# Lambeth Housing In Meltdown - Massive Rent Rises On The Way



## melmaloney (Oct 6, 2008)

The poison plant, the Almo, has bourne its first fruit. As a result of wreckless overspending and incompetent management, all Lambeth tenants face a rent rise of £10 in the next year - on top of the 65% increase in heating charges.

It must be nice to be a councillor and have a double income!

As a single mum, I don't think I will be able to continue working. It's a mugs game, isn't it?


----------



## fjydj (Oct 6, 2008)

there's a surprise, but sadly not unexpected or unpredicted... when's the next chance to vote out the little prick Steve Reed?


----------



## Bob (Oct 6, 2008)

melmaloney said:


> The poison plant, the Almo, has bourne its first fruit. As a result of wreckless overspending and incompetent management, all Lambeth tenants face a rent rise of £10 in the next year - on top of the 65% increase in heating charges.
> 
> It must be nice to be a councillor and have a double income!
> 
> As a single mum, I don't think I will be able to continue working. It's a mugs game, isn't it?



Is this a result of the general housing overspend? Or another problem?


----------



## g force (Oct 6, 2008)

I don't know all the details of this, or the ALMO bar what i've grabbed snippets of on here...but £10 per what? Week or month?


----------



## zenie (Oct 6, 2008)

http://lambethlibdems.org.uk/news/000115/lambeth_tenants_face_shock_162_rise_in_heating_costs.html

£21.68 for heating???


----------



## g force (Oct 6, 2008)

Jesus H Christ that makes for depressing reading....all due to the sheer incompetence of those in charge. Again


----------



## Dan U (Oct 6, 2008)

crikey, that makes the lot i work for seem competent.

they employed someone specifically to forward buy light and heat and keep the costs down for tenants as far as possible.

fuck knows how Lambeth have managed to overspend so much on the Housing Management account as well. well unless they've been robbing it blind to prop up the General Fund as councils generally do - even easier with ALMOs.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 6, 2008)

I don't know why any of you are shocked/surprised.  Lambeth have had a reputation for total incompetence and corruption for decades


----------



## sexton (Oct 6, 2008)

*Don't you wish you were a Lambeth officer?*

Lambeth are believed to be looking at an end year deficit of some L.15-20million on their Housing Revenue Account, with further deficits as yet unquantified and unnanounced in respect of the smaller ALMO, United Residents Housing.

The proposed increases are L.5 per week from December 2008 and a further L.5 in April 2009.

It is also hoped to recover some L6.5mill. by reducing the allowances paid to TMOs. However, therere doubts on whether this is possible; as various TMOs have raised a counterclaim, in respect of earlier underpayment. If this succeeds the Council could be saddled with damages and costs of, perhaps, L 7-10mill., leaving them in exactly the same position as they started.  Not a happy prospect. 

A friend passed me this interesting e-mail, which says it all -


_ *Labour Group Meeting 2 October. [Name and Shame the guilty 14!]*

This meeting was called **specifically for the purpose of discussing the position regarding the housing overspends.* *(Estimated £14-20mill. on HRA! not as yet quantified.)

*ONLY 17 LABOUR COUNCILLORS ATTENDED, AND 2 LEFT BEFORE THE VOTE.* 

A request for a secret ballot was refused. (No backsliding allowed!)

Group resolved (14/1) 

1. To reduce the allowances to TMOs by £6.5mill. over the next 18 months;

2. To increase rents by £5 in December, and by a further £5 next April.

3. To bring in a package of "improvements" - do away with concierges, do away with 19 officer posts, economise on lighting during daylight hours! etc. which (it is hoped) will save £5.5mill.

_________

There was no mention of -

°  the overspend in URH / Loughborough; (Believed to be £2mill. - not as yet admitted.)

° disasterous incompetent management;

° any proposal to reform the service;

**nor was the true position regarding the TMOs discussed*. *

As a result of the letter to TMO chairs, (announcing the cuts) a group of TMOs, which were already in dispute with Lambeth on TMO allowances, have instructed solicitors [who have agreed to act on a no result: no fee basis] to commence immediate proceedings against the Council, contesting the cuts in allowances, and making a substantial counterclaim for underpayment over the past six years. 

If they succeed, and, clearly, their advisors believe them to have a good case, not only will Lambeth lose the savings that it is hoped to achieve, but we are liable to lose a further £3-5mill. + legal expenses of £2-3mill. : an alarming downside risk.

*Residents deserve to be told the names of the 14 councillors who happily agreed to these measures without enquiry or any thought of how further losses might be avoided. It would also be reasonable to enquire what the 23 councillors were doing who failed to attend, or did not vote. Did they perhaps oppose the motions, but not have the courage to speak out?

Again, residents deserve to be told. The council tax of working men and women pays their allowances*!_


----------



## Dan U (Oct 6, 2008)

sexton said:


> Lambeth are believed to be looking at an end year deficit of some L.15-20million on their Housing Revenue Account, with further deficits as yet unquantified and unnanounced in respect of the smaller ALMO, United Residents Housing.



they need to employ someone who understands how to do the HRA Subsidy claims and pronto.

it's rare to find a good one though and those that know it properly all work contract and charge £400-£500 a day. they more than earn there keep though.

i thought Lambeth were getting on top of all this stuff. They are as bad as Hackney


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 6, 2008)

*Welcome to Lambeth - Home of Bedlam*

Makes one wonder whether they were right to abolish flogging and the pillory.

These councillors should be ashamed to be poncing of working men and women.

How many of them do real jobs? Its a disgrace that they can't even be bothered to turn up to vote on such an important matter.

I'm fed up! 

I work 80 hours a week to get by and earn less than £25k. What do Cllrs. Peck or Meldrum get for messing our lives up. Time they faced reality!

£20 mill. is a lot of money, you have to be completely hopeless to achieve such an overspend. Can't central government step in and sort out this ridiculous council. 

A government enquiry is needed. If it is left to the council, we will once again be told that the officers responsible are no longer employed by the Council, and no paperwork can be found. My ten year old son would not dare to make such an excuse!

Weed and his friends need to be sent packing and some sensible external managers need to be brought in.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 6, 2008)

melmalony councillors have literally fuck all to do with the day to day running of the council and ime they are like mushrooms - fed shit and kept in the dark - by the people who actually do the work/run the council.

they only get to hear good news, bad news that can't be hidden and do strategic decisions/directional stuff/cut ribbons/get pictures taken with photgenic kids/persue things for people in there wards.

the average councillor wouldn't have the first clue about the functional or contractual relationship between the council and it's ALMO, about the HRA and how it works, subsidy claims etc and they lack the nous to ask the pertinent questions.

example - the council i work for has several huge PFI contracts and an ALMO all of which i'd be asking questions regularly about if i was a councillor - the best question the Executive comes up with - how much is everyone spending on water for meetings. these people have no fucking idea.

whilst the fine citizens of Lambeth can do something about it at the next local election it's the people who actually FAILED at their jobs who should be walking - the Finance Director whose watch this happened on, the people in charge of a failing rent collection department etc.

But they rarely do. The incompetence just carries on and tax payers suffer.

/rant ends


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 6, 2008)

Yes. That is the way it is, but it doesn't have to be like that!

Life needs to be made really uncomfortable for these ponces. They love being able to write Councillor before their name, and it looks good on the cvs that they write for the crap jobs that those of them with jobs work in.

They would be less keen if people were less respectful, and had a go at them occasionally. I am told that hey will all have to vote publicly on these increases, so residents will know who they are.

They need to take a bit more trouble, attend meetings, read papers, and do the things for which they receive their allowances, otherwise things could get very rough. A lot of people are likely to be forced to go on benefit as a result of their incompetence.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 6, 2008)

Why not stand as a councillor mel?  Part of the problem is that many of these people are wannabe politicians who have no idea how the world works.  Stand in your ward on a clean up housing stance, then make life fucking difficult for the people in charge.  It can be done.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 6, 2008)

melmaloney said:


> They need to take a bit more trouble, attend meetings, read papers, and do the things for which they receive their allowances, otherwise things could get very rough. A lot of people are likely to be forced to go on benefit as a result of their incompetence.



heh. the papers they get are a masterclass in verbose obfuscation
i've been told off in meetings for raising problems before as they'll get minuted.

bonkers.

there are some excellent people working in local councils but when it takes 2-3 months for a decision to work it's way up through all the poxy committee's and despite not knowing what is really going on they won't delegate responsibilities it is impossible for councils to be proactive to problems. 

they are always working about 2 months behind some exec committee or other. meanwhile things go to shit.


----------



## Bob (Oct 6, 2008)

sexton said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> A friend passed me this interesting e-mail, which says it all -
> 
> ...



Had nobody thought to economise by turning off lights during daylight hours before?

Incidentally - what are the TMO allowances? Are they expenses etc. paid to TMO members? Or are they money handed to TMOs?


----------



## Mind (Oct 6, 2008)

Much as I love to blame the politicians, in this situation i think the voters should take their fair share of it too.

Whenever politicians try to campaign on a cutting costs and waste platform, or at least managing resources efficiently, their opponents choose to smear them with the line that they want to cut services and throw people out on the street/keep swimming pools for the rich/whatever.

I have seen local government waste before from the inside. You would weep at the amount of money that is wasted on nonsense -Lambeth Life anyone? I wonder how many people would prefer to have it scrapped for a reduction in their rent.

However, people enjoy being spun to by politicians who will say whatever to re-inforce their world view that its the evil cost-cutters and capitalist pigs (i.e. Lib Dems and Tories) responsible for all the evils. Vote for Labour, the party that cares.
Well, boohoo.

Rather than keep an eye on things and attend these boring council meetings when decisions are being made (most are not secret) , supervising the politicians they pay to take decisions, people stay home and watch Eastenders or Big Brother or go to the pub.  Then they wonder what the money is being spent on and why costs keep rising.

I am shocked at how many of us pay thousands to the council every year and never bother to check up on how the money is being spent, only complaining when it's too late to do anything about it except vote them out at the next election and repeat the cycle!


----------



## lang rabbie (Oct 6, 2008)

Bob said:


> Incidentally - what are the TMO allowances? Are they expenses etc. paid to TMO members? Or are they money handed to TMOs?



I think the original reference is to the "management and maintenance" allowances paid to the Tenant Management Organisations for providing services that would otherwise have been met from local Housing Office budgets.   See TMOs page on Lambeth website

Some of the TMOs have been convinced for years that they were getting substantially less for each property than the equivalent funding going to estates that were still (mis)managed in-house by Lambeth.


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 7, 2008)

*No answer*



bluestreak said:


> Why not stand as a councillor mel?  Part of the problem is that many of these people are wannabe politicians who have no idea how the world works.  Stand in your ward on a clean up housing stance, then make life fucking difficult for the people in charge.  It can be done.



An individual councillor is powerless, gets no administrative assistance, and is sidelined by officers. It would be a complete waste of time.

The party system is at fault that allows incompetent sheep-like creatures, the unemployed and unemployable to get elected and then supports and protects them.

For whatever reason, power, status, political conviction, these people have chosen to be councillors. Having made the choice they should do the work required, resign, or be made to pay for their incompetence. For their very small talent and the sloppy way that they do their job these people are overpaid.

I have no wish to be any part of this. Like most people, I have children to bring up and I want to continue working.

The answer could be a directly elected mayor.

One thing is certain the present system is not working - and won't work with people like these!


----------



## Bob (Oct 7, 2008)

melmaloney said:


> An individual councillor is powerless, gets no administrative assistance, and is sidelined by officers. It would be a complete waste of time.
> 
> The party system is at fault that allows incompetent sheep-like creatures, the unemployed and unemployable to get elected and then supports and protects them.
> 
> ...



Seriously Bluestreak's right - you should stand as a councillor. If you get elected there's childcare and backbench opposition allowances are about £8k.

If you do your job as councillor properly it's maybe 20 hours a week - so you'd be getting the equivalent of a slightly better wage rate than you're currently getting.

If you're interested PM me / or post here and I'll explain the practicalities. The legal side is insanely easy.


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 8, 2008)

Bob said:


> Seriously Bluestreak's right - you should stand as a councillor. If you get elected there's childcare and backbench opposition allowances are about £8k.
> 
> If you do your job as councillor properly it's maybe 20 hours a week - so you'd be getting the equivalent of a slightly better wage rate than you're currently getting.
> 
> If you're interested PM me / or post here and I'll explain the practicalities. The legal side is insanely easy.



Thank you. I am not interested in joining your party!

I may be poor and not very well educated, but I am not an idiot. 

Unless you are prepared to become a member of a party and let people like Cllrs. Reed, Kazantzis, Dixon and Peck do your thinking for you, your chances of getting elected or having any effect, if you are, are very slight. 

Campaigning is expensive and when you get on the council you receive no administrative support.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 8, 2008)

Councillors are a waste of time for effecting change on a day to day basis. They have a directional/checks and balance role that is very important - also they are paralysed by fear for every 2 years out of 4. Elections -2 years is all about reducing costs to keep the council tax low in election year and the year leading up to the election is about avoiding all difficult decisions at any cost.

The only way to change the way failing Local Authorities work is to have a mass cull in failing management, pay decent wages to attract competent staff and ditch the obsession on one pay rise for all and performance manage your staff correctly.

most London Councils are the size of a medium sized/large company in terms of complexity, budget and staffing numbers and should start behaving as such. the kind of failures seen at Lambeth (and others, Hackney springs to mind) would just not stand anywhere else other than the cosy world of local authorities (or some bits of the civil service). Some of the failures i have seen since i moved from the private sector stun me, well not the failures as such as they will occur anywhere to a certain extent but the complete lack of any comeback for anyone involved. it's shocking.

taxpayers then get shat on with shit services, wasted money, financial black holes because no one will man up, rock the boat and deal with the problems.


----------



## sexton (Oct 9, 2008)

Dan U, you are correct about the roles of councillors and officers. However, Lambeth has two serious problems: there are far too many officers who hold office in the Labour Party (the masonic effect); and being so close to Whitehall and Westminster, far too many Labour councillors have no real interest in what happens in this borough, and just see their job as something to put on their cv, a help for networking, and a useful source of extra income.  

When did you last see your councillors at a leaseholders meeting? Did they appear to have any idea at all of the problems in your ward?


----------



## Dan U (Oct 9, 2008)

Camden is seen like that amongst the North London councils.

as a breeding ground for New Labour hacks and central govt departments.


----------



## sexton (Oct 10, 2008)

*Betrayal*

Following widespread protests voiced by resident representatives and Opposition Councillors, the Labour leadership of Lambeth Council at a meeting yesterday afternoon overturned Labour Group's  decision of last Thursday and resolved -

 ° to abandon the proposed £5 rent increases in December 2008 and April 2009;

 ° to do away with the posts of a further 30 officers in the housing service;

 ° to carry through the proposed reduction of TMO allowances by £6.5 million over the next 18 months; and

 ° confirmed that the proposed increases in lighting and heating charges would be proceeded with as already agreed.

While there is general satisfaction that the inflationary rent increases, which would undoubtedly have caused many tenants very severe hardship, have been dropped, the move causes many people grave concern regarding this administration's competence, and whether one can put any trust in their handling of housing finance. 

It was as recently as June this year that officers and councillors were congratulating themselves on the healthy state of the housing department's accounts, which for the first time in years they expected to balance, yet now we are told to anticipate an unquantified overspend of £14million +.

This is an enormous sum of money, when set against the total housing budget, and no proper explanation has been forthcoming as to how such a situation could have arisen. 

Being aware of the situation regarding the department's overspend on temporary accommodation, and recent overspends in URH (£400000 last year, and; it is alleged, £2 million this year), as well as overspends in a number of other council departments, it seems quite clear that Lambeth's financial officers are incapable of planning or administering a budget; and, above all, of any form of self-monitoring.

Heads should roll. 

Councillor Dixon should tender his resignation immediately: he has been asleep on watch! 

Clearly, too, a proper external investigation into how such a disgraceful situation could have arisen should be immediately instituted. 

This appalling incompetence will affect every resident in Lambeth; and will almost certainly destroy any chance of Lambeth being able to draw down any money under the ALMO, Lambeth Living.

Surely, also, after rejection by his own constituency party for selection as their Parliamentary candidate, Councillor Reed cannot survive to lead his party to defeat in 2010. With him as, the leader who foisted  a borough-wide ALMO on his party's core supporters, without giving them, or party members either, any choice when they voted on his manifesto, and having permitted the dissipation of all the savings of Adjstment A, they will have no chance of victory.


----------



## se5 (Oct 10, 2008)

sexton said:


> This appalling incompetence will affect every resident in Lambeth; and will almost certainly destroy any chance of Lambeth being able to draw down any money under the ALMO, Lambeth Living.
> 
> Surely, also, after rejection by his own constituency party for selection as their Parliamentary candidate, Councillor Reed cannot survive to lead his party to defeat in 2010. With him as, the leader who foisted  a borough-wide ALMO on his party's core supporters, without giving them, or party members either, any choice when they voted on his manifesto, and having permitted the dissipation of all the savings of Adjstment A, they will have no chance of victory.



To be honest I dont think the situation would be any different if the Lib Dems or any other party had been in charge - Lambeth's problems stem from poverty which means there is a very big demand for council services such as housing and a very small number of people to pay for them. 

For the past 10+ years (at least - probably much much longer) the council has not had adequate funding for its housing or other services and it has not been politically acceptable for the Lib Dem or Labour councils to put up council tax to levels which would  provide enough funding, central government also must take some blame for not until recently seeing housing and in particular council housing as a political priority and therefore not putting adequate money into this policy area. 

There has also been a knee jerk reaction to rent increases from Labour politicians and their political opponents which means that another source of funding is not available to the housing department - a £5 increase may be a relatively large amount in percentage terms but look at the overall levels: the rental for council housing would still be less than £100 a week and this makes no difference to many residents as they are on housing benefit (reclaimed by the council from central government).

So where do we go from here? - the ALMO remains the only way that funding will be available (and if you like this was foisted on Lambeth by central government: Lambeth Labour accepted it very reluctantly). Also if you are saying that Lambeth housing is incompetent surely then a new organisation without political interference could not do any worse?

As for Mr Reed I dont see that the failure to select him as Parliamentary candidate has anything to do with it - the Streatham Labour Party selected another person because they felt that he could represent them better in Parliament, perhaps its a tribute to Reed that they felt he was best as council leader - he has far more real power and influence as council leader than as a backbench MP. 

To be honest I think there is little chance of defeat in 2010 for Labour as  Lib Dems have not shown themselves to be any better in councils which they control such as Southwark nor have they been a very effective or constructive opposition in Lambeth - they seem very ready tio jump in with the criticism but have no alternative plans to implement instead. 

(Besides from an electoral point of view the Lib Dems never actually gain a majority in the years they 'win' the council - Labour still gain a clear majority of votes cast and usually are within one or two seats in terms of being the biggest party - it is only the Lib Dems' willingness to jump into bed with the Tories that deliver them the council)


----------



## brixtonworker (Oct 10, 2008)

sexton said:


> However, Lambeth has two serious problems: there are far too many officers who hold office in the Labour Party (the masonic effect)



It wouldn't surprise me if this were the case, but is it actually true? Can you name some names??

Have you seen that Lambeth to publish a guide for councillors on how to do their job? It's the last story on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3089413/Waste-watch.html

In response to the poster who suggests that Lambeth should pay decent salaries to attract the best talent - a lot of the top jobs in Lambeth Council and Lambeth Living are filled by very well-paid "interim managers", employed on a consultancy basis (often for many years). They are paid extorniate sums, outside of nationally-agreed terms and conditions and are not subject to the Council's policies eg disciplinary, capability, they don't have to reveal whether they belong to the Freemasons or other secret societies. The top three jobs in the ALMO are filled by people employed in this way - Peter Redman, David Thompson, Marcia Mitchell - each costing rent-payers in excess of £250,000 a year.

The problem within Lambeth is not the ability of the staff in general. It is the fact that these staff are being directed by mercenary consultants who have no long-standing commitment to Lambeth and no knowledge of this borough's particular circumstances. At the same, contractors are allowed to such millions out of the Housing Revenue Account for sub-standard or non-existent work, due to inadequate monitoring of works. How can staff be expected to do their jobs properly when, due to one crisis or another, every six months there is a major reorganisation cutting jobs and changing roles? If councillors enabled staff and residents together to direct services, and did away with expensive, incompetent, uncaring consultants, we would see a massive improvement in the quality of servcies delivered to ordinary citizens of Lambeth.


----------



## sexton (Oct 10, 2008)

*Where The Responsibility Lies*

I freely admit that there is much that is true in what SE5 says above.

However, it is my feeling that the writer is not a Lambeth tenant, and that he has little experience of housing management in this borough, or of the behaviour of councillors; but I was brought up in a council property (which my mother still occupies) and have had much experience of both.

I am, also, a realist, andl, as senior civil, servant I do not have unreasonable expectations of either council members or local government officers. However, the behaviour of both in this case falls well below what is acceptable. 

Councillors are well paid today for the work that they are expected to do: we expect them to read papers, and do their work with reasonable diligence. Thus, it is absolutely unacceptable for them to fail to attend a group meeting on an issue of the importance of that which was decided 8 days ago. It is also totally unacceptable for them not to make proper enquiries regarding a department's failure to work within a budget, and to accept an overspend of that proportion, without making stringent enquiries into why it has been exceeded by more than, say 5%, at the outside. Their backing down in response to harsh criticism, and officers' acceptance of the compromise without question, suggests that no one has any idea of the sums that are really required to deliver the service, or what it will really cost. This is absolutely shocking

Lambeth officers are infamous throughout Westminster and Whitehall, indeed, the whole country, and the service is probably incapable of being reformed from the inside. However, this is not entirely their fault. Councillors have not exercised the powers that they have to emend the situation, and so must take equal responsibility.

Councillor Dixon should resign, or be replaced, and so should Councillor Reed; and, if they won't they should be forced into it.

I don't know if the Liberal Democrats, in coalition with the Conservatives will do any better, but both these councillors are removed, and the managers responsible for the current situation are replaced, the situation is liable to deteriorate further, and we simply cannot afford that!

We need the ALMO money, and we surely won't get it if thing like this continue to occur. Furthermore, it is a once only offer, and we will not see its like again. Party members (and as a young man, I was one) must force the issue, otherwise they will not be forgiven.

If Labour lose the next lg elections (and I, for one, will not be voting for them, either locally or nationally: I shall vote Green), at least the fate of these officers and councillors will be noted, and the next incumbents are likely to try a great deal harder. Who knows, they may even produce an acceptable level of service. 

One can but hope!


----------



## Dan U (Oct 10, 2008)

brixtonworker said:


> How can staff be expected to do their jobs properly when, due to one crisis or another, every six months there is a major reorganisation cutting jobs and changing roles?



how true that is. in complex areas like the HRA, understanding outsourced maintenance contracts etc can take you 6 months to learn alone. It is a simple fact of life that there are only a finite amount of people who understand the HRA sufficiently to account for it. and it takes years to get that knowledge - a lot of those people have chosen to work as contractors (i am not one of them btw but know several)

where i work the Finance Department has had 3 planned reorganisations in 3 years.



brixtonworker said:


> If councillors enabled staff and residents together to direct services, and did away with expensive, incompetent, uncaring consultants, we would see a massive improvement in the quality of servcies delivered to ordinary citizens of Lambeth.



i have to say the experience in my borough around the HRA and Housing Finance in general is that the contractors do care, have sorted the problems out of there predecessors and are now handing over to newly recruited permanent staff. the audit commission scores reflect this. 

they are all performance managed like everybody else. but all boroughs are different. it may not work so well in Lambeth, it sounds pretty dysfunctional generally.

i'm not on about the top managers either btw, but the people doing the work day to day.

Part of the problem i feel is that local authorities have been given these complex commercial arrangements to deal with - ALMO's, PFI, huge outsourced maintenance contracts - by Central Govt. What has not happened, but is happening slowly, is that the skill set within the councils to monitor contracts, understand commercial arrangements, negotiate etc is catching up. Most people are capable of doing this with training etc but it takes time and as you said before, if you are in a constant state of flux how do you learn. you buy it in.


----------



## Bob (Oct 10, 2008)

sexton said:


> It was as recently as June this year that officers and councillors were congratulating themselves on the healthy state of the housing department's accounts, which for the first time in years they expected to balance, yet now we are told to anticipate an unquantified overspend of £14million +.
> 
> This is an enormous sum of money, when set against the total housing budget, and no proper explanation has been forthcoming as to how such a situation could have arisen.
> 
> Being aware of the situation regarding the department's overspend on temporary accommodation, and recent overspends in URH (£400000 last year, and; it is alleged, £2 million this year), as well as overspends in a number of other council departments, it seems quite clear that Lambeth's financial officers are incapable of planning or administering a budget; and, above all, of any form of self-monitoring.



That's absolutely crazy. How on earth can they not know what's going on?

 My company has pretty much daily control of the amount of money in it - admittedly it's 70 people - but any sensible organisation should be able to see things are seriously out of kilter after a few weeks (or maybe a month). Bu to get to £14m is insane.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2008)

Well Im not an expert on Council finance however I am involved in "Short/Life" housing.

Seems to me that Central Government does not want to subsidise Council Housing in any meaningful sense.It wants to move to a mininal social rented sector with a larger "Intermediate" housing sector-ie "Shared ownership" and various part private solutions like ALMOs.Also traditional Housing Associations dont get the funding they used to years ago.

So its getting harder for Councils to keep there stock at an affordable price and in good living conditions.I am very concerned at reducing Concierge-they were introduced to help stop drug dealers etc infiltrating estates.

If I blame Labour Councillors for anything its not being critical enough of central Government --run by there party-for not funding Social housing or HAs.Since Labour has been in power its done its utmost to finish off Council Housing.Cynically the New Labour theoreticians dont see those living in social housing as votes they need to get to win elections.

Seems to me theres a lot of Lib/Dems on this thread crowing about how terrible Labour is.I assume if the Lib/Dems get into national government they are going to have a crash programme of building affordable housing.

Im not New Labour or even that sympathetic to Labour party.However Ive had to deal with my local Councillors on housing issues.I have found them to be helpful (within the fact that they are under party discipline).Councillors arent financial experts.Councils arent businesses.

In fact under "Third Way" ideology in the bright shiny modernised future as outlined in Prospect mag Councils wont own much.They will be "enablers".So "you" the resident we be made responsible for rent increases etc within the governments parsimonious funding regime.


----------



## brix (Oct 10, 2008)

Bob said:


> If you're interested PM me / or post here and I'll explain the practicalities. The legal side is insanely easy.



I'm interested in standing as an independent candidate I think.  How would I go about it and when's the next round of elections?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2008)

Its easy enough to stand but you wont get elected in certain areas unless your belong to a major party.My ward is Coldharbour its always Labour.You could dress up as a penguin and get elected in my area as long as the Labour party put you up.

Id recommend you join a party -LD/Labour/Tory --doesnt seem to matter what you believe-they are all centre parties now.


----------



## brix (Oct 10, 2008)

Gramsci said:


> Its easy enough to stand but you wont get elected in certain areas unless your belong to a major party.My ward is Coldharbour its always Labour.You could dress up as a penguin and get elected in my area as long as the Labour party put you up.
> 
> Id recommend you join a party -LD/Labour/Tory --doesnt seem to matter what you believe-they are all centre parties now.



I used to be a member of the Labour Party but that was a long time ago and I have no intention of rejoining.  And I couldn't bring myself to join either the Tories or the Lib Dems.  Is it entirely hopeless to stand as an independent?


----------



## se5 (Oct 10, 2008)

brix said:


> I used to be a member of the Labour Party but that was a long time ago and I have no intention of rejoining.  And I couldn't bring myself to join either the Tories or the Lib Dems.  Is it entirely hopeless to stand as an independent?



In a word yes  based on the previous results - http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...E52330ADFAAA/0/LambethElectionResults2006.pdf people who werent from the main three parties did very badly BUT I believe turnout was only around the 30% mark so if you could ethuse those remaining people who didnt vote you might be in with a chance 

BUT the next elections are in 2010 which its very likely will be general election day and so there will be a higher than usual turnout and everything will be overshadowed by the main Tory/Labour national contest which will result in a higher turnout and probably higher Labour vote as people will vote for the Labour MP and then Labour councillors as well


----------



## brix (Oct 10, 2008)

se5 said:


> In a word yes  based on the previous results - http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...E52330ADFAAA/0/LambethElectionResults2006.pdf people who werent from the main three parties did very badly BUT I believe turnout was only around the 30% mark so if you could ethuse those remaining people who didnt vote you might be in with a chance
> 
> BUT the next elections are in 2010 which its very likely will be general election day and so there will be a higher than usual turnout and everything will be overshadowed by the main Tory/Labour national contest which will result in a higher turnout and probably higher Labour vote as people will vote for the Labour MP and then Labour councillors as well



What about by-elections?  How do you find out when they're happening?


----------



## BarryB (Oct 10, 2008)

brix said:


> What about by-elections?  How do you find out when they're happening?



Go to the by election section at www.vote-2007.co.uk

BarryB


----------



## lang rabbie (Oct 10, 2008)

Gramsci said:


> Its easy enough to stand but you wont get elected in certain areas unless your belong to a major party.My ward is Coldharbour its always Labour.You could dress up as a penguin and get elected in my area as long as the Labour party put you up.
> 
> Id recommend you join a party -LD/Labour/Tory --doesnt seem to matter what you believe-they are all centre parties now.



There is a depressing self-perpetuating cycle about this.  The turnout in Coldharbour (and its predecessor ward Angell) is the lowest in the borough because everyone assumes that Labour will walk it - so they do!

In 2002, only 17.2% of locals bothered to vote - I think it was slightly better in 2006, I don't have the official number to hand but IIRC it was still below 25%.

If another party or group ran an effective campaign they could win.


----------



## lang rabbie (Oct 10, 2008)

se5 said:


> BUT the next elections are in 2010 which its very likely will be general election day and so there will be a higher than usual turnout and everything will be overshadowed by the main Tory/Labour national contest which will result in a higher turnout and probably higher Labour vote as people will vote for the Labour MP and then Labour councillors as well



Interestingly, some Brixton wards had the highest level of people in south London not voting for the straight party slate in this year's Mayoral and GLA elections, so even if (God forbid) the elections are on the same day, I reckon that there could still be some tactical upsets.


----------



## Bob (Oct 11, 2008)

brix said:


> What about by-elections?  How do you find out when they're happening?



They'll normally be mentioned here. Plus they are mentioned in the SLP and the Council website.

There aren't any definitely happening in the near future. The most likely one will be in Princes (Kennington) where one of the Labour councillors now lives in Bristol and is a Parliamentary candidate there. Rather cheekily he still collects his £9k allowance for being a Labour councillor - he's been doing this for over a year now. I'm told it's quite unpopular locally so he may stand down.


http://www.samtownend.com/


----------



## Bob (Oct 11, 2008)

brix said:


> I used to be a member of the Labour Party but that was a long time ago and I have no intention of rejoining.  And I couldn't bring myself to join either the Tories or the Lib Dems.  Is it entirely hopeless to stand as an independent?



In Coldharbour you could get elected if 1000 people voted for you. If you spent a couple of months knocking on doors you could probably do that.


----------



## sexton (Oct 11, 2008)

*Don't Jump Without Looking!*

The full Report being presented by officers to councillors is now up on the Council's web page at -
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000225/M00006235/AI00006295/$05FinancialpositionoftheHRACabinetreport_v1.docA.ps.pdf
but it is does not adequately explain why this matter suddenly needs to be urgently addressed. There is little in the report to suggest that all the problems addressed were not foreseeable at the begining of the year, and that there should have been no problem if they were managing properly.

Councillors need to ask some searching questions: could it be that officers are trying to panic them into a rushed decision, without proper consultation, in order to get a bigger budget to spend, so as to make their lives easier?

Anyway, interested parties can now read it for themselves, and should ask their ward councillors to explain it for them. That way councillors will have to read the document themselves or, at least, ask officers to explain it to them.


----------



## Bob (Oct 12, 2008)

As far as I can make it out (from page 9) their explanation is:

£5m needed because housing is empty more often than anticipated, and rental income isn't as much as they anticipated
£1m because they're not being as successful as anticipated at collecting the rent
£1.5m for something called s20 (anyone understand that?)
£0.8m because parking / garage income has come under budget (presumably this in on estates not standard street parking)

Wow they're good at writing in bureaucratic rubbish. I work with government but this practically requires a degree in local government finance to understand. 

Basically the options seem to be:
Increase rents by £5 from December, or
Increase rents in April - but cut more central staff - which they're not really sure how to do.

Plus lots of things around higher garage charges / heating bills etc. 


Clickable link here:
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000225/M00006235/AI00006295/$05FinancialpositionoftheHRACabinetreport_v1.docA.ps.pdf


----------



## se5 (Oct 12, 2008)

Bob said:


> £1.5m for something called s20 (anyone understand that?)



my reading of this is that the s20 £1.5million is income that the council receives from council leaseholders, ie people who have bought (or more likely now have bought from the original right to buy purchaser) their flats in a block but who have to pay the freeholder (Lambeth) for general improvements to the block - the letters such leaseholders get are called section 20 notices (presumably its section 20 of a piece of housing legislation)

If my experience is anything to go by the council hasnt quite got the right idea about the garages - we recently got a letter from the council saying that we could rent a vacant garage in the basement of a nearby council block, when investigating further it was around £40 a month which seems a very high price to pay when compared with the free parking available on the street. As a result of this the garages all still seem to be empty


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 13, 2008)

*I don't understand -*

*


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 13, 2008)

*I DO understand . . .*

I have read the document - 
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/...v1.docA.ps.pdf - and I can now say that I understand less about what Lambeth Housing are trying to acheive than I did originally.

The people who wrote it have not told us why they need the money NOW, and why they have not waited to go through the usual rent setting process, allowing Area Forums and Tenant Council to ask questions.

There seems to  be little change in the position of the HRA from last year or the year before.

Is this a badly written document, showing that they really don't understand the position, or are they trying to hide something from us?

Surely even these useless councillors (who obviously don't live in Council housing themselves) - half of whom couldn't be bothered to drag themselves away from the pub to attend the original meeting at which it was decided to hit us with a £10 increase - are not going to let this get by without asking the obvious questions which need to be answered?

Why not call your councillor and let if know that you won't be voting for it in 2010 unless it can convince you that it is worth your vote?  Ask it if it has another job or a mortgage to pay, and remind it that life is not always so easy!


----------



## brixtonworker (Oct 13, 2008)

Bob said:


> In Coldharbour you could get elected if 1000 people voted for you. If you spent a couple of months knocking on doors you could probably do that.



It's definitely worth standing to be an independent councillor in Lambeth next time round (2010) - not just in Coldharbour.

Disillusion with the three major parties is so great that anyone who has anything interesting to say and who speaks from the heart will be welcomed by the electorate with open arms. Especially if you have a group of people around a school or estate, and you focus on key local issues.

We're probably not going to take over the Town Hall overnight, but just one or two independent voices on the Council, not tied to party discipline or ideology, could have a massive difference in shaping the agenda.

I just came across this site which provides info to people thinking of standing as an independent candidate: http://www.picx.co.uk/frame.html


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 13, 2008)

*An Independent View.*



brixtonworker said:


> It's definitely worth standing to be an independent councillor in Lambeth next time round (2010) - not just in Coldharbour.
> 
> Disillusion with the three major parties is so great that anyone who has anything interesting to say and who speaks from the heart will be welcomed by the electorate with open arms. Especially if you have a group of people around a school or estate, and you focus on key local issues.
> 
> ...



I admit that this is interesting, and if there are six or seven well known  candidates, like Ros Griffiths, Ros Munday, Lee Jasper, John Howard, David Pritchard-Jones and Julian Heather, standing as Independents, it would have possibilities. (I haven't spoken to any of these people about it. I merely put up the names of people known for their independent vioews.) 

The trouble with a lot of the present councillors is that they only get elected because they stand on a Labour ticket. 

*A rat would stand a good chance of getting elected if it stood as a Labour candidate in 2 or 3 wards. *​
Even so, campaigns are costly, and independents do not get administrative support or representation on the important committees.

Could the answer be to form a Lambeth Party, supporting a common policy:

An Executive Mayor
Proper Officer training and discipline
Performance monitored delivery
Real Equalities Impact Assessment, etc
A real commitment on Equalities, not just lip service​
I would be interested in hearing from anyone interested in pursuing this, though its policy would have to be minimal, and acceptable to the whole group.


----------



## Bob (Oct 13, 2008)

melmaloney said:


> I admit that this is interesting, and if there are six or seven well known  candidates, like Ros Griffiths, Ros Munday, Lee Jasper, John Howard, David Pritchard-Jones and Julian Heather, standing as Independents, it would have possibilities. (I haven't spoken to any of these people about it. I merely put up the names of people known for their independent vioews.)
> 
> The trouble with a lot of the present councillors is that they only get elected because they stand on a Labour ticket.
> 
> ...



Ros Munday stood as a Lib Dem candidate in 2002 & 2003. She then moved to supporting Labour in 2006. My impression is that she's now independent of any party - certainly not pro Labour now.

Julian Heather is a Lib Dem councillor in Streatham! A very nice guy in my experience.


----------



## lang rabbie (Oct 13, 2008)

Bob said:


> £1.5m for something called s20 (anyone understand that?)



I think this is a reduction in the income Lambeth had assumed they could get by charging the leaseholders of former "right-to-buy" properties for works to their blocks, only to discover that the Council had failed to notify any of the leaseholders before the work started. 

Section 20 of the the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which IIRC has now been in effect since late 2003 (only five years!) gave leaseholders a statutory right to be consulted 



> Failure to consult before entering into long term agreements or before carrying out specific works, and which would cost any leaseholder more than the prescribed amount, will result in the landlord being unable to recover more than the prescribed amount from any leaseholder.


----------



## Bob (Oct 14, 2008)

lang rabbie said:


> I think this is a reduction in the income Lambeth had assumed they could get by charging the leaseholders of former "right-to-buy" properties for works to their blocks, only to discover that the Council had failed to notify any of the leaseholders before the work started.
> 
> Section 20 of the the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which IIRC has now been in effect since late 2003 (only five years!) gave leaseholders a statutory right to be consulted



That's bizarre. When I was a leaseholder in Lambeth I got informed about charges - which were pretty big (they installed a new lift in my block of flats - so it was something like £2,000 each).

Presumably somebody's sued them for this? Has this been in the local media? It's a major scandal in its own right  - I'd guess that hundreds of leaseholders have been done over...


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 14, 2008)

*Just a normal girl*

So, what did they decide at last night's Cabinet?


----------



## charcol (Oct 14, 2008)

melmaloney said:


> So, what did they decide at last night's Cabinet?



As I understand it, the proposed £5 increase in December will not go ahead. However, the increase next April will be £10 to £14 per week - the exact figure will depend on how much central Government allows.

In the meantime there will be (more) service cuts starting almost immediately. Not sure about the details, but all external decorations have been halted.


----------



## sexton (Oct 15, 2008)

*Cabinet's Decision*

It was confirmed that charges for heating and lighting would be increased by 62%, as prerviously agreed.

There will be no increase in rents until next April, when they will be raised to the maximum permitted level without forfeiting subsidy - possibly as much as £13-14 per week.

The allowance to TMOs will be reduced by £4.5 million p.a. over the next 18 months.

Expenditure generally will be trimmed and 130 Officers will be made redundant.

It has also being suggested that there may be a sale of some long term voids, which would provide funds to bring others back into use.

Provided that there is no further undisclosed expenditure and that they win the action being brought against them by the Legal Action Group of TMOs, it is hoped that these measures will bring the HRA to balance within 18 months.


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 16, 2008)

*Is it fair to make hard working tenants pay for incompetent management?*

What an odd way of tackling worklessness! The whole cost of councillor and officer incompetence has been loaded onto those residents who live in council properties, and will be felt most by the men and women on low incomes who work. (People on benefit won't have to pay anything extra.) 

An extra £20 a week will cause real hardship to the working tenant.


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 16, 2008)

*Who are the 130 officers that will be made redundant?*

Neighbourhood housing offices have already been closed down all over the borough, and if any more front line staff are sacked the service will collapse.

Time now to get rid of some of those senior officers on £70kpa +, who. with idle, over-paid and uncaring councillors, are principally responsible for the mess we are in.

How much is still being paid to consultants? 

Why do we need them at all?


----------



## Bob (Oct 16, 2008)

melmaloney said:


> What an odd way of tackling worklessness! The whole cost of councillor and officer incompetence has been loaded onto those residents who live in council properties, and will be felt most by the men and women on low incomes who work. (People on benefit won't have to pay anything extra.)
> 
> An extra £20 a week will cause real hardship to the working tenant.



If you're on benefits then often you'll have to pay around 35% of any increase like this - so you will have to pay something.

But you're right that it's worse for people on low incomes but not on benefits. Somebody on 50% more than the minimum wage gets about £17k per year. So £13 a week (=£676 per year) is a 4% fall in income. For somebody on minimum wage it's 6% of incomes. Ow.


----------



## onemansview (Oct 23, 2008)

If you live in council housing -

1. You must be very idle, very stupid, or hopelessly inadequate or you would have got your act together and have a place of your own.

2. Even if you paid twice as much for the place in which you now live, you would not be unlikely to find comparable accommodation with a private landlord on similar terms, and it is unlikely that you could afford to buy a place of your own.

3. The place in which you live (and probably everything else that you have) has been paid for by the work of others, who pay for it out of their taxes

4. If you lived in many countries in the world, you would have nothing and would have to fend for yourself.

5. Most people living in such countries (and many in this country) would be very happy to live in the comfort that you enjoy.

7. You are in no position to demand anything.  Remember you are in a minority, that the economy is in recession, and that there are millions on council waiting lists all over England. 

So why don't you all shut up, enjoy the good things that you have been given, and show some respect towards those people who work hard to provide them for you - housing officers, councillors, and the people who work to pay for their own homes and pay taxes to pay for yours. You could be a lot worse off.


----------



## brix (Oct 23, 2008)

Firky, is that you?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 23, 2008)

No, just some random twat I believe.


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 23, 2008)

*Random Twat*

Definitely!

Odd ideas about society today, and has problems counting up to ten!



onemansview said:


> If you live in council housing -
> 
> 4. If you lived in many countries in the world, you would have nothing and would have to fend for yourself.
> 
> ...


----------



## Winot (Oct 23, 2008)

Forgive my ignorance, but is there such thing as a union/pressure group for those living in council housing?  It strikes me that such a body might offer a good way of influencing councillors without having to stand yourself (I realise there are residents' associations for particular blocks but I'm thing of something Borough-wide).


----------



## brixtonworker (Oct 23, 2008)

melmaloney said:


> Neighbourhood housing offices have already been closed down all over the borough, and if any more front line staff are sacked the service will collapse.
> 
> Time now to get rid of some of those senior officers on £70kpa +, who. with idle, over-paid and uncaring councillors, are principally responsible for the mess we are in.
> 
> ...



I read somewhere that Lambeth's housing department spends £4 million a year on  consultants. The top consultants get paid something like £1,000 a day to ruin tenants' lives. 

There's absolutely no need for consultants except in some very limited situations. Rather than develop staff and encourage them to go for top jobs, the council sacks them and gives the work to mercenaries who don't give two hoots about Lambeth. It's sickening!!!


----------



## brixtonworker (Oct 23, 2008)

Winot said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but is there such thing as a union/pressure group for those living in council housing?  It strikes me that such a body might offer a good way of influencing councillors without having to stand yourself (I realise there are residents' associations for particular blocks but I'm thing of something Borough-wide).



There's a national Defend Council Housing campaign which has done some good work and continues to fight battles against privatisation as well as making the political case for direct investment in council housing - www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk

There was a local DCH group active in Lambeth around the time of the ALMO ballot, but it seems to have disappeared from view. Perhaps now would be the time to resurrect it??

By the way, I take it everyone saw the SLP article about upcoming job cuts?
http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=20911


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 26, 2008)

*Random twat*



FridgeMagnet said:


> No, just some random twat I believe.



Much more likely to be a dodgy housing manager.

Some of those who were brought up in council housing and really hate tenants (as this one surely does).

Did you know that  they have already threatened to exclude councillors and "troublemakers" from meetings of  Area Housing Forums and now want to prevent the Chairs of Tenant and Leasholder Council - the 2 elected resident representative bodies - from speaking at the Tenants' Conference on 15th. November.

It seems fairly obvious that they think that the sort of people who live on council estates aren't fit to have a say in how their homes are managed. So much for tenant participation!


----------



## brixtonworker (Oct 27, 2008)

melmaloney said:


> Did you know that  they have already threatened to exclude councillors and "troublemakers" from meetings of  Area Housing Forums and now want to prevent the Chairs of Tenant and Leasholder Council - the 2 elected resident representative bodies - from speaking at the Tenants' Conference on 15th. November.
> 
> It seems fairly obvious that they think that the sort of people who live on council estates aren't fit to have a say in how their homes are managed. So much for tenant participation!



I think there's going to be a big demonstration outside the residents' conference - and quite a few angry people inside too!


----------



## hendo (Oct 27, 2008)

onemansview said:


> If you live in council housing -
> 
> 1. You must be very idle, very stupid, or hopelessly inadequate or you would have got your act together and have a place of your own.



Superb first post. Imagine going to all the trouble to register - just to post that! The mind boggles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2008)

onemansview said:


> If you live in council housing -
> 
> 1. You must be very idle, very stupid, or hopelessly inadequate or you would have got your act together and have a place of your own.


Conversely you could, like me, be industrious, reasonably well-educated, and adequate enough for your mother, but have become disabled in the service of your country, but carried on working until your body started to fall apart, and then *needed* social housing because you were told by several consultants in your conditions that you'd never be able to sustain a day's work again, except at your own pace (which is what I do).
Nice recourse to caricature, though. It's always nice to know that ssome people can't think for themselves beyond that kind of thing. Well done you!


> 2. Even if you paid twice as much for the place in which you now live, you would not be unlikely to find comparable accommodation with a private landlord on similar terms, and it is unlikely that you could afford to buy a place of your own.


You don't have a particularly grounded idea about the economics of supply and demand, or about the difference between a secure tenancy and an "assured shorthold" tenancy, do you?


> 3. The place in which you live (and probably everything else that you have) has been paid for by the work of others, who pay for it out of their taxes


Really? How would you know? 
Ah, I see, it's the caricature again!


> 4. If you lived in many countries in the world, you would have nothing and would have to fend for yourself.


If "we" lived in "many" countries of the world we'd be covered by similar social safety nets. What's your point?


> 5. Most people living in such countries (and many in this country) would be very happy to live in the comfort that you enjoy.


I'm sure that's a lovely platitude, but like most platitudes it says more about the person saying it than anything else. 
Tell me, how often do you use the expression "I'd have given my eye-teeth..." per day?


> 7. You are in no position to demand anything.  Remember you are in a minority, that the economy is in recession, and that there are millions on council waiting lists all over England.


I suggest you read Locke and Hobbes, and get *some* idea about mutual obligation, and some British constitutional law, so that you have some idea why even the lowliest among us has the right to demand (although not the right to have the demand fulfilled) whatever we like.
As for recession, who's fault is that? Mostly the sort of person who spouts the kind of caricature crap you have above, in my (long and doleful) experience. The sort of person to whom altruism is an alien concept.


> So why don't you all shut up, enjoy the good things that you have been given, and show some respect towards those people who work hard to provide them for you - housing officers, councillors, and the people who work to pay for their own homes and pay taxes to pay for yours. You could be a lot worse off.


Why don't *you* shut up until you've actually got an argument or set of arguments that aren't culled directly from the utterances of Richard Littlejohn and his ilk, there's a good fellow?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2008)

hendo said:


> Superb first post. Imagine going to all the trouble to register - just to post that! The mind boggles.



I love it when mouth-breathers froth at the mouth.

There's always the possibility that they'll drown on their own saliva, you see.


----------



## onemansview (Oct 28, 2008)

I wrote my original post because I believed that it was important to give readers a balanced view, the one held by the majority of decent law-abiding people in this country, who work hard to provide for themselves and their families, to pay their taxes and to better themselves.

The anonymous contributors to this thread certainly do not represent the views of that majority, but are surely those of troublemakers and agitators with political axes to grind - the sort of people who are members of movements like Respect, DCH, WRP, CND, the Communist Party, anarchists, and other unrealistic hard-line extremist groups.

Think about what 'melmaloner' and 'violent pander' are saying to you. It does not help anyone to make them discontent with what they have in life. Look also at the way that these people describe themselves, and at their violent attacks on the people that are trying to help them. It is typical of such people that they would suggest boycotting the residents' housing conference. The last thing that they want is reasoned (or reasonable) discussion. These people are not your true friends.

Officers and Council Members are seldom popular; but they are doing the best that they can, often under very dificult circumstances, and should not be subjected to violent abuse for their effort. Try, just for once, to understand their frustration and the irritation that they might feel when they read such offensive claptrap.

Anyway, if you feel that you could do their job so much better, and are genuinely so interested in improving the lives of your fellow residents, why are you not doing it? That way you could make some useful contribution to society, instead of attempting to destroy constructive attempts to improve it.


----------



## colacubes (Oct 28, 2008)

onemansview said:


> I wrote my original post because I believed that it was important to give readers a balanced view, the one held by the majority of decent law-abiding people in this country, who work hard to provide for themselves and their families, to pay their taxes and to better themselves.
> 
> The anonymous contributors to this thread certainly do not represent the views of that majority, but are surely those of troublemakers and agitators with political axes to grind - the sort of people who are members of movements like Respect, DCH, WRP, CND, the Communist Party, anarchists, and other unrealistic hard-line extremist groups.
> 
> ...



lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2008)

onemansview said:


> I wrote my original post because I believed that it was important to give readers a balanced view, the one held by the majority of decent law-abiding people in this country, who work hard to provide for themselves and their families, to pay their taxes and to better themselves.


Care to elucidate as to how your view is "balanced", in what way it represents "the majority of decent law-abiding people in this country", and how you have quantified this "majority"?
I ask because I suspect that you're talking through your hat.


> The anonymous contributors to this thread certainly do not represent the views of that majority, but are surely those of troublemakers and agitators with political axes to grind...


"Surely"?
I sense that you're projecting your preconceptions, rather than addressing reality.


> - the sort of people who are members of movements like Respect, DCH, WRP, CND, the Communist Party, anarchists, and other unrealistic hard-line extremist groups.


I'm not a member of *any* "hard-line extremist groups", although I was a Scout in my youth.
Mind you, anyone who believes that CND, terminally fluffy as it was, was comprised of "hard-line extremists" doesn't have the best purchase on rational discourse, in my experience. The last person I recall trying to fly *that* kite was "The Freedom Association", whose own membership were far more "hard-line" than anything CND ever mustered.
Of course, I suspect that *rightist* extremism is fine by you.


> Think about what 'melmaloner' and 'violent pander' are saying to you.


A bit of polite advice:
The FAQs for this site (which you have confirmed that you have read during the sigh-up procedure, or you wouldn't be able to post) specifically make clear that pissing around with the usernames of posters is unacceptable behaviour.
So, if you can't play the ball, resist playing the man, there's a good chap. 


> It does not help anyone to make them discontent with what they have in life. Look also at the way that these people describe themselves, and at their violent attacks on the people that are trying to help them.


"Violent"?
Do you live in a parallel world where words have different meanings?
As for people trying to "help" me, who are you referring to, and why do you think you know better than I (or my physicians and surgeon) what's best for me?
Spare me your blunderbuss rhetoric and address the issues I've raised, if you can.  


> It is typical of such people that they would suggest boycotting the residents' housing conference. The last thing that they want is reasoned (or reasonable) discussion. These people are not your true friends.


Have you actually ever attended such a conference, or even something similar here in Mother Lambeth? It's a sad truth of our times that more "reasoned discussion" comes from the floor than it does from the platform, where dogmatism tends to hold sway.


> Officers and Council Members are seldom popular; but they are doing the best that they can, often under very dificult circumstances, and should not be subjected to violent abuse for their effort. Try, just for once, to understand their frustration and the irritation that they might feel when they read such offensive claptrap.


Unfortunately, abuse is part of the working day of most civil servants. I remember it well.
As for council members (they really *don't* need capitalisation, they're not *that* important), their "job" is to represent their constituents. If they don't do so, then a little abuse should ginger them up to do their job properly rather than meekly accepting whipping, don't you think?


> Anyway, if you feel that you could do their job so much better, and are genuinely so interested in improving the lives of your fellow residents, why are you not doing it? That way you could make some useful contribution to society, instead of attempting to destroy constructive attempts to improve it.


How do you know what any of us do?
The answer, of course, is that you don't. You're relying on your simplistic assumptions that people who dissent can't possibly contribute. 
Such an assumption is the work of a _naif_ at best, an idiot at worst.


----------



## Winot (Oct 28, 2008)

Bravo.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 28, 2008)

hendo said:


> Superb first post. Imagine going to all the trouble to register - just to post that! The mind boggles.



Heh. Reminds me of the girl who's house I was cleaning for a bargain basement rate, explaining loudly to me how council tenants didn't deserve their houses.... think actually the point I wouldn't have been there doing a job for her for next to nothing did finally dawn on her and she shut up..


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 28, 2008)

One point - that council house dwellers somehow have their rents paid by 'the taxpayer'.. it's not only untrue but the otherway round. Council tenants pay a quarter of their rents direct to central government....



> Meanwhile, Leeds council tenants are paying about a quarter of their rent straight to the government and never see the benefit in repairs or better services.



http://www.leedstenants.org.uk/FairRents.htm

As far as being in a minority or 'idle' or whatever.. certainly in Leeds council tenants are not in a minority - there are plenty of us and far too many to fit into one lazy stereotype.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 28, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> One point - that council house dwellers somehow have their rents paid by 'the taxpayer'.. it's not only untrue but the otherway round. Council tenants pay a quarter of their rents direct to central government....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



is that true for all councils or just part of the subsidy calculations performed in the Housing Revenue Account?

iirc some Boroughs end up claiming extra money from central govt and some Boroughs end up paying money back.

it's a massively complicated formula.


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 28, 2008)

*One man and his silly views!*

 Poor man! He probably works for Lambeth Housing, and it has turned his mind. 

I am surprised that he has not made snide remarks about the sort of woman who brings up three children on their own. You know the sort of thing - "Are they all by the same man?" 

Pity really! (I am a widow.) Got you there, eh? 

Couldn't be much fun being married to such a person!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2008)

melmaloney said:


> Poor man! He probably works for Lambeth Housing, and it has turned his mind.


If he works for Lambeth Housing, let's hope it's not in a significant role, given that he appears to be absolutely chock-full of bitterness and prejudice.


> I am surprised that he has not made snide remarks about the sort of woman who brings up three children on their own. You know the sort of thing - "Are they all by the same man?"


Well, it's not really in context to the subject unless someone introduces the old "most council homes are occupied by single mums" canard, and that particular bit of received wisdom has been proven wrong just about every time it's trotted out.
Of course, we do hear *an awful lot* about that sort of thing in the media, but that's because it's till uncommon enough to sensationalise about. If it were as prevalent as some social conservatives would have us believe, then it would hardly be quite so "shocking", would it?  


> Pity really! (I am a widow.) Got you there, eh?
> 
> Couldn't be much fun being married to such a person!


Depends if they share the same world-view, I suppose.


----------



## onemansview (Oct 28, 2008)

ViolentPanda said:


> If he works for Lambeth Housing, let's hope it's not in a significant role, given that he appears to be absolutely chock-full of bitterness and prejudice.
> 
> Well, it's not really in context to the subject unless someone introduces the old "most council homes are occupied by single mums" canard, and that particular bit of received wisdom has been proven wrong just about every time it's trotted out.
> Of course, we do hear *an awful lot* about that sort of thing in the media, but that's because it's till uncommon enough to sensationalise about. If it were as prevalent as some social conservatives would have us believe, then it would hardly be quite so "shocking", would it?
> ...




I really am surprised that supposedly intelligent people could hold such views!


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 28, 2008)

Dan U said:


> is that true for all councils or just part of the subsidy calculations performed in the Housing Revenue Account?
> 
> iirc some Boroughs end up claiming extra money from central govt and some Boroughs end up paying money back.
> 
> it's a massively complicated formula.



Not sure..I think it's all tenants to some extent, but certainly the Leeds tenants discovered 1/4 of rent goes straight to central government.

My house must be about 1960s at least.. I would have thought it had been paid for by now, in terms of rental lettings over the years.

When people whinge about council tenants they don't realise - most work - but can't afford to live anywhere else. If Leeds council tenants disappeared from the city tomorrow I think it would struggle to keep going... but also they're often the only places anyone sick, disabled or unemployed can afford to live - most private landlords don't take DSS and people moaning about paying for benefits ought to at least realise they're paying an awful lot less than for someone in an expensive private house.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 28, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> people moaning about paying for benefits ought to at least realise they're paying an awful lot less than for someone in an expensive private house.



fuck yeah.

the Borough i work for has very little available council housing. we are having to set up Rent Deposit schemes to help people coming out of other schemes (care, ex offenders shemes etc) who would historically have got a council house but now can't - so we are helping them to rent privately, normally out of borough due to rental prices in our borough.

the money these landlords are stinging us for to take these people is a disgrace. but they hold the property. and this is even via a HA negoiating for several boroughs in theory to save money. 

some are asking for £'000s up front - much much more than a normal charge for deposits etc.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 28, 2008)

Dan U said:


> fuck yeah.
> 
> the Borough i work for has very little available council housing. we are having to set up Rent Deposit schemes to help people coming out of other schemes (care, ex offenders shemes etc) who would historically have got a council house but now can't - so we are helping them to rent privately, normally out of borough due to rental prices in our borough.
> 
> ...



Yep. But it's always the tenant/ person claiming help with their rent that gets the label 'scrounger' while the landlords do very nicely indeed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2008)

onemansview said:


> I really am surprised that supposedly intelligent people could hold such views!



I'm unsurprised that you've chosen not to address any of the substantive points I've made.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Yep. But it's always the tenant/ person claiming help with their rent that gets the label 'scrounger' while the landlords do very nicely indeed.


Back when I privately rented for a 5 years in the late 80s and early 90s, I was made redundant about halfway through my tenure.
That was when I found out that the monthly rent *I* had paid my landlord was far cheaper (by around £140 a month) than the rent my landlord decided to charge Lambeth while I was looking for a new job.
Now, my landlord was seen as a respectable businessman, a "pillar of the community" member of the local Chamber of Commerce type, rather than a fly-by-night chancer, so if he pulled flankers, how many other supposedly respectable landlords were doing so, too?

Still, Housing Benefit fraud by landlords has historically been an area of benefit fraud that doesn't get tackled. Even Lambeth's "Council Anti-Fraud Team", who did a bit of good work, didn't get very far on that one.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 29, 2008)

ViolentPanda said:


> Back when I privately rented for a 5 years in the late 80s and early 90s, I was made redundant about halfway through my tenure.
> That was when I found out that the monthly rent *I* had paid my landlord was far cheaper (by around £140 a month) than the rent my landlord decided to charge Lambeth while I was looking for a new job.
> Now, my landlord was seen as a respectable businessman, a "pillar of the community" member of the local Chamber of Commerce type, rather than a fly-by-night chancer, so if he pulled flankers, how many other supposedly respectable landlords were doing so, too?
> 
> Still, Housing Benefit fraud by landlords has historically been an area of benefit fraud that doesn't get tackled. Even Lambeth's "Council Anti-Fraud Team", who did a bit of good work, didn't get very far on that one.



I know it was in 'The Sun' but that landlord renting out the seven bedder for how much??!!  seemed like a particularly bad example.

Basically this crap wouldn't happen if there were enough council houses.

If the recession has done one good thing it's halting the demolition of perfectly good council housing in Leeds (and suspended the right to buy)


----------



## melmaloney (Oct 29, 2008)

*Lambeth housing and its problems*

    While I agree with the views of Violent Panda, DanU, Angel and Winot, we are begining to stray from the subject of this thread: mismanagement in Lambeth Housing and its ALMOs, and the threatened enormous rent increases, which are likely to be disasterous to many residents.

Perhaps it might be more effective for posters on other matters to start threads of their own? 

Just a suggestion, but the main heading is 'Places > Brixton', so I imagine that most readers are likely to be Lambeth residents, seeking information on what is happening to their homes in Lambeth. I do believe in tenant participation and don't want to  be a tyrant!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2008)

The local lib-dems seem to be going on a postal offensive to let locals know about the ramifications of the "shortfall", going by the circular I got through the letterbox today.
Good on 'em says I. People need to know who's responsible for the repairs that won't get done, the renovations that'll be postponed, the ever longer waits at Olive Morris House or the local housing office, and they need to know that some of this shit was avoidable.


----------



## brixtonworker (Oct 30, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Not sure..I think it's all tenants to some extent, but certainly the Leeds tenants discovered 1/4 of rent goes straight to central government.



From the Defend Council Housing web site 
http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org...iewCouncilHousingFinanceInitialSubmission.pdf

_Government robs money from council housing in two ways:

Firstly it collects more in rents than it pays in allowances to local authorities to enable them to manage, maintain (M&M) and carry out major repairs (MRA) to our homes. The ‘Moonlight Robbery Campaign’ estimates, from answers to Parliamentary Questions, that this amounts to more than £19 billion since 1997. Secondly, government takes 75% of the capital receipt from ‘right to buy’ sales and has benefited from stock transfer receipts.

In 2008/09 each tenant will pay £3,120 per home in rent (£6.4 billion according to the HRA Review team) but only receive £2,391 per home (£4.7 billion national total) back in services. Government lets councils keep just £1,720 per home (£3.4 billion) for management and maintenance and £671 (£1.3 billion) for major repairs.

Nationally, this means the government will rob tenants to the tune of £1.7 billion this year, and it’s increasing (Figures from DCLG subsidy determination 2008/2009).

“Receipts from the Right-to-Buy sales of council housing that have yielded around £45 billion – only a quarter has been recycled into improving public housing.” (Joseph Rowntree Foundation 01/12/05). Stock transfer has produced £6.08 billion ‘Total Transfer Price’– money which comes from council housing and should have been reinvested in council housing (UK Housing Review 2006/7)_​
Some info on the job cuts in Lambeth: 80+ jobs to go in Lambeth Living, more in the Service Centre, housing legal team and what is left of the old housing department. There will be more job cuts in the coming year as Lambeth Living moves to "Partnering" contracts, where private contractors have free reign over services on ten-year £1 billion-plus deals.

Already the concierge service is being cut back by half, from a 16 hour a day service to daytime only - with tenants and leasehodlers paying the same price for this service as they did before.

And tenants are expected to pay an extra £14 a week rent for all this from April 2009!

The Lambeth Living residents conference will take place at the Town Hall on 15 November. In the past, this has always been organised by Tenants Council and Leaseholders Council, and has been one of the best attended residents conferences in London, if not the UK. This time, Lambeth Living management tore up the agenda that they had agreed with TC and LC and said that the Chair of TC couldn't chair the conference!

They are desperately trying to make amends now, but the damage has been done: it is clear to see how much Lambeth Living values the democratically-elected representatives of tenants and leaseholders. What's more, Lambeth Living staff, who I'm sure would have a lot to say about what is going on, have been banned from attending the conference!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2008)

brixtonworker said:


> They are desperately trying to make amends now, but the damage has been done: it is clear to see how much Lambeth Living values the democratically-elected representatives of tenants and leaseholders. What's more, Lambeth Living staff, who I'm sure would have a lot to say about what is going on, have been banned from attending the conference!



perhaps someone could direct them to this thread if they wish to unburden themselves?


----------



## Silver_Fox (Nov 1, 2008)

I work for Lambeth Living and everything brixtonworker has said is true, and worse. It feels like the organisation is in total melt down, a big difference from the glossy posters and leaflets that they used to advertise the ALMO (which cost so much money).

The organisation is run by consultants on around £1000 a day, and now the Chief Consultant, Pete Redman, is off leaving the organisation in disarray, but what would he care?

Services are already cut to the bone and now they are saying there will be huge cut backs to staff. They're being very clever about this and doing it team by team in order to lessen resistance from both staff and tenants/leaseholders (or customers as Lambeth Living now calls them). And Steve Reid (the council leader, new labour) has apparently been trying to shift the blame to staff, apparently telling tenants in a recent meeting that staff in housing are rubbish and need to be replaced. Well who runs this organisation Steve and Pete (twiddle dum and twiddle dee)? Aren't you going to take any responsibility? You're meant to running the place FFS!!!

All the while the private contractors carry on absolutely fleecing the council and now Lambeth Living as well. All the staff know that lots of the work is substandard (before they sacked the handypersons they used to spend a big chunk of their time fixing work that private contractors hadn't done properly), that variation orders (extra work orders) are often added on when it's not been needed or even not been done at all (contractors must know there aren't enough staff to do post inspections and even if they do get caught out they just have to say sorry). And what are they proposing, to give private firms contracts worth up to £1 billion and tied in to 7 to 10 year contracts. Yet they won't even do a feasibility study to consider a direct labour organisation (when the services are done in house). From a lot of experience I can say 100% that a well run direct labour organisation (DLO) will always be better than a private firm because there is no profit motive.

The senior management and council leaders are now saying that massive rent rises will be needed while services for tenants and leaseholders go further down hill. You don't need a consultant on £1000 a day to tell you how bad the services are either, a quick look around Lambeth estates will be more than enough. It's sickening and heart breaking that these people are lining their pockets while running the service in to the floor and never have to take any responsibility for it.

This really is a campaign that needs to link up tenants/leaseholders/residents with staff. Hopefully there will be a big demo outside the residents meeting.

If anyone has any questions about what's going on feel free to post them on here and I'll do my best to answer them.


----------



## melmaloney (Nov 1, 2008)

*Good for you!*



Silver_Fox said:


> I work for Lambeth Living and everything brixtonworker has said is true, and worse. It feels like the organisation is in total melt down, a big difference from the glossy posters and leaflets that they used to advertise the ALMO (which cost so much money).
> 
> The organisation is run by consultants on around £1000 a day, and now the Chief Consultant, Pete Redman, is off leaving the organisation in disarray, but what would he care?
> 
> ...




Well, now you have heard it from the inside; and, I have to say, that is the way it always appeared to me - and to many others also.

People should take up Silver Fox's offer; though I bet that many people that management distrust will have their emails and telephones tapped over the next few weeks.

I wonder if they are on to me yet ? ? ?

Creepy lot aren't they!


----------



## onemansview (Nov 3, 2008)

*Get real!*



melmaloney said:


> Well, now you have heard it from the inside; and, I have to say, that is the way it always appeared to me - and to many others also.
> 
> People should take up Silver Fox's offer; though I bet that many people that management distrust will have their emails and telephones tapped over the next few weeks.
> 
> ...




Since you and most of the other posters here are clearly desperate to have other people listen to what you say, it is odd that you are worried about having your emails read or your telephone tapped! Don't you think that you could be over-estimating your own importance? I really doubt that anyone is interested in your views on housing - or anything else.

Let me assure you that no one is going to risk prosecution for misusing the Council's power to intercept email and telephone communications just to discover what someone in your position might be saying to your friends!

"Silver Fox" is a fool and will probably, quite rightly, be dismissed. 

I doubt that the plan to disrupt the Conference on 15th. November will come to anything. The reality is that there are only a handful of people who think like you; and, while no one likes being asked to pay more for anything, the majority of residents realise how lucky they are, and are very pleased with the arrangements that have been made for them.

Of course, if you are really not content with what you have got, you could always look for better conditions elsewhere!


----------



## norwood_spurs (Nov 3, 2008)

*How did it happen*

3 Years ago before the big reorganisation exercise in Lambeth, which was apparently supposed to save 6 million pounds per year. Lambeth Housing's revenue account was in a very healthy credit.

Fast forward 3 years an a predicited 18 million pound deficit and very poor services is now the situation Lambeth Housing finds itself in. The only real change has been in the senior management within the housing department and a reduction in staffing levels, one would have to ask the question how was the money spent and as a Lambeth Resident what benefit have i seen??


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2008)

onemansview said:


> Since you and most of the other posters here are clearly desperate to have other people listen to what you say, it is odd that you are worried about having your emails read or your telephone tapped! Don't you think that you could be over-estimating your own importance? I really doubt that anyone is interested in your views on housing - or anything else.
> 
> Let me assure you that no one is going to risk prosecution for misusing the Council's power to intercept email and telephone communications just to discover what someone in your position might be saying to your friends!



An assurance as worthless as much of what you've posted, given that you can't guarantee your assurance.


> "Silver Fox" is a fool and will probably, quite rightly, be dismissed.


"Probably"?
Care to quantify the percentage possibility, or are you just trying to sound tough, little man?


> I doubt that the plan to disrupt the Conference on 15th. November will come to anything.


Your doubts are immaterial. They matter less even than what you had for breakfast this morning.


> The reality is that there are only a handful of people who think like you; and, while no one likes being asked to pay more for anything, the majority of residents realise how lucky they are, and are very pleased with the arrangements that have been made for them.


That'd be why so many people I know on estates in Brixton, Stockwell and Tulse Hill have been door-stepped by people asking that they sign the petition that's been got up by the local lib-dem chap on the issue, and have happily signed it, would it?
As for your patronising attitude about how lucky people in social housing realise that they are, I'm sure they do, but along different lines from those you assume. We realise that we're lucky to have somewhere to live, given the devastation wrought on social housing in the last 25 years, but most of us don't look upon the council, it's officers and elected officials in the way you imply. Most of us know that they, whatever their affiliation, have been complicit in dismantling the social housing infrastructure.
Oh, and please do quantify just *how* you know that "the majority of residents" are "very pleased"? I suspect that at best you're relying on a small-scale assessment made after a major renovation on a single estate, or the conflation of several such over a matter of years.  


> Of course, if you are really not content with what you have got, you could always look for better conditions elsewhere!


Ah, on the one hand sententious twits like you want people to be more politically-involved, but on the other you'd rather they moved on if their political motivations don't match your own.
Excellent, Smithers!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2008)

norwood_spurs said:


> 3 Years ago before the big reorganisation exercise in Lambeth, which was apparently supposed to save 6 million pounds per year. Lambeth Housing's revenue account was in a very healthy credit.
> 
> Fast forward 3 years an a predicited 18 million pound deficit and very poor services is now the situation Lambeth Housing finds itself in. The only real change has been in the senior management within the housing department and a reduction in staffing levels, one would have to ask the question how was the money spent and as a Lambeth Resident what benefit have i seen??



Are there any major renovation projects (re-roofing, re-glazing etc) going on at the moment?

Seems to me that a deficit would be acceptable if the people of the borough have actually derived a solid and lasting benefit from the deficit, but I can't think of any examples that show that such a thing has happened.

Just loads of waste, some graft and the usual complacency.


----------



## rennie (Nov 3, 2008)

Has anyone thought about writing to Private Eye?


----------



## norwood_spurs (Nov 3, 2008)

No Not until you mentioned it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## melmaloney (Nov 3, 2008)

*onemansview*

On yer bike!

Now, I won't have anything bad said about Norman Tebbit. He is a sweet old man of liberal opinions!


----------



## Silver_Fox (Nov 3, 2008)

Why is anyone bothering to debate with onemansview, they're clearly on a wind up or just a loon. I'd just ignore them.



> The only real change has been in the senior management within the housing department and a reduction in staffing levels



Spot on. Nearly the entire senior management in Lambeth Living were/are consultants. And the bit of Housing that's remained under council control is also full of them. And as you say they've turned the budget from being in credit to massively in debt, while the services have gone more and more down hill.

Scrapping the handypersons, cutting back on caretakers and closing down housing offices. There are plans to reduce area offices to three area offices, not long ago there were well over a dozen. This mean tenants now have to go long distances to reach their local office. They are now cutting back the concierge service among other things.


----------



## Mind (Nov 3, 2008)

Silver_Fox said:


> Why is anyone bothering to debate with onemansview, they're clearly on a wind up or just a loon. I'd just ignore them.
> 
> _Quote:
> The only real change has been in the senior management within the housing department and a reduction in staffing levels  _
> ...



Not quite spot on.
The only other major change is that 3 years ago, Labour was not in control in Lambeth.  The elephant in the room if you ask me.

While people might like to absolve Labour of all responsiblity and pretend it's the fault of evil greedy consultants, the fact is it happened under their watch.  The consultants do not hold a gun to the housing department's head. The administration is there to provide direction and oversight and they have failed and should be punished accordingly.

The amount of council tax we pay in this borough is crippling and completely out of line with the quality of services we receive.  Lambeth council flushes our money down the toilet on  a daily basis, just today I read an article in the Guardian on how they will be spending £90,000 of our money on reflexology for children who misbehave.   Unbelievable!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/nov/03/reflexology-feet-behaviour-schools

Think of what good that £90,000 would have done in the current housing crisis.  It would have paid the salaries of anywhere from 3 to 6 people who instead will be on the dole this Xmas.


----------



## Silver_Fox (Nov 4, 2008)

Sorry yeah you're absolutely spot on about Labour, I was just talking about how things were run internally, but obviously that is largely decided by the councillors. But have to say the Lib Dems and Tories are all as bad in my view.

Totally agree about New Labour, everything that is happening flows from their political ideogogy and they are totally pro consultants.


----------



## melmaloney (Nov 4, 2008)

*What's changed?*

   From www.lambethlabour.com in 2006 -


"The full extent of the crisis created by Lambeth’s former Lib Dem and Tory Housing bosses has been revealed in a briefing to the new Administration. The scale of the mismanagement is truly staggering.
The briefing confirms that in the final year of the Lib Dem and Tory administration Lambeth’s Housing department overspent on their budget by an incredible £9million. It goes on to say that £5 million worth of savings which was supposed to be made as a result of a reframing exercise 'appear not to have been delivered.'
The newly released information makes clear the true level of incompetence of former Lib Dem Housing boss Keith Fitchett and his Deputy Bernard Gentry. Labour Councillors, who were elected to run the council in May, are now putting in place measures to deal with the financial mess for the benefit of tenants and leaseholders
The document shows under the Lib Dems, repairs were not being properly managed and that localised repair teams were not delivering for tenants. It states: 'Repairs spending is generally much higher than budgeted. Local services teams have not achieved significant volumes of repairs.'
The briefing goes on to say that, pending any recovery, money from the £2.8 million housing fraud will be borne by Lambeth Council. In 2005, poor management and lack of financial checking in Housing lead to a fraudster stealing £2.8 million from the council, leading to cancelled repairs and the resignation of the Lib Dem Housing boss.
Councillor Jim Dickson, Lambeth’s Labour Finance Spokesperson said:
'We are now uncovering the full extent to which Lambeth tenants and leaseholders’ money has been mismanaged by the now departed Lib Dem-Tory administration. The figures show a department left in financial meltdown with repairs and other vital services suffering the consequences of fraud and the reframing fiasco.

Labour has identified these problems straight away and is now putting things right. Labour’s Housing Cabinet Member, John Kazantzis, has made it clear that he will not tolerate financial mismanagement in the housing department.' "



  Obviously, the problems are too deep-rooted to be remedied by Lambeth councillors. Surely it is now time to do what Councillor Lumsden suggested last month, ask the Housing Minister to send in professionals to clear up the mess?

Our own managers are obviously not up to the job, and councillors are not professionals, and can do very little where things have got this bad.


It is interesting - normally they are full of advice on every subject; but on this thread not one of them has yet appeared. [I don't think Oneman is a councillor. He would not get many votes in Lambeth.]


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2008)

Ah, the usual "a big boy did it and ran away" excuse from the current administration.
Thing is, we know these occurrences don't develop out of thin air, there has to be an existing culture of poor oversight, bad advice etc, for such overspends to happen.
Will Labour admit that?

Will they bollocks!


----------



## sexton (Nov 5, 2008)

*Have we had all the bad news yet?*


  

The situation disclosed by officers in the Report that they presented to Cabinet when they asked for £15 million additional funding is by any standards appalling, but it now appears that there may well be much worse to come.

If the administration accepts the Report, and attempts to carry its reccommendations into effect, there is no reason to suppose that it will resolve the situation. 

What will happen if the TMOs succeed in their counterclaim against the council for underpayment of allowances over the past six years? 

Should the Court find in their favour, not only will Lambeth not make the expected saving of £4.5 million, but they are likely to find themselves paying not only their own costs, but those of the TMOs - perhaps an additional £1.5 - 2 million.

However, there may be worse to come. Last week we heard the news that Holland Town TMO had become insolvent and was being wound up, with allegations of fraud all round.

The situation with URH (which is alleged to have liabilities of some £2 million) has not yet been touched upon.

There are also rumours that some £2 million allocated for maintenance/improvements in Myattsfield North has somehow 'vanished'.

In a situation of such uncertainty and distrust, why have residents not been kept properly informed about what is happening? Can it be that neither officers nor Members know the true position?

How now is it proposed to keep the HRA in balance?

While pursuing the chimera of an ALMO officers and councillors have neglected to keep their eye on the game!


----------



## sexton (Nov 6, 2008)

*Spin!*



sexton said:


> The situation disclosed by officers in the Report that they presented to Cabinet when they asked for £15 million additional funding is by any standards appalling, but it now appears that there may well be much worse to come.
> 
> If the administration accepts the Report, and attempts to carry its reccommendations into effect, there is no reason to suppose that it will resolve the situation.
> 
> ...






* There is no foundation to any of this. *

•	The dispute regarding allowances only affects a minority of the borough's TMOs and relates to payments in earlier years. The sum involved is comparatively small, and the dispute has nothing to do with the proposed reduction in the allowance that will be paid to all TMOs over the next three years.

•	The Council has been aware of the problems in Holland Town for some time, and the TMO's failure is unlikely to have any unforeseen effects on the HRA.

•	 None of Myattsfield North's funding has 'vanished'. It is all fully accounted for. 

•	URH have not yet published this years' accounts, but, since all your other 'information' is so wildly inaccurate, there is no reason to suppose that they have incurred the sort of loss suggested.


----------



## sexton (Nov 6, 2008)

*Now you see how dangerous it is to assume any rumour that you hear is correct unless it is supported by verifiable facts and figures.*

The ALMO project is an emotive one, and there are a lot of rumours floating about, many of which are ill-informed, if not positively malicious.

Residents need to think carefully before accepting them.

However the Council also needs to try harder to win their trust and give out more information


----------



## rennie (Nov 6, 2008)

No need for the large font mate, we can all ready ya know.


----------



## Silver_Fox (Nov 6, 2008)

> The ALMO project is an emotive one, and there are a lot of rumours floating about, many of which are ill-informed, if not positively malicious.



As I work for the ALMO nothing I have said is ill-informed or malicious.

The ALMO is in a total mess and there are huge budget cuts taking place as well as the redundancies which not only throw people on to the dole they also mean that services will get even worse.All the while we have consultants running the whole thing on £1000 a day!

The new labour councillors and senior management are not only following a right wing agenda they are also totally incompetent in many cases.


----------



## Rubyred6824 (Nov 7, 2008)

Wow Silver Fox knows you know.

We must not forget that there are two ALMOs in Lambeth "Lambeth Living & United Residents Housing"

United Residents Housing are not making jobs cuts although TMO allowances are being cut to make up the overspend which the former Lambeth Housing Directors (Consultants £1000pd) amassed. These directors are now in charge of Lambeth Living.
 ( God help them) ( Lambeth Living not the directors)

The 4 TMOs which fall under URH ALMO apart from one have not contributed to the overspend inside the housing department as they spend within their means. They are however being made to pay for others missmanagement.

The overspend was not helped by an instruction to stop carrying out repair works to void properties for 8 months due to Lambeth Housing overspending the budget. This is like keeping the shop open but closing the tills.

hundreds of properties left empty no rent collection paying for families to be in temp accom etc.

it does not take a genius to have forseen the problems which this caused. Many of Lambeth staff told managent what would happen if they left properties empty.  Did they listen? £18m overspend is the answer.

Lets not forget the new compture system which never worked for 7 months and the repair contractors who fleaced the Housing department. Payments on account (whoever heard of such a thing)

How overspent was the budget set for setting up Lambeth Living ALMO?

The millions of pounds being spent on the ill fated partnering contracts which Lambeth Living will not be able to afford.

Lambeth are right to fill the hole in the finances but they should also have to account for who was responcible for the overspend in the first place. I dont mean a other operation Ruby which spent £3m to see how £3m was nicked!

should I go on?


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2008)

sexton said:


> There are also rumours that some £2 million allocated for maintenance/improvements in Myattsfield North has somehow 'vanished'.



like all that central heating money a while back?


----------



## John the Fish (Nov 20, 2008)

*Lambeth Council, Lambeth Housing, Lambeth Living, Lambeth a------es!*

Right bloody mess, i'n'it?

Time to vote out the tossers who run it all - and to start asking the other lot what they are going to do about it. Can't get worse.

Nothing will improve unless someone has the guts to tackle the jokers in management. 

Has Lumsden got the answer? His lot didn't do much when Fitchett was running thing, but maybe if they call in the Mimistery, it might improve. Got to be worth a punt!



_You'll feel better after a day on the river and a couple of pints! _


----------



## Bob (Nov 21, 2008)

Dan U said:


> like all that central heating money a while back?



Actually that didn't really go 'missing'. It was stolen - and instantly the culprit was known (and fairly quickly IIRC tracked down and arrested). I think that the council's now got back most / all of that money.

Still not exactly a great system that allows somebody to so easily get away with defrauding £2m. Where I work it would be difficult to defraud more than a few hundred quid.


----------



## melmaloney (Nov 21, 2008)

Bob said:


> Actually that didn't really go 'missing'. It was stolen - and instantly the culprit was known (and fairly quickly IIRC tracked down and arrested). I think that the council's now got back most / all of that money.
> 
> Still not exactly a great system that allows somebody to so easily get away with defrauding £2m. Where I work it would be difficult to defraud more than a few hundred quid.



*Stolen - Yes*
*Recovered  - Less than half,* as I remember it, and in spite of being aware of the fraud, the council allowed the culprit to run with the money. They then spent another million on an investigation.


----------



## Bob (Dec 5, 2008)

*Update from today's SLP*

http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=27035&headline=Lambeth%20rent-hike%20is%20%27crushing%20blow%27



> HARD-UP council tenants face a rent-hike timebomb that will see bills rise by an average of at least £620-per-year because a bungling housing department is in financial crisis.
> 
> *Labour-run Lambeth plans to increase rents by an average of £12-per-week* from April 1 next year in a desperate bid to plug a deficit of up to £15million.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mind (Dec 6, 2008)

Bob said:


> But those who work in low-paid jobs and do not claim benefits – the remaining 37 per cent of tenants – will be forced to meet all the increases themselves.



That's the bit that makes me so upset.
It is typical.  This category of people are always the ones to suffer.

Sold down the river by those with lots of good intentions but absolutely no clue how to run anything, least of all a council.

It is a tragedy that people on low wages in this country are getting taxed. There is absolutely no need for it whatsoever.
The lucky few are made to jump through all sorts of hoops and get their own money back in "tax credits" while also paying for an army of thousands administer the madness.

Technically, you could argue they are already paying the housing benefits of the other tenants from their taxes and there is never any help or ease for them. Why?

There is something wrong with a country that sends a message that getting a job is not worth it unless you're earning 30k a year or more and you're far better off staying at home and getting magic benefits out of the air paid into your bank account.


----------



## cllr (Dec 17, 2008)

The latest in the story from the Council....

Dear councillor

You may be aware that Asuman Ozkan, Chair of Lambeth Living, was arrested earlier today. The allegations against Ms Ozkan are to do with fraud. 

We are not in a position to comment on the details of the case but wanted to let you know that she has been written to today by Lambeth Council asking her to step down as Chair of Lambeth Living. We do not wish to prejudge the case but in light of the arrest we believe that it is not appropriate for her to stay in post. If she does not step down we reserve our right under the management agreement to remove her from the role.

I would also like to make it clear that the issues involved do not relate to her role as Chair of Lambeth Living. 

Regards

Derrick Anderson
Chief Executive


----------



## brixtonworker (Dec 17, 2008)

oh my god, you couldn't make it up!

and that just after the news that Lambeth council is under investigation for fraud over the £22 million hole in housing finances.


----------



## Bob (Dec 18, 2008)

brixtonworker said:


> oh my god, you couldn't make it up!
> 
> and that just after the news that Lambeth council is under investigation for fraud over the £22 million hole in housing finances.



It's slightly depressing that with a £22m hole and the head housing guy arrested for fraud that Steve Reed (the Labour leader) blames it all on the Lib Dems - who lost power in May 2006.


----------



## Bob (Dec 18, 2008)

From the comments under the Standard article:



> It is with great regret that the tenants & leaseholders of our proud Borough find that once again we are caught up in such abysmal circumstances.
> We have recently held meetings of our Area Housing Forums to discuss the latest proposals of our Labour controlled authority on rent and service charges to be implemented in April 2009.
> 
> These proposals consist of a minimum rent rise of £12, plus an accross the board ncrease of 5% on all council service charges. This comes on top of an already implemented mid-term service charge increase of approx.65% designed to plug a gap in it's Housing Revenue account.
> ...


----------



## 15 Northgate Ct (Dec 18, 2008)

*Nothings changed......*

Wow......

Lambeth council still as corrupt as ever...

Is Red Ted still in charge?...hehe

Did Keith Fitchett of the Lib Dems ever become a council leader ??

My god tho I still miss the place......

Is the weed supplier behind the 'blue star house' (where u had to swallow a goldfish to prove urself) still going ??


excuse me first post...........


----------



## Dan U (Dec 18, 2008)

my mate got a call about the Head of Housing Finance job @ Lambeth.

he likes a challenge, which if he gets the job sounds like a good thing.

another contractor though (but one with years of HRA/ALMO/PFI experience)



Bob said:


> It's slightly depressing that with a £22m hole and the head housing guy arrested for fraud that Steve Reed (the Labour leader) blames it all on the Lib Dems - who lost power in May 2006.



and he becomes lead officer for Housing at London Councils. unreal.


----------



## Bob (Dec 19, 2008)

*South London Press today*



> FRAUD squad detectives have arrested the chairwoman of a controversial firm that manages council housing.
> 
> Plain clothes detectives swooped on the home of Lambeth Living Limited chairwoman Asuman Ozkan on Tuesday morning.
> 
> ...



Full story in the SLP doesn't say a huge amount more.


----------



## John the Fish (Dec 21, 2008)

_You'll feel better after a day on the river and a couple of pints! _




cllr said:


> The latest in the story from the Council....
> 
> Dear councillor
> 
> ...





*That's a bit sharp! Don't we give the poor woman a chance to put her case - I mean a trial, or anything?

You would have to be a real wally to volunteer for this board! What's the point anyway when the officers make all the decisions. Give them a rubber stamp, I say, and stop the farce.*


----------



## se5 (Dec 21, 2008)

Well it is fraud which is a fairly major allegation and its fairly standard procedure in my experience to require people to stand down from public office whilst Police investigations are carried out. 

I guess you put yourself forward to this role if you feel you have something to add and think you can improve the service - very much like any public role I guess. i presume you also get an allowance to compensate you for the time it takes


----------



## melmaloney (Dec 30, 2008)

se5 said:


> Well it is fraud which is a fairly major allegation and its fairly standard procedure in my experience to require people to stand down from public office whilst Police investigations are carried out.
> 
> I guess you put yourself forward to this role if you feel you have something to add and think you can improve the service - very much like any public role I guess. i presume you also get an allowance to compensate you for the time it takes




I don't think that it is 'usual' at all. 

To ask someone to stand down suggests that fellow board members have no confidence in the integrity of the person accused. Even if the council for political reasons wanted this person to stand down, one would have expected her fellow board members to have objected. From what I hear, they were not even consulted, and have raised no objection. 

I agree with John the Fish. It sounds like a kangaroo court!

I would be very hesitant indeed about getting involved with Lambeth Living in any way. It is quite clear that its board members are puppets. One wonders how they would feel if they were accused. Shame on them!


----------



## melmaloney (Dec 30, 2008)

And, by the way, I understand that ALMO board members are not paid anything other than put of pocket expenses, although, when the £250 million comes through, this may change.


----------



## Bob (Jan 25, 2009)

Couple of things on this that are are new.

There's a report on the fraud issue in this week's Private Eye - not a huge amount new apart from saying that the relevant person has previously been in trouble in some way with Lambeth housing.

And the South London Press has details of teh service charges / rent increases this year. They're not online but they're huge. Rents up £12 a week and all of the service charges up a lot. Some combinations of service charge increases (e.g. heating plus concierge) might hit something like £30 a week.


----------



## Voroni (Feb 5, 2009)

brix said:


> I'm interested in standing as an independent candidate I think.  How would I go about it and when's the next round of elections?



I would definitely be interested in voting for an Independent.  How about independent candidates in all the wards in the 2010 local elections?


----------



## se5 (Feb 5, 2009)

independents would be unlikely to win any council seats  I fear (but am willing to be proved wrong!) because of the strength of the local party organisations that backup and promote their candidates.

If you are thinking of standing as an independent you have to start organising now - put yourself around the council ward, make yourself known locally so that there is something to build on when the election campaign gears up in advance of the May 2010 elections


----------



## Voroni (Feb 5, 2009)

Of course there are limitations on the number of independent votes but considering how disaffected so many people are there is lots of potential too.

A network of independents standing in consecutive wards in 2010 could be quite attractive, couldn't it?  I myself would finally have somebody to actually vote for.  Those candidates could obviously then collaborate together.

A lot of people here seem very clued-up on what the problems are at local level and how they could be solved.

Wouldn't it be good to have them in charge?

As well as getting known locally, how about organising a network of independents on social networking sites and bulletin boards like this?

Given the disillusionment out there, anything's possible


----------



## Voroni (Feb 6, 2009)

I would DEFINITELY vote for an independent candidate whose campaign is based on opposition to the privatisation of our public services.  In fact, after all these years watching it go in the other direction, I'd actually be very excited to do so.


----------



## melmaloney (Feb 13, 2009)

An officer! - has just sent me a link to an interesting article in the on-line housing magazine for council employees - http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/hub.aspx?navCode=5
Shame that South London Press can't write articles like that. I suppose that they are frightened of losing all that lovely council advertising money - still, if there was more stuff like that in it, most tenants would not mind paying 50p a week for the Friday issue!


----------



## melmaloney (Feb 13, 2009)

*Article in Inside Housing Mag*



melmaloney said:


> An officer! - has just sent me a link to an interesting article in the on-line housing magazine for council employees - http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/hub.aspx?navCode=5
> Shame that South London Press can't write articles like that. I suppose that they are frightened of losing all that lovely council advertising money - still, if there was more stuff like that in it, most tenants would not mind paying 50p a week for the Friday issue!



I am sorry, the correct link for this article is - http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6502904


----------



## Bob (Feb 13, 2009)

That's pretty comprehensive. There are some gems in here:


> The defunct Holland Town TMO is also under investigation after a suspicious cheque passed through its bank account. The cheque, originally for £52, appeared to have been copied and the amount changed to £42,000.


----------



## ricbake (Feb 13, 2009)

melmaloney said:


> An officer! - has just sent me a link to an interesting article in the on-line housing magazine for council employees - http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/hub.aspx?navCode=5
> Shame that South London Press can't write articles like that. I suppose that they are frightened of losing all that lovely council advertising money - still, if there was more stuff like that in it, most tenants would not mind paying 50p a week for the Friday issue!



I saw this earlier this week and copied it to all the editorial staff at the South London Press and Kate Hoey - not one response!


----------



## Bob (Feb 13, 2009)

ricbake said:


> I saw this earlier this week and copied it to all the editorial staff at the South London Press and Kate Hoey - not one response!



To be fair the SLP usually does cover this sort of thing.

The outrage is Lambeth Life. We're paying a fortune for Lambeth to tell us every month how wonderful the council is.


----------



## SLP (Feb 13, 2009)

ricbake said:


> I saw this earlier this week and copied it to all the editorial staff at the South London Press and Kate Hoey - not one response!



There is nothing new in the inside housing piece that we haven't broken previously (in most cases months ago). 

Greg, SLP


----------



## melmaloney (Feb 14, 2009)

*Thought . . .*

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/hub.aspx?navCode=5

 If those in charge of our housing can lose nearly £40,000,000 in one year without any additional major works, how long will the £250,000,000 (or whatever money we get) last?


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2009)

The fucking huge rent rises are happening. Our rent has just soared up nearly 20 fucking per cent.

I've still no idea what this ALMO was supposed to do, but it sure feels foisted on us.


----------



## aurora green (Mar 2, 2009)

I've just got home and opened my letter. 

A massive rent increase of £16 per week!!!!!

I have been re reading the letter over and over because it is so much, I kept thinking I must have got it wrong....

Which of course, I haven't.

This is unbelievable and outrageous.


----------



## aurora green (Mar 2, 2009)

Did I say I was shocked.....?
Bastards.


----------



## vauxhallmum (Mar 3, 2009)

Rent up £13.52 per week 

Not happy


----------



## Not a Vet (Mar 3, 2009)

Yes, I was chatting to a friend this morning who's rent has been increased by 25%. Presumably, that's how they can afford to freeze the council tax for 2 years by whacking up the rents instead


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2009)

swamp them with complaints and take it all the way to the local housing ombudsman.  seriously, if hundreds of people make formal complaints they have to answer them all, if you all take it to the ombudsman via the normal process the ombudsman may decide that it was unreasonable - especially if you point out that they didn't raise council tax so in effect the council tenants are subsidising the homeowners.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2009)

Not a Vet said:


> Yes, I was chatting to a friend this morning who's rent has been increased by 25%. Presumably, that's how they can afford to freeze the council tax for 2 years by whacking up the rents instead



That's just plain wrong!


----------



## se5 (Mar 3, 2009)

Not a Vet said:


> Yes, I was chatting to a friend this morning who's rent has been increased by 25%. Presumably, that's how they can afford to freeze the council tax for 2 years by whacking up the rents instead



Far be it for me to defend Lambeth but I think legally its not possible for them to do that - the housing revenue account has to be totally separate from any of the other council finances and cant be used for cross subsidy either for housing to council tax or council tac to housing.

The freezing of council tax is a fairly standard thing done by politicians of all parties if they can - its because the bills come in just a few weeks before the election and so they think that  it will win them votes.


----------



## Mind (Mar 3, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> especially if you point out that they didn't raise council tax so in effect the council tenants are subsidising the homeowners.



That argument wouldn't wash with anybody I'm afraid.

First of all, just because I don't live in council property does not make me a homeowner.  Many of us do not even get a look in despite being on the register for over a decade!

Secondly, if council tenants are paying £1 rent £1 council tax and private tenants and homeowners are paying £2 rent and £2 council tax
asking the council tenants to pay £1.25 rent (An increase of 25%) to the council is *not* a subsidy to the person who still has to pay £4.

Besides as SE5 rightly says, the housing budget is very much separate from council tax revenue.

The council tenants are paying for an increase in rent to their landlords.
Just as I have had to pay to my landlords on occasion.
Those of us struggling with rent and mortgages should not have to stump up extra to an incompetent council *to pay for homes they don't even live in and that are already subsidised!!*

The officials have cocked up and the innocent will have to pay for it as usual.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Mar 4, 2009)

EPetittion against the rises here http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=103&RPID=5311087


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2009)

Mind, the argument probably won't wash but the Housing Ombudsman certainly has the power to force a rethink over rent rises.  I was under the impression that there was a very complicated formulae that governed LA and HA rent rises that couldn't be overwritten.


----------



## zenie (Mar 4, 2009)

Is it actual rent or have the 'service charges' that have increased?


----------



## se5 (Mar 4, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> Mind, the argument probably won't wash but the Housing Ombudsman certainly has the power to force a rethink over rent rises.  I was under the impression that there was a very complicated formulae that governed LA and HA rent rises that couldn't be overwritten.



As I understand it in absolute terms the rents in Lambeth are still lower than many other comparable inner London boroughs so there probably wouldnt be a reason to complain.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Mar 4, 2009)

zenie said:


> Is it actual rent or have the 'service charges' that have increased?



For me it's the rent. I think water rates have increased a little, i'm tlaking pence as opposed to pounds, thankfully I don't pay other services charges.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 4, 2009)

Mind said:


> That argument wouldn't wash with anybody I'm afraid.
> 
> First of all, just because I don't live in council property does not make me a homeowner.  Many of us do not even get a look in despite being on the register for over a decade!
> 
> ...



I thought council tenants' rents already subsidised central government, not the other way around.


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2009)

zenie said:


> Is it actual rent or have the 'service charges' that have increased?


Rent *and* service charges, but the rent is the biggest hike.


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2009)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> EPetittion against the rises here http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=103&RPID=5311087


*signed


----------



## tommers (Mar 4, 2009)

can't be bothered to read through the thread but I had a conversation with somebody who works in lambeth housing dept the other day... and they said that there have been large amounts of money "going missing" (i.e. millions) and a massive budget overspend.  Hence reductions of I can't remember the figure but something like 10% across all council depts.


----------



## aurora green (Mar 4, 2009)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> EPetittion against the rises here http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=103&RPID=5311087



Also signed.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2009)

Housing Association rent has gone up too. Just a few pennies short of £20 a week...I wouldn't mind so much if they were excellent landlords, and they are better than Lambeth were in many respects, but they are just as rubbish with repairs done by rubbish contractors as Lambeth were when I was a council tenant.


----------



## Bob (Mar 5, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> I thought council tenants' rents already subsidised central government, not the other way around.



They do.

In fact there's a campaign on by Lib Dem MP Mike Hancock on this - it's a decent chunk of cash - £1000 a year on his estimates in Portsmouth.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/hancock-to-take-1000-a-year-tenants-tax-protest-to-parliament-12038.html



> *Originally posted by Mike Hancock*council tenants are angry because each household will be paying £1,000 a year over the next thirty years directly into the Government’s coffers. The Government takes money from Portsmouth and 205 other councils. Some money is distributed back to councils. 50 councils benefit and 156 pay money to the Government but there is an overall surplus that the Government keeps of £194 million. Therefore a large surplus - £4.6 million this year from Portsmouth alone goes into general Government expenditure – effectively a tax that only council tenants have to pay. With large increases due in the amount taken in coming years, Portsmouth City Council estimates that unless it is reformed Portsmouth’s 15,000 council tenants will pay £500 million over the next 30 years to the Government – over £1,000 a year.



I think part of the confusion on subsidies is that many council tenants get their rents subsidised by Housing Benefit. But for those who don't they're sitting ducks for the government to squeeze more money out of them.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 6, 2009)

se5 said:


> As I understand it in absolute terms the rents in Lambeth are still lower than many other comparable inner London boroughs so there probably wouldnt be a reason to complain.




Nevertheless, making a fuss should happen, and doing it through the official channels is as good a way as any.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 6, 2009)

tommers said:


> can't be bothered to read through the thread but I had a conversation with somebody who works in lambeth housing dept the other day... and they said that there have been large amounts of money "going missing" (i.e. millions) and a massive budget overspend.  Hence reductions of I can't remember the figure but something like 10% across all council depts.



This is true - someone linked to the Housing Today article which links.  Basically there has been years and years of fraud, theft, and poor management.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 7, 2009)

Also signed - I don't see why tenants should have to bail out the council.  Rent going up is bad enough, service charge going up is worse - HB doesn't cover it.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 7, 2009)

Bob said:


> They do.
> 
> In fact there's a campaign on by Lib Dem MP Mike Hancock on this - it's a decent chunk of cash - £1000 a year on his estimates in Portsmouth.
> 
> ...



I think the 'confusion' is actually an outright lie perpetrated by dishonest right wingers myself.  Like nobody outside of social housing never claims housing benefit (that will be a higher rent than most council tenants too)

That petition says it's only for residents of Lambeth to sign, unfortunately.


----------



## derf (Mar 7, 2009)

Something strange at Lambeth council?
Can't be. They can afford 30+ grand on a graphic designer to tell you how good they are.
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/JobsCareers/GraphicDesigner/

They have support for their tenants
http://www.24dash.com/news/Housing/2009-02-26-Lambeth-Council-launches-tenancy-support-projects

They are looking for someone to make sure you all pay your rent on time.
He will get 60+ grand a year.
http://jobs.telegraph.co.uk/job/223824-permanent-london-head-of-income-and-revenue-po9.aspx

Twinning

The former Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth and its successor have been twinned with the Vincennes district of Paris in France since 1955. Lambeth also has twinning arrangements with Bluefields in Nicaragua; Moskvoretsky in Russia (although this is abeyance since changes to the city government of Moscow); Shinjuku in Japan; and Spanish Town in Jamaica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Lambeth

Not that your politicians would dream of going on a trip to meet their counterparts in Jamaica while winter takes hold of the UK.


This isn't a troll job but, in all seriousness, vote conservative next time.
Their councils tend to have the lowest council rents and the lowest council taxes.
Up to you like. Makes sod all difference to me really.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2009)

Lookee here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7928686.stm
Don't think it affects my massive Housing Association rent hike though


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 7, 2009)

derf said:


> [/url]
> 
> Twinning
> 
> ...



Happy to stand corrected, but AFAIK there has been no visit to Spanish Town, Jamaica by a Lambeth Councillor or official in the last fifteen years.


----------



## se5 (Mar 7, 2009)

derf said:


> This isn't a troll job but, in all seriousness, vote conservative next time.
> Their councils tend to have the lowest council rents and the lowest council taxes.
> Up to you like. Makes sod all difference to me really.



And Conservative councils tend to be located in rich areas where the local authority does not have to deal with the same amount of poverty, unemployment, dependence on social housing and other issues that inner city councils such as Lambeth have to deal with. 

Besides a vote for the Conservatives in Lambeth is likely to make no difference - if anything it will ensure that Labour retains control (as the Conservatives are the challengers to Labour in only one or two wards- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Council_election,_2006) - the Lib Dems are the only political party that is likely to come anywhere close to challenging Labour


----------



## se5 (May 8, 2009)

According to today's South London Press Lambeth are in discussions with central government about getting an extra £11million government funding which will be backdated to April and so the rent increases will be reduced - hmm must be elections coming up next year!


----------



## Bob (May 12, 2009)

According to the Lurking About SE11 website there's a report about to come out on this:

http://southeasteleven.blogspot.com/2009/05/lambeth-housing-audit-conservatives.html



> *Originally posted by Lurking about SE11: *In the meantime, somebody from the Lambeth Tories has, according to Twitter, managed to get hold of a report from the Audit Commission, damning Lambeth Living (the organisation that manages Lambeth's Social Housing). It's an Arms Length Management Organisation, for those who like the lingo. Apparently, the Audit Commission has said that every single area audited within the Lambeth Living organisation is "weak". More information about this matter is on the Lambeth Conservative website.
> 
> And what's more, due to the fact that the Auditor's report is currently being witheld, the Tories say they're prepared to publish the document on the Lambeth Conservative website for everyone to read... Looks like red hot stuff to me. I hope they have good lawyers!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 12, 2009)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Housing Association rent has gone up too. Just a few pennies short of £20 a week...I wouldn't mind so much if they were excellent landlords, and they are better than Lambeth were in many respects, but they are just as rubbish with repairs done by rubbish contractors as Lambeth were when I was a council tenant.


 

£20 a week 

I hope mine doesn't go up that much


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (May 12, 2009)

se5 said:


> According to today's South London Press Lambeth are in discussions with central government about getting an extra £11million government funding which will be backdated to April and so the rent increases will be reduced - hmm must be elections coming up next year!



i thought margaret beckett ruled this out last week as it would be seen as giving special treatment

edit: not last week in fact, quite a few weeks ago, has there ben a change then?
Link to Kate Hoey speaking in Parliament about this and Beckett's response


----------



## se5 (May 12, 2009)

Well the SLP article gave the impression that a way forward had been found for the government to give the money to Lambeth and that an announcement was due any day soon


----------



## Bob (May 13, 2009)

I've just had an email from the _Lurking around SE11 blog_


> LEAKED copy of Lambeth Council ALMO Draft Inspection Report
> Posted: 13 May 2009 12:28 AM PDT
> An anonymous contributor has leaked to me part of the Lambeth Arms Length Management Draft Inspection Report, which I referred to in my post two days ago here. The document is an inspection of Lambeth Living, Lambeth Council's social housing management wing, and is confidential, and, as far as I know, has not been released on account of it being so critical of the council's service.
> 
> ...



http://southeasteleven.blogspot.com/


----------



## lang rabbie (May 13, 2009)

The Streatham Guardian also appear to have received a leaked copy last week:

Lambeth housing management slammed in report


----------



## se5 (May 13, 2009)

And its in the SLP with an unflattering photo of Lib Dem Ashley Lumsden looking particularly smug


----------



## melmaloney (May 14, 2009)

*Get real!*

Now that many tenant leaders, the opposition parties, DCH and the local papers all appear to have received copies of this report, witholding it from those who live in council properties makes no sense. 

If, as one poster has suggested, it complements officers for their work in some areas, refusing to release it will only make the situation worse.

We residents, who suffer most from the incompetence of councillors and officers, already know the truth - THERE IS NO HOPE OF LAMBETH LIVING ACHIEVING 2 STARS BEFORE THE OFFER OF FUNDING CLOSES.


----------



## cllr (May 15, 2009)

Looks like someone has posted some text of the report in the comments on this thread...

http://southeasteleven.blogspot.com/2009/05/leaked-copy-of-lambeth-council-almo.html


----------

