them have something you don't?


 
You realise that if the residents of Clifton Mansions had "left", they'd have lost any access to services such as emergency housing from Lambeth Council because they would have rendered themselves (in the eyes of the law "intentionally homeless"?
In terms of securing a possible roof over their own heads, waiting on eviction was merely pragmatic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

stephj said:


> Capital probably.
> 
> 
> I must admit though, this 'guardian' system seems pretty dubious to me - and the likes of private companies such as Camelot being involved.
> ...


 
So it's the reintroduction under another name of tied housing, with all the insecurity of tenure and minimal property standards that mass tied housing had.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> For it to be a principle, there needs to be demonstrable mass applicability of your theory.


 
Yes. It applies universally.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who owns local authority social housing?
> 
> Ultimately, the people of the borough. The people the housing is effectively held in trust for.


 
Royal Bank of Scotland is also publicly owned, but you can't just walk in and take what you want.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So it's the reintroduction under another name of tied housing, with all the insecurity of tenure and minimal property standards that mass tied housing had.


 
Nobody is being forced to work for them, but it looks like a good deal to me. I'm thinking of doing it myself.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 17, 2011)

If having no rights as a tenant is 'a good deal'.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 17, 2011)

stephj said:


> If having no rights as a tenant is 'a good deal'.


 
Yeah. Seems fine to me, all things considered.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You realise that if the residents of Clifton Mansions had "left", they'd have lost any access to services such as emergency housing from Lambeth Council because they would have rendered themselves (in the eyes of the law "intentionally homeless"?
> In terms of securing a possible roof over their own heads, waiting on eviction was merely pragmatic.


 
A letter asking you to leave is sufficient. See here.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 17, 2011)

> Royal Bank of Scotland is also publicly owned, but you can't just walk in and take what you want. R



That really is not a very good analogy.



> I'm thinking of doing it myself.



Maybe not so principled after all.  Are you in priority need?  In keeping with the ethos and principle of social housing these properties could have been offered to a short-life housing cooperative instead of Camelot.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 17, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> That really is not a very good analogy.



It's brilliant. I only wish I'd thought of it earlier.



> Maybe not so principled after all.  Are you in priority need?  In keeping with the ethos and principle of social housing these properties could have been offered to a short-life housing cooperative instead of Camelot.



You can't ban people from living in houses just because some people are poor.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 17, 2011)

> It's brilliant. I only wish I'd thought of it earlier.



Only if you are happy with the currrent financial system. 



> You can't ban people from living in houses just because some people are poor.



So, you think social housing is also wrong.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 17, 2011)

Toad's a Taxpayers Alliance cunt iirc.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2011)

Emet said:


> Yes, a co-op was mentioned. People weren't interested for a variety of reasons. We would have had to buy the building. The figures have gone from my memory, but the price seemed very high. No one would brook the guy I mentioned on page 3. Some weren't interested in the responsibility. There were a lot of foreigners, some quite young, who came here because London was booming and there was no work where they came from, but might go home if things improved. One or two were against paying rent on any conditions. Some had no good reason. Nothing came of it anyway.
> 
> The council were terrified of anything that looked like a formal agreement. Apparently, to the courts, it looks like a tenancy agreement and must be avoided. I would have gone if there had been an agreement. Even better if they had pointed me to an empty building to 'look after'.
> 
> ...



You have all my sympathy. Keeping a mansion block like that going in an area like Brixton is no easy task.

Some of my East European friends squat due to low wages. And its getting more and more difficult. I can understand why people like u squat. Its unfortunate u had to leave Brixton in this way. The whole thing must have been traumatic for you.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2011)

stephj said:


> Capital probably.
> 
> 
> I must admit though, this 'guardian' system seems pretty dubious to me - and the likes of private companies such as Camelot being involved.
> ...


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 17, 2011)

this from Wikipedia - _Camelot also provide squat eviction services and security guards. The company successfully lobbied the French government to introduce anti-squatting legislation._


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 17, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> this from Wikipedia - _Camelot also provide squat eviction services and security guards. The company successfully lobbied the French government to introduce anti-squatting legislation._


 
It wouldn't surprise me if they've been leaning on this government too given the recent talk re. proposals to criminalise squatting. Nothing like legislation in order to help some more private companies get rich at the expense of those who haven't got.


----------



## Emet (Jul 17, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> You have all my sympathy. Keeping a mansion block like that going in an area like Brixton is no easy task.
> 
> Some of my East European friends squat due to low wages. And its getting more and more difficult. I can understand why people like u squat. Its unfortunate u had to leave Brixton in this way. The whole thing must have been traumatic for you.


 
Thanks for the sympathy. 

We would still be there but for the crackheads. The loss of control of the gates was critical. If the squatters had been a shade braver and more politically savvy we could have kept them out.


----------



## Emet (Jul 17, 2011)

It is strangely liberating to be away though. Not having to worry about some loony crackhead, with a knife, in your stairwell, is a relief. Just a month ago I was chased up the stairs by such a loon after disturbing him trying to break into my neighbour's flat.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> this from Wikipedia - _Camelot also provide squat eviction services and security guards. The company successfully lobbied the French government to introduce anti-squatting legislation._


 
From the same Wikipedia page found this Dutch documentary ( Camelot started out there):



As I thought a lot of the things Camelot do are arguable in Housing Law. They talk to a Professor of Housing Law about the lack of rights. If u go to last 5- 10 minutes of doc he is there and they summarise some of the points made in the doc.

As the Prof says the insecurity of the peoples situation means they are unlikely to go to court. They are at a disadvantage when faced with a company. As he said the wheels of justice take a lot of time. 

The Professor of Housing also thought that public authorities should not use companies like Camelot. The Government and local authorities are supposed to protect the rights of tenants. By using companies like Camelot they are helping to erode tenants rights. 

Also that this should be got rid of as there is already way to give temporary tenancies to people without the loss of rights and privacy that goes with Camelots way of doing things.

The doc shows that Camelot invade peoples privacy, use them as unpaid labour and collect a fee from them which they refuse to term rent. Which , in the programme , they work out is a lot more than management costs. So is in effect profit.

What I find scary about it is that this is the way things are going in a work as well- "flexible labour practises". 

The doc is worth seeing for the way the Director of the Camelot defends himself. He is repulsive smarmy thug in a suit.

Its a good doc about an hour long and free to watch.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Yes. It applies universally.


 
So demonstrate that it does, don't just make the claim.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Royal Bank of Scotland is also publicly owned, but you can't just walk in and take what you want.


 
Don't be fatuous, there's no comparison of function, you dolt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Nobody is being forced to work for them...



More fatuity. No-one has claimed that anyone will be forced to work for them.



> but it looks like a good deal to me. I'm thinking of doing it myself.


 
As long as you expect no sympathy if your lack of tenancy rights bites your arse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> A letter asking you to leave is sufficient. See here.


 
Tell me, how often do you deal with the Lambeth housing office?

To get priority, i.e. to even be *considered* for emergency housing, you need to be evicted. The stuff your page refers to is required *just to get on the housing list as a homeless person*, it promises nothing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It's brilliant. I only wish I'd thought of it earlier.



If you believe that such a fatuous analogy is "brilliant", it's little wonder no-one can get past your self-assurance. You're too dense to realise what a twat you are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> Only if you are happy with the currrent financial system.



Not even then. There's no comparative relation between local authority social housing and who owns it (i.e. the local authority holds it for use by an ever-changing pool of entitled borough residents and achieves a great deal of use-value), and Royal Bank of Scotland and who owns it (i.e. the government has purchased a large controlling stake of stock in the company on which it can, through sensible practice, sell without a loss but achieves little use-value).

In short, LA is an idiot.




> So, you think social housing is also wrong.


 
It (LA) strikes me as the sort of person who thinks that anything they personally disagree with is "wrong".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

stephj said:


> Toad's a Taxpayers Alliance cunt iirc.


 
Isn't that a group of dishonest, self-serving whiners who moan about anybody *except their membership* getting any state assistance? I seem to recall a few exposés about grubby hands grasping at various bits of corporate welfare.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 18, 2011)

Emet said:


> I'm homeless and I don't have job - perhaps I'll apply! Hadn't thought of it before.



Brilliant! Good luck if you do apply.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So demonstrate that it does, don't just make the claim.


 
Employing capital in owning _anything_ necessarily excludes the opportunity of employing that capital in something else.

_Anything._


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't be fatuous, there's no comparison of function, you dolt.


 
Just because something is publicly owned doesn't mean that there aren't rules governing the use of its assets. It applies equally to Council owned houses, and Royal Bank of Scotland cash.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Employing capital in owning _anything_ necessarily excludes the opportunity of employing that capital in something else.
> 
> _Anything._


 
Now tell us why that is a bad thing.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 18, 2011)

> Just because something is publicly owned doesn't mean that there aren't rules governing the use of its assets. It applies equally to Council owned houses



Employing Camelot or similar does not seem to me to be achieving 'Best Value in Housing". The taxpayer is in effect subsidising Camelot Guardians. 




> Employing capital in owning anything necessarily excludes the opportunity of employing that capital in something else.



Banks do this all the time.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 18, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> Banks do this all the time.


 
Banks can increase the supply of money, not capital.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Banks can increase the supply of money, not capital.


 
No they can't. Central Banks can, ordinary banks cannot.


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2011)

Lambeth were clearing out the flats today, flanked by a phalanx of burly looking High Court officers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Employing capital in owning _anything_ necessarily excludes the opportunity of employing that capital in something else.
> 
> _Anything._


 
I didn't ask for circular logic based on your theory that costs accrue, I asked you to demonstrate that your theory works. Use an example that *doesn't* exist in your head, something from the real world.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2011)

editor said:


> Lambeth were clearing out the flats today, flanked by a phalanx of burly looking High Court officers.


 
Thats interesting.

Im not clear if Lambeth are going to use Camelot or if thats a rumour at moment.

If its not Im really not happy about Lambeth using them after having read the info u and Aquamarine put up. 

Also watching that Dutch doc showed how appalling Camelot is.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 18, 2011)

editor said:


> Lambeth were clearing out the flats today, flanked by a phalanx of burly looking High Court officers.



They were cleaning them out yesterday morning as well.  Just chucking everything left (including some people's art) into bi trucks


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Just because something is publicly owned doesn't mean that there aren't rules governing the use of its assets. It applies equally to Council owned houses, and Royal Bank of Scotland cash.


 
I haven't said anything different.

Yes, RBS and Lambeth Housing are publicly-owned, and yes there are rules governing them.

However, the rules that govern them aren't the same, they're rules specific to function and, as I've already stated at least once before, there's *no comparison of function*. You comparing the two is like someone claiming that a lamb and a piglet are the same because they're both owned by the same farmer.

Stop just snatching arguments out of your arse in an attempt to make yourself look less wrong and less stupid than you do. It doesn't work.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Banks can increase the supply of money, not capital.


 
Wrong.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 18, 2011)

> Banks can increase the supply of money, not capital.



What waw meant was banks decieve by faslifying capital asset accounts, the measure of their solvency. 

Anyway, LT's costings principle is not a full scale theory.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

nipsla said:


> They were cleaning them out yesterday morning as well.  Just chucking everything left (including some people's art) into bi trucks


 
Nothing fucking changes, does it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> Anyway, LT's costings principle is not a full scale theory.



Not by a long chalk. It's all very well farting on about opportunity costs, but you can only factor in opportunity costs *if* your alternative use is *realisable*, and even then you'd have to, in the case of the squats, factor in use-value obtained from squatting (i.e. what would alternative accommodation for the squatters have cost the council), and offset it against the opportunity cost.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I didn't ask for circular logic based on your theory that costs accrue, I asked you to demonstrate that your theory works. Use an example that *doesn't* exist in your head, something from the real world.


 
No it's got absolutly nothing to do with costs accruing. Remove that from your thinking.

Imagine a person, a trainee nurse perhaps, has £1000. He can spend the money on, lets say, camera equipment, or he could invest it in a one year bond from the bank. If he spends the money on camera equipment, he will not have the _opportunity _to invest the money at the bank. After one year he will have either about £30 interest from the bank, plus his original £1000, or he will have his camera equipment, and no £30 interest. The camera equipment can be said to have an opportunity cost of £30 for the year. By owning a camera for a year he has forgone the interest he would have gained by putting the money in the bank.

Or what about this set of examples from a GCSE revision site.



> Opportunity cost measures the cost of any economic choice in terms of the next best alternative foregone
> 
> Many examples of opportunity cost exist at the level of the individual, the household, the firm, the government and the economy:
> 
> ...


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 18, 2011)

You have a bizarre fantasy life.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 18, 2011)

Squatters are not necessarily responsible for opportunity costs at the level of feckless landlords.

ETA: landlords are ultimately responsible for their opportunity costs


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 18, 2011)

not sure why you keep entertaining here, I doubt the message will get through.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> No it's got absolutly nothing to do with costs accruing. Remove that from your thinking.
> 
> Imagine a person, a trainee nurse perhaps, has £1000. He can spend the money on, lets say, camera equipment, or he could invest it in a one year bond from the bank. If he spends the money on camera equipment, he will not have the _opportunity _to invest the money at the bank. After one year he will have either about £30 interest from the bank, plus his original £1000, or he will have his camera equipment, and no £30 interest. The camera equipment can be said to have an opportunity cost of £30 for the year. By owning a camera for a year he has forgone the interest he would have gained by putting the money in the bank.
> 
> Or what about this set of examples from a GCSE revision site.


 
The first line:
"Opportunity cost measures the cost of any economic choice in terms of the next best alternative foregone".

So, what alternative use/function were Lambeth Council foregoing?
None, because the properties weren't fit for occupation as council housing, not even Short Life any longer, and they had no money to remedy that situation, they also had no plans, until very recently, to sell the properties off.

To simply contend that opportunity cost applies even if the foregone alternative in unachievable is bollocks of the highest order.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, what alternative use/function were Lambeth Council foregoing?



The buildings could be auctioned tomorrow. Taxpayer debt would be reduced.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The first line:
> "Opportunity cost measures the cost of any economic choice in terms of the next best alternative foregone".
> 
> So, what alternative use/function were Lambeth Council foregoing?
> ...


 
They were forgoing sale. Accounting-wise it is irrelevant whether they *intended *to sell or not at the time of the squatters occupation. It is an asset on the books and could be liquidated to pay for other services/reduce liabilities - it is just simple economics.There is undoubtedly a cost to holding assets when you have liabilities. 

Intention becomes relevant in assessing whether the cost of holding the asset during its occupation is attributable to the squatters or not. If Lambeth wanted to sell but could not because of the squatters then that can be counted as a cost of occupation. If Lambeth intended to leave the property empty then the cost of holding onto that asset is mostly attributable to Lambeth.


----------



## Emet (Jul 18, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The buildings could be auctioned tommorow. Taxpayer debt would be reduced.


 
Perhaps they should sell them to-morrow rather than waiting for the housing market to recover.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The buildings could be auctioned tommorow. Taxpayer debt would be reduced.


 
And why can they be auctioned tomorrow? Because the squatters have been evicted, a tactic that Lambeth have had recourse to since the took control of Clifton Mansions, but didn't exercise because....


....that's right, because they'd have had to provide alternative accommodation for the squatters, and because they had no plans for the properties. At all.


As for "taxpayer debt", what are you mumbling about now? Council Tax payers have no debt, and L.A. debt can't be offset by local authorities increasing Council Tax charges.

You're all over the place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Rushy said:


> They were forgoing sale. Accounting-wise it is irrelevant whether they *intended *to sell or not at the time of the squatters occupation. It is an asset on the books and could be liquidated to pay for other services/reduce liabilities - it is just simple economics.There is undoubtedly a cost to holding assets when you have liabilities.



I agree that *theoretically* it could have been liquidated, but if we follow the balance-sheet logic, Lambeth would have a duty to secure the maximum return on liquidation, something they're unlikely to be able to do even now. In fact I foresee headlines in the SLP along the lines of "Lambeth Council sell off mansion block for silly money" because the economic climate doesn't currently support the development of "luxury properties", even in edgy Briston.



> Intention becomes relevant in assessing whether the cost of holding the asset during its occupation is attributable to the squatters or not. If Lambeth wanted to sell but could not because of the squatters then that can be counted as a cost of occupation. If Lambeth intended to leave the property empty then the cost of holding onto that asset is mostly attributable to Lambeth.


 
If Lambeth had wanted to sell, then they could easily have done what they did last week. Previous to that they'd settled for an interim solution that kept the flats in use, and people off their emergency housing list. Outwith a cost/benefit analysis by Lambeth balancing the convenience of the properties being squatted against a *putative* return from sale, we can only guess as to which position may or may not have been most advantageous.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> And why can they be auctioned tomorrow? Because the squatters have been evicted, a tactic that Lambeth have had recourse to since the took control of Clifton Mansions, but didn't exercise because....
> 
> 
> ....that's right, because they'd have had to provide alternative accommodation for the squatters, and because they had no plans for the properties. At all.
> ...



On the contrary. I've been very consistent.

If they had no plans for the properties, then that's even more reason to sell them. If the squatters hadn't been there then it would have been easier.

Taxpayer debt will be reduced. If not, where do you thing the money will go?

Try reading this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2011)

Saw this in Guardian on Friday in the editorial section

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/15/unthinkable-encouraging-squatting?INTCMP=SRCH

Faced with rising homelessness and high rents, the government has dreamed up a brain-bending wheeze – criminalising people who put empty buildings to use. Back in the day, squatters enjoyed protections derived from a 1381 act of parliament, as well as an ancient common law right to claim land on which no rent had been claimed for a dozen years. But in recent decades things have got tougher, thanks both to restrictive legislation and the great push to register land, which protects owners against forgetting about property they no longer use. Now, disused buildings are to gain more decisive priority over people seeking shelter. In a speech drafted to delight the Sun, back in the distant days of last month when this was a priority, David Cameron ripped up Ken Clarke's sensible prison plans, re-roasted the old Tory chestnut about blasting at burglars, and then – for good measure – pledged a new squatting offence. This week, a green paper emerged, which dripped with the embarrassment of the officials who'd been ordered to write it. Its "impact assessment" acknowledged the risk of vulnerable people being made destitute. Of course homeowners need to know they won't be powerless if they get back from the shop and find an army of crusties have moved in – but they already have this assurance. No law will stop squatters trying, until the need for affordable housing is met. Until then, instead of waving sticks, ministers should find ways to foster the responsible filling of empty homes


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2011)

Keep up the good work Violent Panda


----------



## Rushy (Jul 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> > I agree that *theoretically* it could have been liquidated, but if we follow the balance-sheet logic, Lambeth would have a duty to secure the maximum return on liquidation, something they're unlikely to be able to do even now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## HandinHand (Jul 19, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Try reading this.


 
Please point the the relevant parts of this, most people don't have all the time in the world (like yourself) to read a 400 odd page govenment document.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> On the contrary. I've been very consistent.



Consistently leaping from pillar to post, yes.



> If they had no plans for the properties, then that's even more reason to sell them.



Lambeth were faced with a very old developer's quandary: Sell when the price you can hope for is minimal, or retain until you can at least realise your original investment? 



> If the squatters hadn't been there then it would have been easier.



Not really. Squatters have minimal protection, and as I've repeatedly reiterated, Lambeth could have got rid of the in short order any time in the last ten years if they'd considered it worth their while. They didn't.



> Taxpayer debt will be reduced. If not, where do you thing the money will go?



Council Tax payers have no debt.

Do you mean "local authority debt will be reduced" (which is what your link basically proposes)? 

If so, that's nothing to do with "taxpayers", it's to do with local authority debt.



> Try reading this.


 
Why would I read something whose last re-print was 8 years ago, and whose advice is being superceded by legislation currently _en route_ via Jabba the Hutt's ministry?

Like I said, you're all over the place.

And the only person who hasn't noticed is you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Not quite sure what you mean by this. Lambeth has a duty to achieve a fair open market value. Why do you think they will not be able to do that now?



Market circumstances.

In case you haven't noticed, for certain types of property the market is still stagnant, and historically place like Clifton Mansions don't get converted to the type of places that are currently selling (high-end shag palaces and low-end starters), but rather to "luxury (probably on account of existing room sizes being bigger than the average Barrett rabbit hutch) apartments". That means that until the market picks up beyond the very gradual upward slope it's currently on, very few developers, unless they're cash-rich and need to wash their money, are going to want to pay a market price for the property.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Market circumstances.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, for certain types of property the market is still stagnant, and historically place like Clifton Mansions don't get converted to the type of places that are currently selling (high-end shag palaces and low-end starters), but rather to "luxury (probably on account of existing room sizes being bigger than the average Barrett rabbit hutch) apartments". That means that until the market picks up beyond the very gradual upward slope it's currently on, very few developers, unless they're cash-rich and need to wash their money, are going to want to pay a market price for the property.



Are you really saying that 'market circumstances' are the reason it will be impossible for sales to achieve a fair open market price? Open market price is the price which can be achieved by an open sale under the prevailing market circumstances.

If what you are saying is that it is not a good time to sell I don't entirely agree with your assessment. Average property price in Lambeth rose 10.8% in 12 months to March 11. At the same point average price was only about 5% below the crazy peaks (about 330 vs 350). Of the past 6 months only one has had negative growth. As for whether refurbished mansion blocks are the kind of thing that are currently selling in Brixton, 2 bed mansion flats in Rosslyn and Hereford (the closest 'historic' comparison that I am aware of) have been exchanging hands for 270-285K (despite hardly any of them meeting the current minimum size standards for new build 2 bed flats).

There is a lot of money out there for property funds at the moment. Boosted by international money because sterling is so cheap and investors want to speculate on a rise in interests rate driving the value of the pound upwards during the term of their investment - potentially adding significant extra return.

Yes, prices could potentially rise but we have another potential economic crisis on our hands which could just as easily cause prices to drop considerably again over the next 2 years. If the council needs the cash now then I don't think holding and speculating is advisable.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 19, 2011)

well, best of luck to any first time buyer for the future.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Are you really saying that 'market circumstances' are the reason it will be impossible for sales to achieve a fair open market price? Open market price is the price which can be achieved by an open sale under the prevailing market circumstances.



I haven't said anything about "open market price", Rushy. You did.

I'm talking about a decent return that isn't pennies in the pound of the actual value.




> If what you are saying is that it is not a good time to sell I don't entirely agree with your assessment. Average property price in Lambeth rose 10.8% in 12 months to March 11. At the same point average price was only about 5% below the crazy peaks (about 330 vs 350). Of the past 6 months only one has had negative growth. As for whether refurbished mansion blocks are the kind of thing that are currently selling in Brixton, 2 bed mansion flats in Rosslyn and Hereford (the closest 'historic' comparison that I am aware of) have been exchanging hands for 270-285K (despite hardly any of them meeting the current minimum size standards for new build 2 bed flats).
> 
> There is a lot of money out there for property funds at the moment. Boosted by international money because sterling is so cheap and investors want to speculate on a rise in interests rate driving the value of the pound upwards during the term of their investment - potentially adding significant extra return.
> 
> Yes, prices could potentially rise but we have another potential economic crisis on our hands which could just as easily cause prices to drop considerably again over the next 2 years. If the council needs the cash now then I don't think holding and speculating is advisable.


 
As for the council needing the cash, do you think they should liquidate their land-bank too? perhaps have a "spring-clean" of any saleable assets?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> well, best of luck to any first time buyer for the future.


 
They'll need more than luck, at those average prices. They'll need a fucking miracle.


----------



## Emet (Jul 19, 2011)

When tenement blocks were going up in Brixton around late 19th -early 20th century, Clifton Mansions, I think was probably low-end, low-income, and not a patch on housing stock in Rushcroft Road. The courtyard is nice, but many of the flats are u-shaped around a stairwell with no corridor, and therefore, I think, don't obey building regs. The rooms are smallish and the fabric of the building is in a state. Because there was an opportunity to buy as a co-op I thought about how they might be converted and came to the conclusion that a lot of expensive hacking-about would be necessary. I would knock them down and start again.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I agree that *theoretically* it could have been liquidated, but if we follow the balance-sheet logic, Lambeth would have a duty to secure the maximum return on liquidation, something they're unlikely to be able to do even now.


 


Rushy said:


> Not quite sure what you mean by this [secure the maximum return on liquidation]. Lambeth has a duty to achieve a fair open market value. Why do you think they will not be able to do that now?


 


ViolentPanda said:


> Market circumstances.


 


Rushy said:


> Are you really saying that 'market circumstances' are the reason it will be impossible for sales to achieve a fair open market price? Open market price is the price which can be achieved by an open sale under the prevailing market circumstances.


 


ViolentPanda said:


> > I haven't said anything about "open market price", Rushy. You did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rushy (Jul 19, 2011)

Emet said:


> When tenement blocks were going up in Brixton around late 19th -early 20th century, Clifton Mansions, I think was probably low-end, low-income, and not a patch on housing stock in Rushcroft Road. The courtyard is nice, but many of the flats are u-shaped around a stairwell with no corridor, and therefore, I think, don't obey building regs. The rooms are smallish and the fabric of the building is in a state. Because there was an opportunity to buy as a co-op I thought about how they might be converted and came to the conclusion that a lot of expensive hacking-about would be necessary. I would knock them down and start again.



That's interesting. The houses on Tunstall Road built around the same time were also originally non-self contained flats, one on each floor, around a staircase.

Despite being called Mansion Flats, the ones in Rosslyn and Hereford are far smaller than than their name suggests. Quite a few of the 2 beds are about 45sqm - these days that is the absolute minimum for a 1 bed flat. I have only ever been in two on the other side of the street. They seem to be quite a lot bigger.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> As for the council needing the cash, do you think they should liquidate their land-bank too? perhaps have a "spring-clean" of any saleable assets?



I admire your perserverance with Rushy and LT.

A point of info. Clifton Mansions is I believe a "Long Term Cycle Void". Its part of the Housing stock rather than a piece of land that the Council owns. An extra complication is that Lambeth has set up ALMOs in Lambeth. So Clifton Mansions probably comes under Lambeth Living control. 

Its not something that I understand fully. Whether its Lambeth Living ( the ALMO) or the Council directly who would dispose of or retain this property.

I have been told that Lambeth loses out by retaining property its not using. Its expected to use or dispose of Housing assets to be seen by central Government to be good manager of its stock. However I dont know all the ins and out of LA housing.

As you say the HRA is being radically changed by this Government.

As for selling there saleable assets they been doing this for a while. School sites and the Street Council housing they own. The Council dont like managing street properties (often houses with gardens). 

I would guess that now the Council have access to Clifton Mansions they are getting there surveyors in. The Council have a formula. If a property costs more than £X to rehab then its put up for sale or offered to RSL/HA ( normally at discount in exchange for nomination rights).

It is possibly for a Council to let other affordable housing providers to develop/ rehab housing in exchange for nomination rights. There is a formula for this.

In case of Clifton Mansions I would think that if its kept as housing ( either by developer or other provider) the only bit that would remain would be street frontage. The rest would be new build. As was done to the flats on the corner of Roseberry Avenue and Grays Inn road.

As Rushy say and I have also been told  house and land prices in the North of the Borough have held up despite recession. London is unique. Having bailed out the Fat Cats in the City central London house and land prices have not fallen that much. Its not the market its the fact that the City has been subsided by Government that has kept house prices up.

 Local authorities are under a lot of pressure from Pickles etc to make saving and be more "efficient". Unlike the City/Bankers.

Also rental sector in central London is doing quite nicely. So small developers and Buy to Let merchants are still on the look out for property. The Olympics is coming up and the City needs places to rent. There has already been concern that the Council has been putting properties up for auction. The Buy to let merchants and small developers have got bargains at auctions. If getting a good price is the aim of selling properties then selling them at an auction isnt the way to get it. But confirms to what the Council is allowed to do. The OMV at an auction is whatever it goes for at that auction.

Affordable housing is very much low on politicians agenda imo. its not a vote winner or loser like the NHS is. Middle ground voters are more likely to be home owners or have a Buy to Let portfolio. Crap really.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2011)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...year-as-they-auction-homes-off-too-cheaply.do

To follow up my previous post here is Evening Standard article on the results of auctioning off properties. Its a bit old from 2009. Its been an issue for a while.

Lambeth council came under fire in February after a two-bedroom flat was sold at auction for about £30,000 less than similar properties.

It was bought by a consortium of developers for £128,000 with the intention of selling it on at a profit. The flat, in Cricklade Avenue, Streatham Hill, needed little more than a new kitchen and bathroom, with refurbishment costs estimated in the region of £10,000.

Six months later it has gone on the market with a local estate agent for £215,000, potentially making the seller a profit of about £80,000.

It is now under offer at the asking price. Jack Frankel, part of the consortium which regularly buys at auctions, said: “I realised pretty quickly that this was a bargain and I'm very pleased with the way this has gone.

just checked auction site and Lambeth are still using auctions to sell housing stock.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 20, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...year-as-they-auction-homes-off-too-cheaply.do
> 
> To follow up my previous post here is Evening Standard article on the results of auctioning off properties. Its a bit old from 2009. Its been an issue for a while.
> 
> ...


 and something to bear in mind: you can sell properties with the squatters included at auction


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2011)

Yes I noticed on the auction site that it said that a property was squatted.

Which means that Clifton could have been auctioned with squatters in situ.

So that the argument that they were holding up sale does not follow.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 21, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Yes I noticed on the auction site that it said that a property was squatted.
> 
> Which means that Clifton could have been auctioned with squatters in situ.
> 
> So that the argument that they were holding up sale does not follow.



Yes - off course you can sell them squatted. And they sometimes do so - e.g. Bankton Road quite recently. On Hubert Grove they currently have a squatted property for sale and yet removed the squatters prior to sale of the property immediately next door. They generally achieve less cash if selling with squatters so I do not understand why they are inconsistent about it. At the end of the day a buyer of a squatted property will want to see all the information the council has to prove possession. If the council already has that info then it is only a short step for the council to evict trespassers themselves and realise a higher sale price. If the council is not able to show all that info, or does not have confidence to evict by itself, then the buyer is taking a big risk so pays a lot less.

I don't think a property like Clifton mansion would be auctioned - particularly at the moment. It is much more likely to go to tender which is less transparent but allows the council some choice in who buys it and what their proposals are. They did this for Bradys. It also gives developers a proper chance to assess more complicated sites and make planning enquiries. Potential buyers would need unfettered access to the building so. 

Off course they might just sell it to an HA.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 21, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...year-as-they-auction-homes-off-too-cheaply.do
> 
> To follow up my previous post here is Evening Standard article on the results of auctioning off properties. Its a bit old from 2009. Its been an issue for a while.
> 
> ...


 
It is not just Lambeth that sells in auction. Most of the housing associations do too. I could point you to a local HA ground floor garden flat sold in 2009 by a large HA for £155,000 to a private buyer. Just 33 days later it was resold *untouched *for £195,000 and then a year later after redecorating for £285,000.

One of the reasons they do sell at auction is to make the process as transparent as possible, which is necessary because it is not long ago that council and HA surveyors sold properties quietly for silly prices to mates, family, for backhanders, etc..

Another reason is certainty. In an auction the property is sold the moment the hammer drops and the sales hardly ever fall through. Open market sales (in England) regularly fall through after 2-4 months.

It is not true to assume that auction prices are always below open market prices - for a long time they have been consistently above open market prices (roughly 1999-2008). Recently they are considerably below. You can see the data here

As I said in my post above, I would be surprised if they sell this property by auction.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2011)

From the data the prices at auction dropped from 2008 onwards dramatically and haven't gone back up to non auction price.

So still a good buy for the Buy to Let portfolio builders and small developers. In London they cant lose. 

The ongoing problem for Councils is that they cant build anymore or rehab there existing street stock. At the end of the last Labour government there was a move to allow Councils to start building Council Housing again. HAs have over the years have had to become more like private developers when doing new developments. Leading them into conflict with tenants as on the Guiness Trust estate.

The underlying problem is the commodification of housing over the last couple of decades. Particularly that new phenomena "Buy to Let". Its surprisng the variety of people I know who got into it. The "market" has failed to fulfil a social need like housing.  

See here for background:

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/revenge-of-the-repossessed/



We should be under no illusions about the coalition’s purpose – it is the return of what Ralph Miliband called ‘class war Conservatism’, this time with a Liberal face. But to understand fully what is going on here requires an historical perspective..

First, the UK housing crisis did not originate in the boardroom of Lehman Brothers. It is, as Engels explained 140 years ago, an endemic feature of capitalism everywhere that it continually condemns significant numbers of people to housing misery, and periodically blows up into a wider crisis.

It was the catastrophic failure of private landlordism during the 19th and early 20th centuries that gradually impelled state intervention in the form of public housing. During the post-war era, a mixed economy of public and private house building helped to constrain the boom-bust cycle and replace the dominance of the private landlord with a mix of home ownership and council housing. The long-term withdrawal of local authorities from housebuilding has coincided with a highly volatile period of housing market instability, with no fewer than four boom-bust cycles since the early 1970s.

Second, the roots of the present housing crisis can be traced to the over-accumulation crisis of capital of the 1970s, which arguably gave birth to the evil twins of financialisation and neoliberalism. Expanding home ownership was vital for finding new sources of accumulation for finance capital. This is why neoliberalism made the privatisation of public housing in Britain its flagship policy, shutting down affordable and secure alternatives to the market and co-opting key sections of the working class into what Thatcher called ‘popular capitalism’.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 23, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> From the data the prices at auction dropped from 2008 onwards dramatically and haven't gone back up to non auction price.
> 
> So still a good buy for the Buy to Let portfolio builders and small developers. In London they cant lose.
> 
> ...


 
This discussion has become pretty detached from the original subject. At the end of the day the previous govt did not instigate a new drive of council house building in 13 years and, given they agreed that significant cuts were required, it is unlikely their plans would have ever come about. I am sure that they knew they couldn't afford it when they proposed it- they didn't expect to get another term.

The previous govt was miles away from the kind of socialism to which you appear to aspire. That is not because there are no politicians who share your views. It is because their ideals do not connect with enough of the electorate and because despite numerous experiments no one can point towards examples of a socialist economy to which a significant number would aspire. 

The article you quoted went on to suggest how people could make a voluntary start towards easing the housing crisis. It suggested that people sell their properties to a housing coop and rent it back from them.

_Existing homeowners, meanwhile, looking for more collective ways of living together, could sell their homes to a new housing cooperative, swapping their existing mortgages for rents that build up an equity stake in the now collectively-owned asset. Significantly, these homes could no longer be bought and sold in an anonymous competitive market place, creating a collective shield against the speculative and competitive forces driving up the high and inflating prices in the private housing market. If such a model could be generalised to the point that it had critical mass in any defined geographical neighbourhood, it could play a huge role in regulating the private housing market, and in turn, the enormous cost of housing._​
It is a nice idea but even on the smallest scale coops have shown themselves to be enormously vulnerable to corruption from within their ranks. It isn't all that long ago that members of the BHC were found to be abusing their administrative positions in order to personally control as many as five or six co-op properties and sub letting them at a market rate for a massive profit. I'm not suggesting that is going on any more in that particular organisation but, even now, that coop has families bringing up their kids in one bed flats whilst some couples live in a large house with a garden. Despite the co-ops idealism it remains hierarchical and people with the most protect their own interests at the expense of those with the least, and often greater need. 

It does not make capitalism right. But the alternative models and experiments being proposed do not point towards a system that is credible or desirable enough for a significant number of people to think it is worthy of the quite enormous change that would be required.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 23, 2011)

> But the alternative models and experiments being proposed do not point towards a system that is credible or desirable enough for a significant number of people to think it is worthy of the quite enormous change that would be required.



other models and proposals to do with housing? It is in the interests of the Brixton community to try and negotiate a new settlement with the council about the future of the squats.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 23, 2011)

not sure this got posted before: national eviction team report...


----------



## Rushy (Jul 23, 2011)

Aquamarine said:


> other models and proposals to do with housing? It is in the interests of the Brixton community to try and negotiate a new settlement with the council about the future of the squats.


 
Sorry, I meant economic models, not specifically housing. Although housing would obviously play a huge part in any such model. The discussion has gone a little off track so I it's a good job that you brought back to the original subject!

You say that it is in the interests of the Brixton Community to try to negotiate a settlement with the council but do the majority of the community agree with this?? Maybe I am mistaken but the general impression I get is that a large proportion of the community, whilst against the idea of wasting assets by leaving them empty and cautiously open-minded to the argument that certain types of squatter were making good use of a wasted asset whilst it was left empty, would not be particularly in favour of the idea that squatters themselves should be allowed to have much influence on the ultimate possession/use of the property simply on the basis that they had occupied it for a given time.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 23, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> not sure this got posted before: national eviction team report...


 
What a bunch of wankers...



> During the mid nineties the UK witnessed an explosion of Eco-minded people coming together in an organised and structured way, with one common purpose in mind. That purpose was, and still is, to disrupt progress, and when the talking was over, their one-line of thought was to take direct action.
> 
> We initially experienced this direct action first hand. In 1995 we were called in by Mining Company Celtic Energy, on two proposed opencast sites, where the Eco-Warriers had established their encampments by erecting their tree-top houses, and barricaded themselves into farm buildings. This for the National Eviction Team was where it all started, on some very cold wet days in the Welsh valleys.
> 
> ...



Call for a quotation now!!!!!


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 23, 2011)

> You say that it is in the interests of the Brixton Community to try to negotiate a settlement with the council but do the majority of the community agree with this??



i was referring to the sale of the properties only. i've only heard people refer to them in terms of social assets and object to any sale. so there is an awareness of the impact of them being sold. Instead they could be used - for ex  -as sustainable/live work units available for people working on specific projects. They could be refurbished in an environmentally sustainable way, contribute to the sustainability of the community.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> not sure this got posted before: national eviction team report...


 
Lambeth Borough Council instructed their preferred eviction team UK Evict Limited to remove squatters from Clifton Mansions. The Mansions are made up of 22 individual apartments that have been illegally occupied for 20 years. Lambeth Council served 28 day notices on the occupiers to remove themselves voluntarily before they send in the High Court Enforcement Officers.

At 9.00am Enforcement Officers removed a barricade to the entranceway, whilst avoiding bottles being thrown at them from height, and within two hours effected an extremely safe eviction. A 20 year problem was solved within two hours, again this is testament to the professionalism and experience of the Team

If I was the cops I would be pissed off at this. It was the large number of police that did the work. The small number of bailiffs only took part after the police had secured the entrance to Clifton Mansions. As can be seen from the photos I put up earlier in this thread.

And it hasnt been squatted for 20 years. It was Short life for some of the last 20 years.

Professionalism and experience had nothing to do with it. It was the Police who did it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2011)

Rushy said:


> This discussion has become pretty detached from the original subject. At the end of the day the previous govt did not instigate a new drive of council house building in 13 years and, given they agreed that significant cuts were required, it is unlikely their plans would have ever come about. I am sure that they knew they couldn't afford it when they proposed it- they didn't expect to get another term.
> 
> It does not make capitalism right. But the alternative models and experiments being proposed do not point towards a system that is credible or desirable enough for a significant number of people to think it is worthy of the quite enormous change that would be required.



This thread has covered lot of areas and a lot of issues. I was putting up an argument about the underlying reasons for the housing problems in this country. Which is one of the reasons places get squatted. 

There are a lot of people in London who see lack of affordable housing as an issue. Who dont see the market as providing housing. Just depends on who u meet on an everyday basis.  Thats the section of the article I used that is relevant. 

I didnt say that I agreed with all the articles proposals to deal with this issue. 

There were moves in the Labour party for a Forth Option- allowing Councils to build Council Housing again. This never got a chance as it came at the end of the last government.

Building for example Council Houses again does not require enormous change. It would also provide employment for people and help the construction industry. 

Increasing rights for private/ social tenants and bringing in rent controls does not require radical change. It might be resisted by developers and private rental market


----------



## Rushy (Jul 23, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Building for example Council Houses again does not require enormous change. It would also provide employment for people and help the construction industry.
> 
> Increasing rights for private/ social tenants and bringing in rent controls does not require radical change.
> 
> The only groups in society who might resist these changes are developers and Buy to Let portfolio owners.


 
Really? You don't think that a large proportion of the population exists who feel that welfare state should be there as a security blanket rather than something to become dependent on or complacent about? Westminster council estimates that 2,200 of their tenants in taxpayer subsidised properties are on incomes of over £50,000 - and about £200 are on incomes of over £100,000 - and they are not allowed to put the rent up, let alone turf them out to make way for someone in actual need. Do you think people who have struggled on median salaries of about £400/wk after tax to pay for their own house (rent or mortgage) and see their taxes funding a system that cannot turf out or increase rent for a tenant as wealthy as Bob Crowe or Lee Jasper actually think that is fair. Are you really sure that it is so cut and dry that only developers and 'buy-to-let'ers could possibly resist a push for more rights?

Perhaps rather than demanding more rights we should be talking about necessity, more balanced rights and better use of stock.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 23, 2011)

Duplicate post.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 23, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Do you think people who have struggled on median salaries of about £400/wk after tax to pay for their own house (rent or mortgage) and see their taxes funding a system that cannot turf out or increase rent for a tenant as wealthy as Bob Crowe
> ...



Not this old chestnut...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2011)

stephj said:


> Not this old chestnut...


 
Yes it is that old chestnut and just what the Government is saying.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Really? You don't think that a large proportion of the population exists who feel that welfare state should be there as a security blanket rather than something to become dependent on or complacent about?
> 
> Perhaps rather than demanding more rights we should be talking about necessity, more balanced rights and better use of stock.



Well I dont know who u talk to but I sense that a lot of people ( and I meet a quite large cross section of people) have seen that its the bankers that are the problem not whatever group are labelled as undeserving. There has been a mood change. Blair did the "balanced rights" line whilst sucking up to rich and powerful. I dont feel that a lot of ordinary people buy it any more. There is however a grudging acceptance that "They" stay rich and powerful and there is not much u can do about it. 

The welfare state was not a security blanket.  After the 30s depression and war many saw the welfare state as looking after the welfare of the majority. Be it health, housing etc. Rather than laissez faire capitalism. The Welfare state was the "we are in it all together state".

Council housing post war was not meant for the worst off. It contained professionals like teachers for example. 

 I should have phrased what I said more carefully. Private tenants rights have been eroded over the years and rent controls have all but gone.  I assume you are not against rent controls for the private sector and the return of some of the rights that private tenants have lost.? Thats what I meant when I said that developers and private rental would resist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Really? You don't think that a large proportion of the population exists who feel that welfare state should be there as a security blanket rather than something to become dependent on or complacent about? Westminster council estimates that 2,200 of their tenants in taxpayer subsidised properties are on incomes of over £50,000 - and about £200 are on incomes of over £100,000 - and they are not allowed to put the rent up, let alone turf them out to make way for someone in actual need. Do you think people who have struggled on median salaries of about £400/wk after tax to pay for their own house (rent or mortgage) and see their taxes funding a system that cannot turf out or increase rent for a tenant as wealthy as Bob Crowe or Lee Jasper actually think that is fair. Are you really sure that it is so cut and dry that only developers and 'buy-to-let'ers could possibly resist a push for more rights?
> 
> Perhaps rather than demanding more rights we should be talking about necessity, more balanced rights and better use of stock.


 
"Taxpayer-subsidised!?

I do hope you're not talking about local authority social housing, but as you've mentioned Bob Crowe, you must be.

Taxpayers do *NOT* subsidise local authority social housing (RSL social housing, for that matter). In fact LA social housing rents subsidise *central government*, year on year. Get your facts right before farting out the tabloid line.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2011)

stephj said:


> Not this old chestnut...


 
Time and fucking time again. Some daft cunt in the _Torygraph, The Scum_ or _The Fail_ vomits out that lie, and you can guarantee a whole constellation of gullible wankers will buy the lie.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Yes it is that old chestnut and just what the Government is saying.


 
Well, they're careful not to actually say it so baldly. They prefer to sow the conversation with talking points and then allow the gullible to draw their own conclusions.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2011)

Yes I know what u mean VP. They go on about "Fairness".


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 24, 2011)

What "taxpayer subsidised" properties are these?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 24, 2011)

> funding a system that cannot turf out or increase rent for a tenant as wealthy as Bob Crowe or Lee Jaspe



Damn you Bob! Damn you to hell! social housing should only be for the poor and needy, so better to concentrate them all in one place. For the day when we do what _we all know needs to be done_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Yes I know what u mean VP. They go on about "Fairness".


 
The problem for "us" being that to "them" fairness means fairness to them, not to all.

Local authority social housing could be built with the quarter of a billion pounds the government milks from rent receipts annually, housing that would drive down the cost of Housing Benefit, because it would eliminate (or at least attenuate) bastards being able to charge £300 per week plus for a single room in "emergency accommodation. *THOSE* are the people being "subsidised", and yet I don't notice a lot of activity by Rushy to censure that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> What "taxpayer subsidised" properties are these?


 
It's not as if the taxpayer even subsidised the original borrowing to construct local authority social housing, Blags. Most LA SH was constructed using money borrowed by the local authorities on the market. All the taxpayer did was, as the ultimate funder of central government, guarantee repayment (something they've never had to be called on).

I do wish people wouldn't swallow the whole right-wing _spiel_ without bothering to know what they're talking about. They make themselves look stupid.


----------



## oryx (Jul 24, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Westminster council estimates that 2,200 of their tenants in taxpayer subsidised properties are on incomes of over £50,000 - and about £200 are on incomes of over £100,000 - and they are not allowed to put the rent up, let alone turf them out to make way for someone in actual need.



Where did Westminster Council get this info from? This has been doing the rounds for weeks now and I'm not sure it's clear where the statistics came from (apart from a not-so-educated guess from someone with an agenda). 

What do you mean when you say they are 'not allowed to put the rent up'? Have you never heard of rent increases in 'social' housing? 

The scandal here isn't a few well-off people living in council or HA flats, it's people swallowing stories that give the impression most council/HA tenants are scroungers while those who aren't are 'hard-working families', 'the squeezed middle', etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2011)

oryx said:


> Where did Westminster Council get this info from? This has been doing the rounds for weeks now and I'm not sure it's clear where the statistics came from (apart from a not-so-educated guess from someone with an agenda).
> 
> What do you mean when you say they are 'not allowed to put the rent up'? Have you never heard of rent increases in 'social' housing?



I suspect Rushy means "put the rent up to a figure commensurate with their income".

Which, when you give it a moment's thought, would be another spectacularly stupid move because it would happen under the assumption that a person earning over £50,000 a year would have the disposable income to accommodate a rent rise. Most people have their income committed in one form or another, generally to raising a family.



> The scandal here isn't a few well-off people living in council or HA flats, it's people swallowing stories that give the impression most council/HA tenants are scroungers while those who aren't are 'hard-working families', 'the squeezed middle', etc.



It's also of governments who, despite knowing of the housing situation and housing scarcity, allow that scarcity to continue in order to buoy the economy. These narratives wouldn't be possible if it weren't for that deliberate scarcity.


----------



## oryx (Jul 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which, when you give it a moment's thought, would be another spectacularly stupid move because it would happen under the assumption that a person earning over £50,000 a year would have the disposable income to accommodate a rent rise. Most people have their income committed in one form or another, generally to raising a family.



Also, in an area like Westminster £50k is not that much. Two people earning £25k each.

_I realised he meant a rent hike in accordance with income  should have said that though!_


----------



## leanderman (Jul 24, 2011)

Landlordism, which is behind London's affordability problems, is encouraged by tax breaks.

Most prominent is that mortgage interest can be put against rent.

I suspect many landlords pay no tax while their tenants buy the property for _them_. 

And then find ways to eliminate capital gains tax on disposal.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> These narratives wouldn't be possible if it weren't for that deliberate scarcity.


 

That is nub of the matter. Spot on VP.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 24, 2011)

Is there scarcity outside the South East?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2011)

leanderman said:


> Is there scarcity outside the South East?


 
Christ, yes.

I've got family dotted around England (and Wales), some of whom can't afford to buy, some who can, and the same problem seems to pertain in Devon, Wiltshire, Norfolk, North Staffs and East Shropshire: Low supply of social housing, low supply of "starter homes" for purchase. Developers have spent the last 10 years or so focusing on "premium" products, "luxury" apartments and houses, purely because the margins are better for them, even if they're sitting on them for a couple of years.

Even the big northern conurbations, after the wholesale bulldozing of Prescott's pathfinder idea, don't have anything like the excess of housing that they used to.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 25, 2011)

Scarcity, tax breaks ... surely the fact so many people either want to, or need to, live in London is a factor in pushing prices/rents beyond the reach of most mortals?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Well I dont know who u talk to but I sense that a lot of people ( and I meet a quite large cross section of people) have seen that its the bankers that are the problem not whatever group are labelled as undeserving. There has been a mood change. Blair did the "balanced rights" line whilst sucking up to rich and powerful. I dont feel that a lot of ordinary people buy it any more. There is however a grudging acceptance that "They" stay rich and powerful and there is not much u can do about it.
> 
> The welfare state was not a security blanket.  After the 30s depression and war many saw the welfare state as looking after the welfare of the majority. Be it health, housing etc. Rather than laissez faire capitalism. The Welfare state was the "we are in it all together state".
> 
> ...


 
I'm not talking about the original purpose of the welfare state but about how people see it now and how they balance what they want it to provide with what level of taxes they want to pay. Like you - I speak to a large cross section of people. I agree that we have remarkably different impressions from those we talk to.

I totally get the anger against obscenely wealthy bankers but I think it is a bit of a distraction when arguing about what rights and benefits the general population think are reasonable. Less than 10% of UK's earning population earns over 45K (50K in London - 2006). I struggle to see that a significant proportion of that population, particularly amongst the significant number not in receipt of benefits, feel strongly about protecting council house provision/subsidy for people earning an average wage. I think the fact that AFAIK none of the three main parties propose a return to mass social housing supports the fact that they realise people in general don't agree with it. Bankers might have all the cash, but they only get one vote each like the rest of us.

I don't know what type of rent controls you propose. I'm open to suggestions of how you think they would work but in general I would be pretty cautious of them. As for rights, you say _some _but I am not sure which ones you would like to see returned.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Damn you Bob! Damn you to hell! social housing should only be for the poor and needy, so better to concentrate them all in one place. For the day when we do what _we all know needs to be done_


 
I accept to an extent the argument regarding concentration of people in one place. But requiring Bob, Lee and others lucky enough to be in their position to pay a normal market rent would not affect the mix of people in an area, would it?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2011)

From an email I received:



> The property is to be sold by Informal Tender on a subject to contract basis. The disposal will be with vacant possession of the residential part and subject to the existing commercial tenancies. Offers are to be submitted by 15 September 2011.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2011)

leanderman said:


> Scarcity, tax breaks ... surely the fact so many people either want to, or need to, live in London is a factor in pushing prices/rents beyond the reach of most mortals?


 
It's the massive excess of demand over supply for the types of housing I mentioned, and the fact of unaffordability. Price has outstripped the pockets of people on the average/median wage and less for so long now (15 years+), and over a much greater "footprint" than just Greater London, that the whole situation is irredeemable without massive construction of social housing. The changes to Housing Benefit etc will only make the problem more urgent.

Back in the '80s, soon after the whole "bye bye social housing" thing started (around '81, but really kicking in about 1984) we started to see a massive shift to commuting from the Home Counties. By the mid '90s I had colleagues on less than the average wage commuting in from places like Thetford and Luton. An old mate recently moved to Brum and commutes to London every day. It's not just London prices, it's the same in about 80% (IMO, I don't have hard data) of the metropoli of the UK.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I'm not talking about the original purpose of the welfare state but about how people see it now and how they balance what they want it to provide with what level of taxes they want to pay. Like you - I speak to a large cross section of people. I agree that we have remarkably different impressions from those we talk to.
> 
> I totally get the anger against obscenely wealthy bankers but I think it is a bit of a distraction when arguing about what rights and benefits the general population think are reasonable. Less than 10% of UK's earning population earns over 45K (50K in London - 2006). I struggle to see that a significant proportion of that population, particularly amongst the significant number not in receipt of benefits, feel strongly about protecting council house provision/subsidy...



Again, what subsidy? Council housing is not subsidised. It's a net contributor to the exchequer. 



> ...for people earning an average wage. I think the fact that AFAIK none of the three main parties propose a return to mass social housing supports the fact that they realise people in general don't agree with it. Bankers might have all the cash, but they only get one vote each like the rest of us.



People earning an average wage can no longer afford to buy property to live in. In many cases they cannot afford or can barely afford private sector rentsThis, unless you have an interest in the perpetuation of a lightly-regulated private rented sector that is bent on repeating past mistakes, is why there is a need for new-build social housing.

As for your fatuous remark that bankers too only get a vote a piece, you're eliding the influence that their power and money buys them


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Again, what subsidy? Council housing is not subsidised. It's a net contributor to the exchequer.



Are you arguing that because the council does not have a mortgage on a property and rental income exceeds maintenance costs it is therefore a net contributor?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Are you arguing that because the council does not have a mortgage on a property and rental income exceeds maintenance costs it is therefore a net contributor?


 
Do you read what people write in their posts?

Note "the exchequer"?

Local authorities are required to remit to central government a portion of any "excess" (i.e. profit) on their housing revenue accounts (local authroties supposedly being required to act as "not for profit"). Now, given that local authorities were legally disbarred from new development of social housing in 1983-84, and most LA borrowing made on terms of 20-25 years (and the trend UK-wide having been to pay off sooner rather than later), around 80%+ (Shelter's figure from a couple of years ago) of that housing is owned free and clear, the excess over costs can be quite large. IIRC the Exchequer benefitted from this "surcharge" by around £200 million in FY 2009-2010.

Oh, and before you claim that the taxpayer obviously subsidised the original borrowing, they didn't. Central govt stood guarantor, but never suffered a single default between 1947 and 1984 (the years post-war that local authorities were able to borrow on the money markets for new build funding.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do you read what people write in their posts?
> 
> Note "the exchequer"?
> 
> ...


 
Now, Rushy. Ask yourself how much social  housing even just a £100 million _per annum_ could build, if the development of it wasn't being deliberately suppressed for ideological and economic reasons.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's the massive excess of demand over supply for the types of housing I mentioned, and the fact of unaffordability. Price has outstripped the pockets of people on the average/median wage and less for so long now (15 years+), and over a much greater "footprint" than just Greater London, that the whole situation is irredeemable without massive construction of social housing. The changes to Housing Benefit etc will only make the problem more urgent.
> 
> Back in the '80s, soon after the whole "bye bye social housing" thing started (around '81, but really kicking in about 1984) we started to see a massive shift to commuting from the Home Counties. By the mid '90s I had colleagues on less than the average wage commuting in from places like Thetford and Luton. An old mate recently moved to Brum and commutes to London every day. It's not just London prices, it's the same in about 80% (IMO, I don't have hard data) of the metropoli of the UK.


 
I can't see a massive social housing programme happening.

I can see London increasingly becoming the preserve of the rich, and the poor, and not much in between.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do you read what people write in their posts?
> 
> Note "the exchequer"?
> 
> ...


 
What happens to the money that is brought in by the exchequer? It goes into the pot along with all our other sources of revenue incl. taxes and then gets redistributed. If someone is paying £75 less than market value then that person is being subsidised by the exchequer to the extent of £75/week, which needs to found from somewhere else (either in additional taxes or cut services). 

The concept that the difference between market rent and rent paid represents a subsidy is not a foreign concept - just take a look at HMRC's income tax rules. If a company lets an employee live in a flat and only charges them 75% of its real market rental value then the 25% discount is defined as a subsidy to the employee. The value of that subsidy is then treated as notional pay and added to their income for the purposes of PAYE.

The Bob Crowe example is an extreme one used to illustrate the point. A man on a banker's salary being subsidised by the rest of use because he is not being required to pay the same level of rent as a neighbour renting on the open market. I have not argued that there should not be subsidies - I have questioned whether it is really so cut and dry a matter that it is impossible that anyone other than developers and landlords might not see the extension of tenant rights and subsidies as a matter of priority.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2011)

leanderman said:


> I can't see a massive social housing programme happening.
> 
> I can see London increasingly becoming the preserve of the rich, and the poor, and not much in between.


 
In other words, back to the early-Victorian/Dickensian city of "mansions" and rookeries. 

The "middle" being squeezed out is a direct side-effect of the residualisation of social housing, too. It means that while a previous generation of young teachers, nurse and what-have-you had secure housing for as long as they wanted or needed it, now they're "sinking or swimming" in the world of private rental or property ownership (the insecurity of which handily locks people into keeping on with jobs they hate and being to scared to protest when they get shafted by the government). I mean, who thought, 30 years ago, that anyone except students would ever *need* to house-share again?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2011)

Rushy said:


> What happens to the money that is brought in by the exchequer? It goes into the pot along with all our other sources of revenue incl. taxes and then gets redistributed. If someone is paying £75 less than market value then that person is being subsidised by the exchequer to the extent of £75/week, which needs to found from somewhere else (either in additional taxes or cut services).



No they're not. If someone is paying under the (generally inflated) "market rate" (and please don't try and feed me the usual bullshit about how the market only taking what is required and no more!) to their local authority, then the exchequer is not "subsidising" them in any way, shape or form, and by extension, neither is the taxpayer. 

Do you agree that it is a landlord's right to set their own rent? Well, the obligation on a local authority is to cover its' costs. As long as that is done, then the local authority incurs no loss, and neither does the exchequer. 

The only "loser" is the private landlord that sees potential customers getting housing at a price they can't match without cutting their own profit margin.



> The concept that the difference between market rent and rent paid represents a subsidy is not a foreign concept - just take a look at HMRC's income tax rules. If a company lets an employee live in a flat and only charges them 75% of its real market rental value then the 25% discount is defined as a subsidy to the employee. The value of that subsidy is then treated as notional pay and added to their income for the purposes of PAYE.



You're talking about privately-owned property, I'm talking about local authority-owned property. They're two different things. Bluster about subsidies and "real market rental values" all you like, but until you grasp that social housing isn't the same as private housing, and that social housing rents aren't (and never have been) tied to market rents, then you're going to keep told how and why you're mistaken.


> The Bob Crowe example is an extreme one used to illustrate the point. A man on a banker's salary...



Wanky attempt at tabloidesque demonisation. He's not on a "banker's salary", and he certainly doesn't receive any of their bonuses. He's on a very good salary, I agree, but even on £100,000 a year, how would he be able to afford to rent or buy a house for himself and his family to live in, in London, on that salary?

See, this is the flaw in the coalition thinking that you're promoting. You can't relate a person's desert of social housing to their income, you have to relate it to their individual circumstances, if at all, and that way lies a bureaucratic nightmare 



> ....being subsidised by the rest of use because he is not being required to pay the same level of rent as a neighbour renting on the open market. I have not argued that there should not be subsidies - I have questioned whether it is really so cut and dry a matter that it is impossible that anyone other than developers and landlords might not see the extension of tenant rights and subsidies as a matter of priority.


 
You can talk about Crowe being subsidised, and social housing rent as being subsidies funded by the taxpayer, but any rational analysis of the facts (rather than the reinterpretation of word meanings that you've engaged in) shows that isn't the case.

Calling a turd an apple doesn't make it taste any different.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> In other words, back to the early-Victorian/Dickensian city of "mansions" and rookeries.
> 
> The "middle" being squeezed out is a direct side-effect of the residualisation of social housing, too. It means that while a previous generation of young teachers, nurse and what-have-you had secure housing for as long as they wanted or needed it, now they're "sinking or swimming" in the world of private rental or property ownership (the insecurity of which handily locks people into keeping on with jobs they hate and being to scared to protest when they get shafted by the government). I mean, who thought, 30 years ago, that anyone except students would ever *need* to house-share again?


 
Now this, I agree with. And if you are right that Crowe is unable to cope on £100k, it applies to just about everyone. I'd hope I would be able to cope on £100k though!


----------



## Rushy (Jul 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wanky attempt at tabloidesque demonisation. He's not on a "banker's salary", and he certainly doesn't receive any of their bonuses. He's on a very good salary, I agree, but even on £100,000 a year, how would he be able to afford to rent or buy a house for himself and his family to live in, in London, on that salary?


 
Are you being serious?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No they're not. If someone is paying under the (generally inflated) "market rate" (and please don't try and feed me the usual bullshit about how the market only taking what is required and no more!) to their local authority, then the exchequer is not "subsidising" them in any way, shape or form, and by extension, neither is the taxpayer.
> 
> Do you agree that it is a landlord's right to set their own rent? Well, the obligation on a local authority is to cover its' costs. As long as that is done, then the local authority incurs no loss, and neither does the exchequer.
> 
> ...


 
Firstly, I disagree with your assertion that offering property below market rate is not a subsidy. If a private landlord offers discounted rent then he is subsidising the occupant. Same for a public landlord, even if the LL is choosing to subsidise the rent at the expense of another body, such as the exchequer. Subsidy does not mean different things in private and public matters. Where there is no direct cash transfer the subsidy is known as an "indirect subsidy". We all own the public property units collectively through the government - those who benefit from discounted occupation of them are being subsidised collectively by those who do not. That does not fit your definition of subsidy. We clearly disagree fundamentally on this matter. That's fine.

Secondly, none of what you say detracts from my original comment which is that it is unlikely that the matter is seen to be so cut and dry that it is impossible that anyone other than developers and landlords might not see the extension of tenant rights and subsidies as a matter of priority (as suggested by Gramsci). To suppose that is as incorrect as saying that the only people interested in increased rights and subsidies are the recipients. OK - so you are absolutely certain that you are right about the matter - but even if you 100% correct, VP is not "everyone other than developers and landlords". It is a strength to be able to recognise that your own view, even if you are convinced it is correct, is rarely the only or even the most widely held view.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wanky attempt at tabloidesque demonisation. He's not on a "banker's salary", and he certainly doesn't receive any of their bonuses. He's on a very good salary, I agree, but even on £100,000 a year, how would he be able to afford to rent or buy a house for himself and his family to live in, in London, on that salary?


 
Very easily indeed, ffs.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2011)

Rushy said:


> The Bob Crowe example is an extreme one used to illustrate the point. A man on a banker's salary being subsidised by the rest of use because he is not being required to pay the same level of rent as a neighbour renting on the open market.


Council housing is not "subsidised."

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/council-housing-is-not-subsidised/798.thread


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Are you being serious?


 
Absolutely.

Why do you think that the government, especially fat Eric, are able to make noises about Housing Benefits costs in London being so high? Because private sector rents for a standard 3-bed house (which is what Crowe, his wife and 2 kids would need) would cost him £1500-2000 pcm. You might think that housing costs equal to 50%+ of your net salary is fine, but although it's become the reality for many Londoners, I don't.

Oh, and average purchase price for a 3-bed house is currently more than a standard mortgage accumulator would lend you on £100,00 _per annum_. You'd need to be earning at least £20,000 a year more than that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Very easily indeed, ffs.


 
For himself and his family?

I mean, I'm aware he could get a room in a house-share for about £500-600 a month, or get a 1-bed flat for anything between £800-1200, but a 3-bed house, rental or mortgage?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Firstly, I disagree with your assertion that offering property below market rate is not a subsidy. If a private landlord offers discounted rent then he is subsidising the occupant. Same for a public landlord, even if the LL is choosing to subsidise the rent at the expense of another body, such as the exchequer. Subsidy does not mean different things in private and public matters. Where there is no direct cash transfer the subsidy is known as an "indirect subsidy". We all own the public property units collectively through the government - those who benefit from discounted occupation of them are being subsidised collectively by those who do not. That does not fit your definition of subsidy. We clearly disagree fundamentally on this matter. That's fine.



Frankly, I don't give a toss whether you agree with my description or not. The fact is that you have to go into semantic contortions in order to call the fact that local authorities charge a below-market rent a "subsidy". That's what happens when you attempt to use a word whose meaning doesn't fit what you're trying to convey.
Tell me, what do you, as a taxpayer, or central government, as the disburser of monies to local authorities pay out in way of subsidy to local authorities with reference to their social housing?  Nothing. Subsidy doesn't exist in the way you're representing it, "collective", or at all.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2011)

That idiotic "it's priced at less than the market rate so therefore it's a subsidy" argument is capably torn apart by a poster on the insidehousing site:




			
				 frances said:
			
		

> Council Housing is subsidised. If a flat can be rented for £400 a month at market level, but is rented out at £90 at a social rent, then it is being subsidised. The cost to taxpayers is the loss at not charging a full market rent.






			
				chris said:
			
		

> Interesting concept Frances - so subsidy is the loss of potential profit.
> Does that mean that when Tesco sell you a Bogof that the tax payer is losing out from the missed VAT so is subsidising the private company?
> The reality is that the total rent paid by tenants exceeds the housing cost and the treasury (tax payer) keeps the excess - there is no subsidy Frances.
> The market cost of something is not its true cost, but is the cost plus whatever profit level can be made. Market cost has nothing to do with subsidy and it is false to represent it as such.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I accept to an extent the argument regarding concentration of people in one place. But requiring Bob, Lee and others lucky enough to be in their position to pay a normal market rent would not affect the mix of people in an area, would it?


 at what level of income would you evict people from their homes? And would they be able to move back if their income fell again?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Are you arguing that because the council does not have a mortgage on a property and rental income exceeds maintenance costs it is therefore a net contributor?


 
You appear to be operating from your own unique dictionary.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 28, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> For himself and his family?
> 
> I mean, I'm aware he could get a room in a house-share for about £500-600 a month, or get a 1-bed flat for anything between £800-1200, but a 3-bed house, rental or mortgage?


 
I used a tax calculator to get a net monthly wage of about £5300. A quick search of rightmove shows 3 bed houses in zone 3 starting at 1200pcm. He can easily afford it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> What happens to the money that is brought in by the exchequer? It goes into the pot along with all our other sources of revenue incl. taxes and then gets redistributed. If someone is paying £75 less than market value then that person is being subsidised by the exchequer to the extent of £75/week, which needs to found from somewhere else (either in additional taxes or cut services).
> 
> The concept that the difference between market rent and rent paid represents a subsidy is not a foreign concept - just take a look at HMRC's income tax rules. If a company lets an employee live in a flat and only charges them 75% of its real market rental value then the 25% discount is defined as a subsidy to the employee. The value of that subsidy is then treated as notional pay and added to their income for the purposes of PAYE.
> 
> The Bob Crowe example is an extreme one used to illustrate the point. A man on a banker's salary being subsidised by the rest of use because he is not being required to pay the same level of rent as a neighbour renting on the open market. I have not argued that there should not be subsidies - I have questioned whether it is really so cut and dry a matter that it is impossible that anyone other than developers and landlords might not see the extension of tenant rights and subsidies as a matter of priority.


 What a load of old cock. Why do you think market rent value is any more real than council rent value?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I used a tax calculator to get a net monthly wage of about £5300. A quick search of rightmove shows 3 bed houses in zone 3 starting at 1200pcm. He can easily afford it.


 
Agreed. Not a good line of argument VP.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 28, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Agreed. Not a good line of argument VP.


 
well, he obviously could afford it, but it still a case of "look at the minority cases of people taking the piss" to tar a large group with the brush though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I used a tax calculator to get a net monthly wage of about £5300. A quick search of rightmove shows 3 bed houses in zone 3 starting at 1200pcm. He can easily afford it.


 
Okay, so he can "afford it" in terms of rental cost (although "starting at £1200" appears to signify that the final cost will be *somewhat* higher than your starting price). Do we know what his living costs are? Because that's the point I've been making all along: That judging whether someone "deserves" social housing or not based on their income is pointless. You need to know what their total expenses are to know whether or not they "deserve" social housing.

BTW, doesn't Crowe fold a percentage of his salary back into his union's coffers, or am I thinking of someone else, Serwotka maybe?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> What a load of old cock. Why do you think market rent value is any more real than council rent value?


 
Because it fits with the "facts" his ideology allows him to perceive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Agreed. Not a good line of argument VP.


 
I haven't claimed it's a good line of argument, but as I've stated several times, it's about total affordability, not just for Crowe, but for *anyone* who gets tarred with this "undeserving because of size of salary" brush. If you judge purely on income, you're going to end up excluding people who deserve social housing. You may not exclude a massive number of people, but you'll still exclude "deserving" as well as "underserving" people, as well as setting a precedent whereby the state can gradual ratchet in the income level until social housing is even more residualised than it is now, and even more people in housing need are funnelled into the private rental sector.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> well, he obviously could afford it, but it still a case of "look at the minority cases of people taking the piss" to tar a large group with the brush though


 
Just as the minority of cases (35 in the whole of Greater London, I believe) where there were Housing Benefit claims for rents that exceeded £50,000 a year have been used to tar all Housing Benefit claimants as massive drains on the state, and to formulate their "benefits cap" legislation.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Secondly, none of what you say detracts from my original comment which is that it is unlikely that the matter is seen to be so cut and dry that it is impossible that anyone other than developers and landlords might not see the extension of tenant rights and subsidies as a matter of priority (as suggested by Gramsci). To suppose that is as incorrect as saying that the only people interested in increased rights and subsidies are the recipients. OK - so you are absolutely certain that you are right about the matter - but even if you 100% correct, VP is not "everyone other than developers and landlords". It is a strength to be able to recognise that your own view, even if you are convinced it is correct, is rarely the only or even the most widely held view.


 
A big indirect subsidy for the private rental market is Housing Benefit. But I dont see developers/ private renters complain much about that. 

One thing that could be done for private tenants is to make they can exercise the rights they have. If as a private tenant u have a problem there just is not the resources to do anything much about it. Private tenants / Landlord relationship is an unequal one. Whether u have relatively good landlord or slum landlord

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/05/slum-landlords-tenants-in-squalor

When it is estimated that billions go to bad landlords in housing benefit – the one we investigated received 80% of his rent in this way – you might have thought the government would want to make absolutely sure our money was well spent. And of course, the coming cuts to housing benefit will, most likely, push even more people to the bottom end of the market.

No one wants to punish good landlords, but what we have found must not be allowed to continue. Slum landlords are exploiting the most vulnerable and getting away with it in a largely unregulated market and, with a nationwide problem like this, a little "red tape" might go a long way.

Private tenants are mainly on 6 months ASTs now. This is great for landlords.These could be be replaced with Assured Tenancies for private tenants for example. To give them more security and rights.

A bit long piece here but people in UK dont necessarily realise how private tenants rights have been eroded unlike other parts of Europe:

from Camden Federation of private tenants newsletter here:

http://www.cfpt.org.uk/index.html


Conceivably these countries’ populations are happier not because they rent but because they have more equal distribution of wealth thanks to a prosperity based on manufacturing rather than measured by property values. Thus, they have fuller employment and less poverty and envy. Meanwhile, UK society is dividing between the prospering property “haves” and insecure “have-nots.” The fact that more people choose renting in Europe is no coincidence. It’s affordable and tenants enjoy more of the consumer rights you’d expect in a modern democracy. European landlords, often banks or insurance companies in the business for the long run, are content with a fair return and concerned with a good public image. Rents on comparable properties in, say, Munich are about half those in similar areas of London. Here, buy-to-let is seen as a means for small entrepreneurs to enjoy quick growth in both income and capital. 

 Aside from lack of rights, a key problem here is a lack of support in enforcing those we have. Camden Federation of Private Tenants and Brent Private Tenants Rights Group are the only publicly funded tenant organisations remaining in this country. Government proposals to reform Legal Aid could also mean less support being available for housing-related legal work and housing advice services have disappeared in some boroughs. In Sweden, whose population is similar to that of London, they have a national tenants union that employs 800 people and even helps run the International Union of Tenants (IUT). Our funding has steadily reduced – we once employed three full time staff, now half that. Shelter, the national housing and homelessness charity, has suffered regular staff cuts and it looks like it could lose even more its advice services currently funded by central government. Swedish and Dutch tenant organisations engage with municipal and (moresignificantly) private landlords to negotiate rent levels, within a framework controlled by statute. Dutch tenant groups carry out home repairs. In Germany, rents are state controlled and a property with serious defects must be remedied or the rent cut.Germans can demand an extension at the end of a lease (leases do include an obligation on the tenant to carry out minor repairs). UK tenants depend upon a diminishing number of council environmental health officers to enforce basic standards – and taking landlords to court is both costly and time consuming. Demanding repairs and improvements often leads to tenants losing their homes, in a process that is known as “retaliatory eviction”. The vast majority of UK tenants have leases between six to twelve months and, though most landlords prefer longer lets, tenants forever on the move are unlikely to become part of the local community. Some may lack access to doctor or dentist. Many do not register to vote. Children of renters can have their education disrupted by regular moves and become socially isolated. A small number of elderly people, mostly single women, still enjoy rent controlled and secure tenancies but these have been severely eroded. Triennial, phased, increases were replaced in the late 1980s with steep increases every two years – tempered only by government action in 1999 to restrain that to inflation (RPI) plus 5%. Increases may be cushioned by Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance as it’s now called, but it’s unsafe to rely on that, given the current government’s direction, in terms of welfare benefits cuts..


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2011)

Anti squatting scaffolding has gone up. 

What can I say?


----------



## shakespearegirl (Feb 15, 2012)

Being sold for £2.3 million

http://www.slp.co.uk/News.cfm?id=5437&headline=Lambeth council hope to get £2.3m for ex-squat


----------



## colacubes (Feb 15, 2012)

shakespearegirl said:


> Being sold for £2.3 million
> 
> http://www.slp.co.uk/News.cfm?id=5437&headline=Lambeth council hope to get £2.3m for ex-squat


 
Brilliant.  It's been empty for over 6 months.  They've made no effort to do it up.  It will almost certainly be sold to a private developer with no social housing included.  Then it will become luxury flats.  And then there will almost certainly be complaints from the new residents about noise from the various pubs/clubs and restaurants on that stretch.

Well done Lambeth.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 15, 2012)

That is outrageous. It went to tender last summer and the highest two tenders were roughly 3.1 and 3.8 million. 

Two weeks ago the agents went back to the original tenderers, blaming the council for having been indecisive about who to sell to, and asked them to re-bid but only gave them 5 days to prepare their bids (and, for any responsible bidder, their funding). This knocked almost all bidders out of the game leaving cash buyers to offer derisory sums - which 2.3million is.

What is the betting Golfrate bought it?


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 15, 2012)

What's the betting money was passed using a brown envelope somewhere along the line?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 15, 2012)

Rushy said:


> That is outrageous. It went to tender last summer and the highest two tenders were roughly 3.1 and 3.8 million.
> 
> Two weeks ago the agents went back to the original tenderers, blaming the council for having been indecisive about who to sell to, and asked them to re-bid but only gave them 5 days to prepare their bids (and, for any responsible bidder, their funding). This knocked almost all bidders out of the game leaving cash buyers to offer derisory sums - which 2.3million is.
> 
> What is the betting Golfrate bought it?


 

  x100


----------



## colacubes (Feb 15, 2012)

Rushy said:


> That is outrageous. It went to tender last summer and the highest two tenders were roughly 3.1 and 3.8 million.
> 
> Two weeks ago the agents went back to the original tenderers, blaming the council for having been indecisive about who to sell to, and asked them to re-bid but only gave them 5 days to prepare their bids (and, for any responsible bidder, their funding). This knocked almost all bidders out of the game leaving cash buyers to offer derisory sums - which 2.3million is.
> 
> What is the betting Golfrate bought it?


 
It just gets worse


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 15, 2012)

there was also this bit in the article:
"Selling council-owned land at St Agnes Place, next to Kennington Park, and on the Claremont Estate in Streatham Hill will boost Lambeth’s coffers by £4.5million. "
cnuts

e2a and the hospital in jeffreys road too


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2012)

Oh great, so Lambeth fuck over the residents of the borough again because they're fucking useless.  Wonder what the elected twats will have to say - more mithering bullshit about how they did their best for the borough, adverse economic conditions etc, and not a word about them being worthless corruptible wankpots!


----------



## Rushy (Feb 15, 2012)

Ok, I was wrong - it's not Golfrate. And I don't think that there has been any brown envelope on this occasion. But the handling of this sale has been a monumental cock up by the council and their agents LSH that has cost Lambeth residents around a million quid. Basically, they have excluded a number of buyers by re-tendering at short notice and insisting on one week to confirm tenders. So, the council limited themselves to buyers with pre-arranged funds only who, due to lack of competition, were able to bargain hard. From what I heard, they practically begged the buyer to take it so that it would fit into this years financial accounts.

When you take into account the value of the shops below (about £450,000 based on the current rental incomes) that leaves the 22 flats at 1.85million. Or 84,000 per 2 bed flat. And that is not even taking into account the potential development value from building a new level on the roof.

To hear Lib Peck patting herself on the back for bringing in 2.3mil for local services makes me furious. She's just made an instant million profit for the buyer before they have even started thinking about doing any work.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 15, 2012)

Scandalous.

Time to ask leader of the council Steve Reed whether he thinks it's good value: @cllrstevereed


----------



## Onket (Feb 16, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> there was also this bit in the article:
> "Selling council-owned land at St Agnes Place, next to Kennington Park, and on the Claremont Estate in Streatham Hill will boost Lambeth’s coffers by £4.5million. "
> cnuts
> 
> e2a and the hospital in jeffreys road too


 
Well, it's not really a surprise, but it's a shame they're no longer even bothering with the pretense of at least putting some social housing there.

This is the thread from a few years back when it was announced- http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ic-meeting-mon-3rd-march.169207/#post-5705176


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Scandalous.
> 
> Time to ask leader of the council Steve Reed whether he thinks it's good value: @cllrstevereed


I've Tweeted him and invited him to post here so let's see if he can get off his Twitter account long enough to contribute something more enlightening than a 140 character PR-burst.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 16, 2012)

Onket said:


> Well, it's not really a surprise, but it's a shame they're no longer even bothering with the pretense of at least putting some social housing there.
> 
> This is the thread from a few years back when it was announced- http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ic-meeting-mon-3rd-march.169207/#post-5705176


Not a surprise at all I'd always thought they'd wait and then discreetly sell it off to pricate developpers: minutes away from a tube station, slap bang in the iddle of a park >> loads of money.
thanks for the link to the other thread, I wasn't on the board yet when it came up.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Feb 16, 2012)

Absofuckingloutly outrageous. How can they get away with this?


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2012)

This thread has had over 23,000 views. I do hope Steve Reed thinks that it's worth the effort of responding properly, rather than firing off one-way Tweets into the abyss.


----------



## Onket (Feb 16, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> Not a surprise at all I'd always thought they'd wait and then discreetly sell it off to pricate developpers: minutes away from a tube station, slap bang in the iddle of a park >> loads of money.
> thanks for the link to the other thread, I wasn't on the board yet when it came up.


 
If they deal with it in the same manner as they appear to have dealt with Clifton Mansions, it won't even be 'loads of money'.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 16, 2012)

All the disposals are up before the council at 7pm this Monday at Lambeth Town Hall. Might be worth a few of us popping along...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 16, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> Not a surprise at all I'd always thought they'd wait and then discreetly sell it off to pricate developpers: minutes away from a tube station, slap bang in the iddle of a park >> loads of money.
> thanks for the link to the other thread, I wasn't on the board yet when it came up.


new flats are already being built there on St Agnes Place (on the site of the rasta squat) ...they're half finished. Rest of the site remains empty though


----------



## Onket (Feb 16, 2012)

At the meeting a few years ago, there was talk of the council 'swapping' the land where the rasta/crack house was with the land where the Housing Assoc flats are/were.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 16, 2012)

Onket said:


> If they deal with it in the same manner as they appear to have dealt with Clifton Mansions, it won't even be 'loads of money'.


In the grand scheme of things yes, if it was for me though I wouldn't have to ever lift a finger ever again
/dreams-on


Brixton Hatter said:


> new flats are already being built there on St Agnes Place (on the site of the rasta squat) ...they're half finished. Rest of the site remains empty though


I thought me activity there while on the P5


----------



## Laughing Toad (Feb 16, 2012)

editor said:


> This thread has had over 23,000 views. I do hope Steve Reed thinks that it's worth the effort of responding properly, rather than firing off one-way Tweets into the abyss.


He surely will, because Urban75 is just _so_ friendly to people with mainstream political views.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2012)

Laughing Toad said:


> He surely will, because Urban75 is just _so_ friendly to people with mainstream political views.


It's where Brixton residents interested in local matters have posted for over a decade, so I'd say it's at least as important as firing off a ton of Tweets.

In fact, several councillors have already usefully posted here without any problems with their reception.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 16, 2012)

Laughing Toad said:


> He surely will, because Urban75 is just _so_ friendly to people with mainstream political views.


/blunts virtual rusty knife


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

shakespearegirl said:


> Absofuckingloutly outrageous. How can they get away with this?


 
Same way they always do, a bit of PR, abit of "mistakes were made, lessons learned", and the usual absolute arrogance of Lambeth Labour administrations.

Oh for the days when we had the likes of Bellos leading the council. At least they actually *listened*, and weren't all too busy worrying about their future political careers.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2012)

Steve Reed has responded, through his favoured 140 character medium:



> @cllrstevereed Brixtonites are very angry about the cheap sale of Clifton Mansions- care to defend the deal on urban75? bit.ly/z7uC4Q





> @urban75 I'm afraid ur rumour like the sale value it quotes are totally wrong





> @cllrstevereed thanks for the response. Could you tell me the correct figure please?





> @urban75 not yet no, until the deal is completed it's confidential





> @urban75 but you can be assured we wd only accept full market value





> @cllrstevereed When might the actual figure be announced, and do you think the process could be more transparent for Brixton residents?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Feb 17, 2012)

hmmm...well observing this..... weird a councilor so reticent in answering?
steve reed?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 17, 2012)

how can he say the figures are wrong if the deal hasnt even been concluded yet?

Basically, what he's saying is "I'll tell you how much we sold it for, once it's too late to do anything about it"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> how can he say the figures are wrong if the deal hasnt even been concluded yet?
> 
> Basically, what he's saying is "I'll tell you how much we sold it for, once it's too late to do anything about it"


 
Of course.
Hardly surprising, is it? Lambeth's politicos (from whichever party, but Labour in particular) are past masters at presenting _faits accomplis_ to the borough's bemused residents.

Great tagline, by the way!


----------



## editor (Feb 18, 2012)

He tweeted this back at me. 


> @urban75 however once it does go public you'll see the rumours/allegations about getting below market value are false





> @urban75 there are laws on commercial confidentiality but it will be made public once deal is complete


----------



## Onket (Feb 19, 2012)

Prepare yourself for learning the building's 'true' market value after it's been sold for it, then.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 19, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> All the disposals are up before the council at 7pm this Monday at Lambeth Town Hall. Might be worth a few of us popping along...


What meeting is this? Is it public? I can't see anything in the calendar.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh for the days when we had the likes of Bellos leading the council. At least they actually *listened*, and weren't all too busy worrying about their future political careers.


 
Yes Bellos was ok. I really dont understand what happened to Lambeth Labour after she went.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 22, 2012)

Ap





Rushy said:


> What meeting is this? Is it public? I can't see anything in the calendar.


Apparently Clifton wasn't on the agenda.


----------



## Onket (Feb 23, 2012)




----------



## Onket (Feb 23, 2012)

Meanwhile, another ex-squatted building (on Porden Road) is simply knocked down.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 23, 2012)

I rather liked that building. Wasn't it owned by Andrew Czezowski of the old Fridge?


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2012)

Luxury lifestyle apartments ahoy!


----------



## shakespearegirl (Feb 23, 2012)

I saw a fridge fall out after they started attacking it with the giant building breaking machine


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Yes Bellos was ok. I really dont understand what happened to Lambeth Labour after she went.


 
The Kinnockites started taking over, edging out anyone who wasn't centre-left, and then, once the Millies had been kicked in the teeth, that was pretty much it for meaningful "real" left local politics. Labour edged anyone who didn't conform out into the fringe. As a result, we've had 20 years of careerist nobbers and no-good-niks fucking us over.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 24, 2012)

FOI request to the council to see documents relating to the sell off of Clifton Mansions has failed. They say it is exempt because of commercial considerations. Interestingly though, they claim in the reply that the sale price will be over £3m, but that they cant say how much exactly until the sale actually goes through.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Kinnockites started taking over, edging out anyone who wasn't centre-left, and then, once the Millies had been kicked in the teeth, that was pretty much it for meaningful "real" left local politics. Labour edged anyone who didn't conform out into the fringe. As a result, we've had 20 years of careerist nobbers and no-good-niks fucking us over.


 
Though I bumped into a longstanding Labour party member who was a Kinnock supporter. She left the Labour party because she could not stand Blair. She said the "Third Way" wasn't the reason she joined the Labour party.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2012)

I heard that Clifton has now exchanged at 3.7 million. If that's the case I think it is a good price for Lambeth. Apparently there was a lot of last minute interest.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2012)

Onket said:


> Meanwhile, another ex-squatted building (on Porden Road) is simply knocked down.


It is now a car park.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I heard that Clifton has now exchanged at 3.7 million. If that's the case I think it is a good price for Lambeth. Apparently there was a lot of last minute interest.


I wonder how long it'll be before the new residents start complaining about the noise from nearby long standing Brixton businesses.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I heard that Clifton has now exchanged at 3.7 million. If that's the case I think it is a good price for Lambeth. Apparently there was a lot of last minute interest.


Is that on the Lambeth website anywhere?

How many flats in Clifton? Must be at least 20 or 30? It's been a while since I've been in.....


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Is that on the Lambeth website anywhere?
> 
> How many flats in Clifton? Must be at least 20 or 30? It's been a while since I've been in.....


 
Not official afaik. I know an acquaintance of the chap who bought it- could be wrong.
There are 22 flats all between 60 and 75 sqm (except for two which are about 30sqm). Reckon they'll probably apply to get another 4-6 on the roof.  It also includes 4 shops although IIRC the leaseholders have to be offered an opportunity to buy long leases.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

Cheers 

So....22 flats at, say, £300,000 each = £6.6m. Double your money (almost.)


----------



## TitanSound (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Cheers
> 
> So....22 flats at, say, £300,000 each = £6.6m. Double your money (almost.)


 
Not really. They still have to refurbish and develop it. That will cost a fair bit. But still, they will coin it in.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Cheers
> 
> So....22 flats at, say, £300,000 each = £6.6m. Double your money (almost.)


I think you are probably about right on average resale values - maybe a little high. But there is a huge amount of work to do to get them to that stage. Build costs could easily reach the million mark. Stamp duty will be alone will be over a quarter of a million. Finance easily another 300-400,000. And the buyer has to pay the council's sale fees (3%).


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

ah, so the developers will probably only make a million or so


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> ah, so the developers will probably only make a million or so


Reckon they'd make a 25% profit over about 18 months if the market stays flat. It's a good return but I don't think that's obscene given the amount of work involved.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

maybe Lambeth should get in to property development...


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> maybe Lambeth should get in to property development...


They should but they'd be rubbish at it because they would be horribly inefficient losing any profit in extra build costs and professional fees.

I remember being at a meeting before Windrush Square was due to be remodelled and the council announced that thy had a budget of £50K to improve Tate Gardens. In the end that money bought the reduction in height of the low brick walls around the old grassy areas and very little else. A developer would have got the same work done for £10k or less.


----------



## jeremyclyne (Apr 14, 2012)

Cost of Clifton Mansions evictions was apparently £380K, according to an FOI response reported here: http://www.squashcampaign.org/2012/...0-so-security-firm-can-treat-exploit-tenants/


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

The flats are now available for rent. £2,100 per month.
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/06/...ons-brixton-on-the-market-for-2100-per-month/


----------



## leanderman (Jun 17, 2013)

Is Lexadon holding on to all the flats to let them? Or will it sell some?


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Is Lexadon holding on to all the flats to let them? Or will it sell some?


I haven't seen any for sale yet.


----------



## mxh (Jun 17, 2013)

At £2,100pcm they make a good investment, why sell if you think the prices are yet to reach the peak. George Osbourne's trying to ramp up the housing market so there may well be some scope for further gains.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 17, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Is Lexadon holding on to all the flats to let them? Or will it sell some?


AFAIK Lexadon are only in the business of renting.

E2a this Is confirmed by their website....... http://www.lexadon.co.uk/about/overview .......you have to click the little I icon to read the blurb btw


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> AFAIK Lexadon are only in the business of renting.
> 
> E2a this Is confirmed by their website....... http://www.lexadon.co.uk/about/overview .......you have to click the little I icon to read the blurb btw





That photo shows the back of the Viaduct development. I thought those units were supposed to be commercial use only, but there's people living in there now.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

Here's one of their developments in Edgeley Road, Cla'am. It's not exactly a looker.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Here's one of their developments in Edgeley Road, Cla'am. It's not exactly a looker.


It replaced an industrial building (glaziers) with a similar brick street frontage and first floor. That has been maintained.

The principle is fine but it hasn't been built quite to plans from what I could see - detailing is different and choice of window/door materials is poor. Permission is currently being sought to convert the ground floor from office to resi.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

Rushy said:


> The principle is fine but it hasn't been built quite to plans from what I could see - detailing is different and choice of window/door materials is poor. Permission is currently being sought to convert the ground floor from office to resi.


It's the cheap looking windows and doors that make it look so awful.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> It's the cheap looking windows and doors that make it look so awful.


 
Yep. Darker profiles would look a bit better but oak would look great.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2013)

editor shouldn't this thread be given a more meaningful title if discussion's going to continue?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 17, 2013)

In the Brixton Buzz piece we are told the following.........


> _The 1920s mansion blocks contains 22 self contained flats and once played a significant part in the local music and arts scene, with alternative musicians and artists such as members of The Pogues and the Turner Prize winner Jeremy Deller squatting there._
> _I suspect that price tag will be out of reach for many of the new generation of local artists and musicians_
> _Estate Agents Haart are currently offering three bedroom flats in the building for £2,100 per month._


.... and while the cost is definitely high we should also consider another thing which comes up on the Lexadon website namely that tenants are fully vetted and referenced. so much of the rental market is in the clutches of management companies there is little chance of anyone in areas such as music, art, or many of the 'alternative" fields of employment getting their mitts one one because even if they are making a decent living they would find bank or employers references problematic as the management companies do not look favourably on anyone who is not in conventional salaried jobs.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 17, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> In the Brixton Buzz piece we are told the following.........
> 
> .... and while the cost is definitely high we should also consider another thing which comes up on the Lexadon website namely that tenants are fully vetted and referenced. so much of the rental market is in the clutches of management companies there is little chance of anyone in areas such as music, art, or many of the 'alternative" fields of employment getting their mitts one one because even if they are making a decent living they would find bank or employers references problematic as the management companies do not look favourably on anyone who is not in conventional salaried jobs.


 
Anyone renting anywhere through almost any agent in London will be referenced and vetted. Lots of private ones too.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 17, 2013)

What intrigues me is why Clifton Mansions was not a serious fire hazard.  Must be same sort of vintage and construction as Carlton Mansions.
Has the Lambeth Council legal department in pursuing it's eviction programme against Carlton Mansions got similar objectives to what happened at Clifton Mansions and at least one block in Rushcroft Road - i.e sell off to Lexadon, Golfrate or some similar outfit which would totally renovate the block and let out at £2000 per flat per month?
You know how disconnected Lambeth Council can be - one department could be working with the community whilst another is pursuing a commercial outcome.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 17, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Anyone renting anywhere through almost any agent in London will be referenced and vetted. Lots of private ones too.


I wasn't saying Lexadons tactics are unique but rather symptomatic generally and possibly one reason why our city ( and others nationally and globally) are becoming blander and, just crapper, if you look at golf rates website you will see their promise to get value added from buildings and premises under their control, which is sort of news speak for what could be looked at as s a form of social fracking.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 17, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> AFAIK Lexadon are only in the business of renting.
> 
> E2a this Is confirmed by their website....... http://www.lexadon.co.uk/about/overview .......you have to click the little I icon to read the blurb btw



Read a few stories recently about big financial organisations buying up London housing to let it out, like Lexadon.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 17, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Read a few stories recently about big financial organisations buying up London housing to let it out, like Lexadon.


 
Lexadon is one guy who has done property pretty much exclusively in Clapham and Brixton since the 80s.

I imagine he is a target to be bought out by a financial organisation.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Lexadon is one guy who has done property pretty much exclusively in Clapham and Brixton since the 80s.
> 
> I imagine he is a target to be bought out by a financial organisation.


It's a husband and wife team. They made their millions flogging off ex-council properties. They're valued at £50m so I manage they'd be able to fend off takeover bids.


> Rich List 2011
> Owned by its directors, husband-andwife team Jerry, 55, and Janet Knight, 53, Lexadon is a London-based property
> company.
> Jerry Knight left school and went to college to retake A levels but dropped out and followed his wife’s brother into the plumbing trade. After four years with a small firm in west London, he met a fellow plumber who played in the same football team and they started Lexadon in 1980.
> ...


"Working all hours." What, you mean just like normal people?

http://www.estatesgazette.com/pdf/eg-rich-list-2011.pdf [pdf file]


----------



## Rushy (Jun 18, 2013)

editor said:


> It's a husband and wife team. They made their millions flogging off ex-council properties. They're valued at £50m so I manage they'd be able to fend off takeover bids.


 
When you say 'fend off' are you perhaps imagining a hostile takeover bid? If someone owns a company and someone else offers to buy their portfolio or company it is not hostile - it is a straightforward purchase. Nothing to fend off- just a "yes, that'll do nicely" or no. Institutions are likely to be interested in buying up operating portfolios rather than lots of individual properties. They might make an offer. I can't see how they could make a hostile one.




> "Working all hours." What, you mean just like normal people?


How many hours a day do these "normal people" work?[/quote]


----------



## leanderman (Jun 18, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Lexadon is one guy who has done property pretty much exclusively in Clapham and Brixton since the 80s.
> 
> I imagine he is a target to be bought out by a financial organisation.



I think it's Prudential or suchlike, that, among others, is targeting buy to let. 

In the past they would have invested in commercial property only.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 18, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I think it's Prudential or suchlike, that, among others, is targeting buy to let.
> 
> In the past they would have invested in commercial property only.


 
Yes. I heard that. Property returns about 5-6% in London without taking into account the capital growth so I guess it is good for their pension plans in the current climate. Big institutions could affect availability and inflate prices because they will just suck up properties and hold them for ages.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 18, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Yes. I heard that. Property returns about 5-6% in London without taking into account the capital growth so I guess it is good for their pension plans in the current climate. Big institutions could affect availability and inflate prices because they will just suck up properties and hold them for ages.



Exactly. Buy and hold. Immune to the whims of the property cycle. And further boosting prices by limiting the amount of purchasable stock.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 18, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Exactly. Buy and hold. Immune to the whims of the property cycle. And further boosting prices by limiting the amount of purchasable stock.


 
At least with small scale buy-to-letters it usually gets cashed in at some point or has to be sold upon inheritance so it gets recycled. Once it is owned by an institution it sits there until they have a financial crisis like the Church did in the 80s and start flogging everything off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I think it's Prudential or suchlike, that, among others, is targeting buy to let.
> 
> In the past they would have invested in commercial property only.


 
From what I recall, the Pru are also looking into developing "affordable housing" for rent, rather than just getting into BtL.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2013)

Rushy said:


> When you say 'fend off' are you perhaps imagining a hostile takeover bid? If someone owns a company and someone else offers to buy their portfolio or company it is not hostile - it is a straightforward purchase. Nothing to fend off- just a "yes, that'll do nicely" or no. Institutions are likely to be interested in buying up operating portfolios rather than lots of individual properties. They might make an offer. I can't see how they could make a hostile one.


 
You did say Lexadon may be a "target to be bought out by a financial organisation" in post 656. I read that as larger financial organisation making hostile bid on a smaller property company.


----------



## Thaw (Jun 19, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> You did say Lexadon may be a "target to be bought out by a financial organisation" in post 656. I read that as larger financial organisation making hostile bid on a smaller property company.


 
I don't think you can launch a hostile take-over if there are only 2 shareholders...assuming they have equal number of shares of course.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 25, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> You did say Lexadon may be a "target to be bought out by a financial organisation" in post 656. I read that as larger financial organisation making hostile bid on a smaller property company.


 
I can see how you got there but both the words "target" and "buy out" are neutral in  business context. A target is simply a result that a business wants to achieve or, more specifically, a business an organisation wants to buy. They can be classified by addition of an adjective (hostile or friendly, for instance). Buying someone out literally just means buying their their shares or interest. If a person were generally suspicious of most things corporate then I can see why they might automatically read hostility into it but most business goes on between willing partners. In Lexadon's case, for example, the only way they could really target the private company is by offering lots of cash, and keep offering more until the small number of shareholders were willing to sell.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2013)

Rushy said:


> If a person were generally suspicious of most things corporate then I can see why they might automatically read hostility into it


 
That would be me then.


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2020)

So Jerry 'Give Nothing Back' Knight is looking to extend Clifton mansions and bolt on a roof terrace and three more flats with 'private roof terraces.'







__





						20/03222/FUL     |              Erection of a roof extension to provide three self-contained flats with private roof terraces together with provision for refuse storage at ground floor level.                   |                                       
					






					planning.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## CH1 (Nov 24, 2020)

editor said:


> So Jerry 'Give Nothing Back' Knight is looking to extend Clifton mansions and bolt on a roof terrace and three more flats with 'private roof terraces.'
> 
> View attachment 240157
> 
> ...


He's obviously won the Battle of Sonar Mews, so there's no looking back, so to speak.
Where does he get those naff metal mansards from? They look like something that might be on offer in an army surplus sale somewhere in Wisconsin.
If I was Ian Nairn and I saw that I would drink 5 pints of Guinness in the Albert and write a nasty article for The Architectural Review.


----------

