# Rushcroft road: notice to quit



## wemakeyousoundb (May 15, 2012)

One of the squatters I know there just received a notice to quit today
:/


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2012)

Some of them have been there for decades.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

For fuck's sake.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 15, 2012)

can't believe there are any still left...


----------



## RaverDrew (May 15, 2012)

Not good at all, have many close friends who squat there.  Was only a matter of time though tbh.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (May 15, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Not good at all, have many close friends who squat there.  Was only a matter of time though tbh.


yes, he's been worried about this for a while. Hopefully there will be some time for people to get something sorted, it doesn't very easy at this time from what I've heard from other people being evicted in this period.
I'm wondering if they are going to go for an all in one "event" or try staggered evictions, either by flats or by buildings.


----------



## Rushy (May 15, 2012)

Are there still whole squatted buildings on Rushcroft? I thought that the ones on the corner of Electric Lane were the last ones?


----------



## just.joe (May 15, 2012)

shit, which block is it do you know?


----------



## colacubes (May 15, 2012)

Seems like it's most if not all the blocks. I know 3 different people from 3 different blocks that have had letters in the last 48 hours


----------



## Belushi (May 15, 2012)

New Brixton


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

The final sweepdown. Soon we'll be awash with £40 nu-Brixton foodie happenings with no place for what's left of the community.


----------



## colacubes (May 15, 2012)

Make that 4 now  Seems like it's all going


----------



## RaverDrew (May 15, 2012)

shit


----------



## AKA pseudonym (May 15, 2012)

are these personal addressed letters? if so... how did they know names


----------



## RaverDrew (May 15, 2012)

AKA pseudonym said:


> are these personal addressed letters? if so... how did they know names


 
They don't need to be afaik.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (May 15, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> They don't need to be afaik.


so its a general letter addressed to the gaff?
feck it then... the 'new laws' don't come into effect until september?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

AKA pseudonym said:


> so its a general letter addressed to the gaff?
> feck it then... the 'new laws' don't come into effect until september?


 
Not sure about the legality of applying them retrospectively (i.e. I don't think it's legal to do people under the new laws if they originally occupied the squat when squatting was legally permissible), either.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (May 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not sure about the legality of applying them retrospectively (i.e. I don't think it's legal to do people under the new laws if they originally occupied the squat when squatting was legally permissible), either.


thats my thinking too....
just concerned if 'they' are addressing individuals rather than the collective.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

AKA pseudonym said:


> thats my thinking too....
> just concerned if 'they' are addressing individuals rather than the collective.....


 
As I haven't really had anything to do with squatting for over 20 years, I'm not sure how current my knowledge is, but you can't issue notice to quit to "the occupier", as far as I remember, it has to be to a specific person or persons.
If they have addressed them to the individuals, there's still the matter of what set of laws they're doing it under, and whether they've bothered to do things properly, though.


----------



## RaverDrew (May 15, 2012)

When our block was evicted from Rushcroft Road in 2009 none of the correspondence was personally addressed. It made no difference http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/evictions-in-rushcroft-road-brixton.209361/


----------



## colacubes (May 15, 2012)

Tbh I think they're just cracking down on everyone.  The people I spoke to tonight have been there between 6 months and well over 10 years and fairly legit with the council.  It seems like a full sweep to me


----------



## AKA pseudonym (May 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I haven't really had anything to do with squatting for over 20 years, I'm not sure how current my knowledge is, but you can't issue notice to quit to "the occupier", as far as I remember, it has to be to a specific person or persons.
> If they have addressed them to the individuals, there's still the matter of what set of laws they're doing it under, and whether they've bothered to do things properly, though.


still 'legal' though (squatting that is lol)
http://www.squatter.org.uk/


----------



## AKA pseudonym (May 15, 2012)

nipsla said:


> Tbh I think they're just cracking down on everyone. The people I spoke to tonight have been there between 6 months and well over 10 years and fairly legit with the council. It seems like a full sweep to me


It's gonna be a big london issue due to the fundalympics... major crackdowns ahead....

It has happened every time the sponsors come to town.....


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (May 16, 2012)

Rushy said:


> Are there still whole squatted buildings on Rushcroft? I thought that the ones on the corner of Electric Lane were the last ones?


yep, one of the persons in his block has been there since 1978
:/


nipsla said:


> Make that 4 now  Seems like it's all going


Thought it  might be now I've seen the letter, basically the council is sending some of their people in to see who they "have to" rehome next Monday, then if the deadline  is missed bailiffs come into the picture.


RaverDrew said:


> They don't need to be afaik.


yep, "persons unknown" "unlawful occupier" whatever the term is


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not sure about the legality of applying them retrospectively (i.e. I don't think it's legal to do people under the new laws if they originally occupied the squat when squatting was legally permissible), either.


They've had possession orders from the court for (ASAIK) all the individual properties (with persons unknown listed) for several years now.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (May 16, 2012)

woah.... if someone has been there from '78.... 34 years... do they not technically own the premises?
eta: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/Owningproperty/DG_196292


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (May 16, 2012)

AKA pseudonym said:


> woah.... if someone has been there from '78.... 34 years... do they not technically own the premises?
> eta: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/Owningproperty/DG_196292


I'm not a specialist on this but from what i remember from various past cases of people I know I think the 12 years "rule" involves a clause of no contact with the owner and no attempt from them to repossess the premises.


----------



## editor (May 16, 2012)

I'm written a piece here documenting the whole sad story:
http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixton...-rushcroft-road-residents-get-notice-to-quit/


----------



## Brixton Blog (May 16, 2012)

Hi all,
I am Zoe from the Brixton Blog. We'd like to write a piece on the Rushcroft Rd evictions and it would be great to interview some of the residents affected. I wondered if wemakeyousoundb or nipsla might be able to help us get in contact with someone. Brixton Blog should be covering more of this news where we haven't before. Thanks for the blog post above, editor - it's great. 
Zoe


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> They've had possession orders from the court for (ASAIK) all the individual properties (with persons unknown listed) for several years now.


 
Ah, right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

AKA pseudonym said:


> woah.... if someone has been there from '78.... 34 years... do they not technically own the premises?
> eta: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/Owningproperty/DG_196292


 
No, adverse possession only ever applies *if* you're left alone (not contacted) by the owners or the courts w/r/t to the property for twelve years.


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2012)

Brixton Blog said:


> Hi all,
> I am Zoe from the Brixton Blog. We'd like to write a piece on the Rushcroft Rd evictions and it would be great to interview some of the residents affected. I wondered if wemakeyousoundb or nipsla might be able to help us get in contact with someone. Brixton Blog should be covering more of this news where we haven't before. Thanks for the blog post above, editor - it's great.
> Zoe


 
Hello Zoe

Well I know someone there. But whether they want to talk to Brixton Blog is up to them. They are in tricky situation at moment. I think there is one S/L person left but all the rest are now squatters as the S/L all gradually left. Not all squatters would want to put there head above the parapet in media. When u say talk to would it be confidential if they ask for that? They possibly could do with some support from media .PM me.

I talked to someone from RR today .

Correction Hereford House already sold.

Remaining blocks are Oval, Homer , Lancaster, Granville , Matlock and Clarence.

44 flats and possibly about 100 people affected. Some with children.

This is serious as it looks like Council may be going for big push after its "success" at Clifton Mansions imo. If it could get these people out it could get Camelot in. Or it could be another milestone in the long saga of RR. And the Council might not act yet. People are not sure yet.

Over the years the Council has given verbal promises that some of the blocks would be kept for social housing. So if Brixton Blog journos want to ask Council if they are going to keep to that that would be good.


----------



## colacubes (May 16, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Hello Zoe
> 
> *Over the years the Council has given verbal promises that some of the blocks would be kept for social housing. So if Brixton Blog journos want to ask Council if they are going to keep to that that would be good.*


 
This would be the best thing you could do Zoe.  I'll mention it to people but as they're people I know well I suspect they'll feel the same and not want to put their heads about the parapet on this. The thing you and the blog could do is really question the council on this.  A lot of people there have been trying their hardest to go legit with the council for a long time afaik, but they're being slightly shafted on this.  There's a lot of long term residents there and this would be a big blow to the mix of community in the very centre of Brixon.


----------



## editor (May 16, 2012)

Sadly a "verbal promise"  doesn't count for an awful lot these days


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2012)

nipsla said:


> This would be the best thing you could do Zoe. I'll mention it to people but as they're people I know well I suspect they'll feel the same and not want to put their heads about the parapet on this. The thing you and the blog could do is really question the council on this. A lot of people there have been trying their hardest to go legit with the council for a long time afaik, but they're being slightly shafted on this. There's a lot of long term residents there and this would be a big blow to the mix of community in the very centre of Brixon.


 
And the other thing Brixton Blog could ask is what has this to do with the "Cooperative Council". Local people are not being asked if they want the blocks sold off or kept as some form of social/ affordable housing.

I thought the "Cooperative Council" meant that we would be involved in decision making.


----------



## editor (May 16, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> And the other thing Brixton Blog could ask is what has this to do with the "Cooperative Council". Local people are not being asked if they want the blocks sold off or kept as some form of social/ affordable housing.
> 
> I thought the "Cooperative Council" meant that we would be involved in decision making.


That's certainly something I'll be raising over the Southwyck House  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 "consultation."


----------



## Brixton Blog (May 17, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Hello Zoe
> 
> Well I know someone there. But whether they want to talk to Brixton Blog is up to them. They are in tricky situation at moment. I think there is one S/L person left but all the rest are now squatters as the S/L all gradually left. Not all squatters would want to put there head above the parapet in media. When u say talk to would it be confidential if they ask for that? They possibly could do with some support from media .PM me.
> .


 
Hi Gramsci, thanks so much - being fairly new to u75, I seem to be unable to PM you (!) but good to say this to all anyway - we would be happy to keep any people we talked to anonymous if they wanted. That's absolutely fine. My email is info[at]brixtonblog[dot]com - it would be great if you could email me with more details, if your friend were happy to be interviewed or knew others who might. We'd treat it with the greatest sensitivity, of course. 

And we will certainly be talking to the council about this too (thanks nipsla)
Zoe


----------



## editor (May 17, 2012)

Brixton Blog said:


> Hi Gramsci, thanks so much - being fairly new to u75, I seem to be unable to PM you (!) but good to say this to all anyway - we would be happy to keep any people we talked to anonymous if they wanted. That's absolutely fine. My email is info[at]brixtonblog[dot]com - it would be great if you could email me with more details, if your friend were happy to be interviewed or knew others who might. We'd treat it with the greatest sensitivity, of course.
> 
> And we will certainly be talking to the council about this too (thanks nipsla)
> Zoe


They're called 'conversations' on this 'ere new fangled board.

Click on his avatar (above his user name) and select 'start a conversation' and you're off.


----------



## Brixton Blog (May 17, 2012)

editor said:


> They're called 'conversations' on this 'ere new fangled board.
> 
> Click on his avatar (above his user name) and select 'start a conversation' and you're off.


ah ok, thanks!


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2012)

Brixton Blog said:


> Hi Gramsci, thanks so much - being fairly new to u75, I seem to be unable to PM you (!) but good to say this to all anyway - we would be happy to keep any people we talked to anonymous if they wanted. That's absolutely fine. My email is info[at]brixtonblog[dot]com - it would be great if you could email me with more details, if your friend were happy to be interviewed or knew others who might. We'd treat it with the greatest sensitivity, of course.
> 
> And we will certainly be talking to the council about this too (thanks nipsla)
> Zoe


 
Just replied to u.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (May 17, 2012)

Brixton Blog said:


> Hi Gramsci, thanks so much - being fairly new to u75, I seem to be unable to PM you (!) but good to say this to all anyway - we would be happy to keep any people we talked to anonymous if they wanted. That's absolutely fine. My email is info[at]brixtonblog[dot]com - it would be great if you could email me with more details, if your friend were happy to be interviewed or knew others who might. We'd treat it with the greatest sensitivity, of course.
> 
> And we will certainly be talking to the council about this too (thanks nipsla)
> Zoe


My friend is in principle up for it, I will pass your email to him.


----------



## Brixton Blog (May 17, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> My friend is in principle up for it, I will pass your email to him.


Thanks for your help, that's brilliant. Z


----------



## Brixton Blog (May 28, 2012)

Hi all, see here for my article on Rushcroft Rd and the eviction process here. http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958

I had already asked the council the above questions (about the future use of the properties, social housing and the co-operative council) among others and the response they gave me is included in the article in full. 

I will be looking to interview others on Rushcroft Rd as this process continues so do let me know if any acquaintances (@nipsla and co) would be willing to talk to me, again anonymously if they would rather. 

Thanks again,
Z


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 28, 2012)

Brixton Blog said:


> Hi all, see here for my article on Rushcroft Rd and the eviction process here. http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958.........


Some people have been there for a very long time, years and years. A bit more background would have been good. A lot of the residents have been very active in doing some great stuff for the area.


----------



## editor (May 28, 2012)

What the squatters really need now is community support, campaigning on their behalf and an understanding of their contributions to the Brixton community over the years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2012)

Brixton Blog said:


> Hi all, see here for my article on Rushcroft Rd and the eviction process here. http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958
> 
> I had already asked the council the above questions (about the future use of the properties, social housing and the co-operative council) among others and the response they gave me is included in the article in full.
> 
> ...


 
I found the bit I've bolded very interesting:
'Councillor Pete Robbins, cabinet member for neighbourhood services, said: ”Bringing these Rushcroft Road properties back into use means we’re fulfilling our promise to retain social housing in the centre of Brixton – but these properties should be for the benefit of those who are in genuine need of housing, not for squatters.
“The squatters at Rushcroft Road have absolutely no right to be there and I am determined to take a zero tolerance approach. We plan tough action and are in the process of applying for bailiff warrants. *The squatters will be notified that proceedings are imminent, but rather than force us to spend taxpayers money on legal proceedings it would be better if they just left now.*” '

What's *quite* so interesting is that as "cabinet member for neighbourhood services", Councillor Robbins should be well aware that if the people squatting Rushcroft Road "just left", they will have, in the eyes of the legislation pertaining to quallifying social housing, rendered themselves "intentionally homeless", and have lost any primary qualification for social housing.
At the very least Councillor Robbins has shown himself as a man who doesn't have an understanding the minutiae of his social housing brief, at worst as the sort of arrogant cretin who deliberately misleads people in order to get his own way.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (May 28, 2012)

Whose to say those squatting aren't in genuine need of housing, anyhow? Afterall, they have to live somewhere.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (May 28, 2012)

IIRC when squatting you are "technically" homeless, for housing list and other legal purposes


----------



## netbob (May 28, 2012)

I just posted a reply to Pete's comments: http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958


----------



## Rushy (May 28, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> IIRC when squatting you are "technically" homeless, for housing list and other legal purposes


That's what I'd heard too.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2012)

http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958#comment-9142

"Councillor Pete Robbins, cabinet member for neighbourhood services, said:  ”Bringing these Rushcroft Road properties back into use means we’re fulfilling our promise to retain social housing in the centre of Brixton – but these properties should be for the benefit of those who are in genuine need of housing, not for squatters."

If I read this correctly he is saying all these properties will be kept as social housing. I am a bit surprised about that. What the Council normally do with ex Short Life property is to send in a surveyor. If the surveyor reckons it will cost to much to bring up the property to decent homes standard then the property is put for sale. 

The Council may be thinking of selling/transferring to an RSL. But they will need the funds to rehab the properties. This can be done by buying the properties from Council with some kind of agreement to sell some to fund the rehab of rest as "affordable housing".

I would like to know from Council how in practical terms they will fulfill the promise given Government cuts and lack of finance.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2012)

The nineteenth-century flats on Rushcroft Road have been owned by Lambeth Council since the 1970s, when they were compulsorily bought for demolition to build a new motorway and high-rise council housing in Brixton. These plans fell through and Rushcroft Road remained.
Many of the flats were sold, but some remained council-owned. Not all were filled with new council tenants when previous tenants moved out and, having been left empty and in disrepair, they were occupied by squatters.
from Blog article:
http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958#comment-9142
It is correct to say that they were CPOd for development that never happened.

It is incorrect to say that when Council tenants left they were squatted. For many years they were Short Life. The Short Life in Rushcroft road and Clifton Mansions was run by London & Quadrant and RSL. It was never Short Life Coop.

For many years the Rushcroft Road Action Group (RAG) tried to get the Council to acknowledge there Short Life tenancies were secure tenancies. This took years of legal wrangling. A long story. Eventually the Council rehoused most of the Short Life. When the Short Life left the properties were then squatted as the Council didnt secure the properties either for sale or rehab for Council tenancies.

So this is a second time an established community has been moved on.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2012)

memespring said:


> I just posted a reply to Pete's comments: http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958


 
good reply


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2012)

Brixton Blog said:


> Hi all, see here for my article on Rushcroft Rd and the eviction process here. http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958
> 
> I had already asked the council the above questions (about the future use of the properties, social housing and the co-operative council) among others and the response they gave me is included in the article in full.
> 
> ...


 
I dont feel the Cllr fully answered your question on future use of properties. See my post #51

Also under the new Cooperative Council the Council should be asking the local community what it wants to happen to these buildings before any decisions are made.


----------



## peterkro (May 28, 2012)

The short life rehousing is still going on,many people are fighting for a small pool of rehousing stock,myself and many others who have lived in Brixton for decades are having their communities broken up.It is a very sad time for many of us.


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2012)

I was looking at some old clips of South London Press about the last Rushcroft Road evictions. One Cllr say the same as on Brixton Blog - that the properties will be brought back into use as social housing. The other clip quotes a spokesperson for Lambeth Council saying that the properties will be used "to fund social housing in Lambeth"- which means they will be sold.

The last lot of properties reclaimed by Council in Rushcroft Road were sold.

So when in the Brixton Blog the Cllr says that they will be used as social housing "we are fulfilling our promise to retain social housing in the centre of Brixton" his comment should be remembered. He has made definite assurance in the Blog that these properties will not be sold off to private developers.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 29, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> He has made definite assurance in the Blog that these properties will not be sold off to private developers.


Although in my experience assurances by politicians, whether on paper or verbally, are worth their weight in shit.


----------



## editor (May 29, 2012)

Remember the ALMO!


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Although in my experience assurances by politicians, whether on paper or verbally, are worth their weight in shit.


 
I know what u mean Mrs Magpie and Ed on ALMO thats is why Im surprised , after reading BB piece again, he made a categorial statement on behalf of the Labour Group on the Council (he does say "we") that the housing in RR would be retained as social housing. Its someone the Council can be held to. Brixton Blog have managed to get a Cllr to say this all credit to them.

here is quote in full from BB

" Councillor Pete Robbins, cabinet member for neighbourhood services, said: ”Bringing these Rushcroft Road properties back into use means we’re fulfilling our promise to retain social housing in the centre of Brixton – but these properties should be for the benefit of those who are in genuine need of housing, not for squatters."

I eagerly await to see the Council do these properties up for the deserving.


----------



## editor (May 29, 2012)

Still getting my head around the blanket assumption that a squatter can't be someone who is in genuine need of housing.

They certainly will be once they're thrown out into the street, mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

memespring said:


> I just posted a reply to Pete's comments: http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958


 
I've now replied to "Ed's" reply to my reply on there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> IIRC when squatting you are "technically" homeless, for housing list and other legal purposes


 
Unfortunately, leaving a squat before you're evicted from it, "technically homeless" status notwithstanding, counts as "voluntary homelessness". and can be used as a reason to disqualify you from the local housing list and/or emergency housing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

editor said:


> Remember the ALMO!


 
A pun that's *almost* awful, but not quite!


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've now replied to "Ed's" reply to my reply on there.


 
who is "Ed"? Its not the guy who runs BB with Zoe is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> who is "Ed"? Its not the guy who runs BB with Zoe is it?


 
No. Ed is the person I'm "debating" (  ) in the "comments" section on that blog page (I'm Sherman on there, by the way). I don't *think* Ed is Tim (the blog owner), anyway.


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2012)

Thanks for clearing that up. I realised ur Sherman.


----------



## EastEnder (May 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, leaving a squat before you're evicted from it, "technically homeless" status notwithstanding, counts as "voluntary homelessness". and can be used as a reason to disqualify you from the local housing list and/or emergency housing.


So the council are effectively asking people to put themselves in a position where they're homeless and not eligible for housing assistance, rather than wait to be evicted and have more chance of getting help? That's seriously immoral.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

EastEnder said:


> So the council are effectively asking people to put themselves in a position where they're homeless and not eligible for housing assistance, rather than wait to be evicted and have more chance of getting help? That's seriously immoral.


 
Yup. Unfortunately (from what I gather from an "insider") local authorities aren't bound by much rigid legislation as *who* they prioritise for service, just that they prioritise according to need, and a squatter who gives up a perfectly good squat (even though they're under imminent threat of eviction) *can be viewed* *as* (and I've stressed that, as opposed to "is defined as") having made themselves "intentionally homeless", and therefore the local authority has no obligation to them w/r/t accommodation.
Immorality born of a fucking awful system that means that social housing is rare as hen's teeth. A mate at Westminster reckoned they'd regularly sit down each day with 100 or so case files, and have to find the 2 or 3 "most deserving" cases, often by finding all sorts of nit-picking reasons to refuse other applicants.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 30, 2012)

So if they evict everyone without a tenancy, the council tenants (some of whom I understand are quite elderly) will be in empty blocks, without support of neighbours with the joy of looking forward to the relentless reverberation of refurbing. Or are they being moved out too, to make things easier for the council?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 30, 2012)

I think some of those flats are owned too, old-time owner occupiers. Will they be CPOed?


----------



## colacubes (May 30, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I think some of those flats are owned too, old-time owner occupiers. Will they be CPOed?


 
Not as far as I'm aware from what I've heard on the grapevine.  They'd just be doing work to the squatted flats rather than CPOing whole blocks.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 30, 2012)

nipsla said:


> Not as far as I'm aware from what I've heard on the grapevine. They'd just be doing work to the squatted flats rather than CPOing whole blocks.


 
God, poor them. The noise and dust will be awful. Plus all the usual security worries of main entrance doors being left open and workers with tools wandering in and out. Opportunist burglars paradise


----------



## colacubes (May 30, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> God, poor them. The noise and dust will be awful. Plus all the usual security worries of main entrance doors being left open and workers with tools wandering in and out. Opportunist burglars paradise


 
From what I understand some of them are not best pleased about the whole situation (evictions through to refurb etc).  But that's 3rd hand so have not idea whether true or not.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 30, 2012)

Well, I've lived through refurbs in a nearly empty block so I have sharp memories of what that was like. I was much younger then too. I don't think I'd cope as well now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> So if they evict everyone without a tenancy, the council tenants (some of whom I understand are quite elderly) will be in empty blocks, without support of neighbours with the joy of looking forward to the relentless reverberation of refurbing. Or are they being moved out too, to make things easier for the council?


 
Not sure, but I suspect that the council tenants have already been shifted, or are in the process, because NO private developer is going be interested in taking on a project that included working around sitting tenants.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

But there definitely _*are*_ sitting tenants....


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> But there definitely _*are*_ sitting tenants....


 
Fuck that for a lark! 

If that's the case, then the degeneration of the fabric of the building can't be anything like as bad as has been sometimes bandied about, though.
More bullshit from Lambeth, then.


----------



## Choc (May 31, 2012)

at least one can say -it all lasted a long long time. my (lovely lovely lovely) ex still lives there and they all have been there a long time. lucky in squatter terms (i have been one myself some years ago but ours only lasted about 2 years. that is already quite long. a true squatter will find a good new place. of course one needs to be fit and healthy to embark on such adventures and i guess move further out..


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> More bullshit from Lambeth, then.


Is there ever anything else?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jun 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fuck that for a lark!
> 
> If that's the case, then the degeneration of the fabric of the building can't be anything like as bad as has been sometimes bandied about, though.
> More bullshit from Lambeth, then.


Well the one I know is [pretty tatty mould friendly dank flat, but I think the main reason is that they are now unfit to pass the regulatory minimum specs for accommodation which are in (or are coming into) force.


----------



## Megglewel (Jun 7, 2012)

Hi, I'm from the Lambeth Weekender local paper (but the U75 editor said I could post on here!). We're writing a feature about 'squatting - is it a blight on the community?' following the recent change in the law and are looking for someone to speak for squatting. Maybe someone from Rushcroft Rd or Clifton Mansions? Casaubon are you still around? We need to speak to you tomorrow as we press tomorrow night (June 8). Would just need 15 mins with you on the phone. Could you email me megan@myweekender.co.uk or call me or Martha on 0207 231 5258. Thank you!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2012)

Megglewel said:


> Hi, I'm from the Lambeth Weekender local paper (but the U75 editor said I could post on here!). We're writing a feature about 'squatting - is it a blight on the community?' following the recent change in the law and are looking for someone to speak for squatting. Maybe someone from Rushcroft Rd or Clifton Mansions? Casaubon are you still around? We need to speak to you tomorrow as we press tomorrow night (June 8). Would just need 15 mins with you on the phone. Could you email me megan@myweekender.co.uk or call me or Martha on 0207 231 5258. Thank you!


 
Not really interested in representing the squatters, as they can speak for themselves, however:

I'm what you might call "old south London". I've always lived within 3-4 miles from Brixton, and squatting has rarely been a "blight on the community" for the community itself, although the local authority is a different story. In more cases than I can list and keep this post relatively short, I've seen squatting, from the late '60s-onward, bring housing back into use, revive areas and (unfortunately) activate processes of gentrification that end up ejecting the indigenes from their communities. I'm fortunate enough that the only squatting I've done amounts to about 3 weeks-worth in 20-odd years, but for every squat with mardy occupants who smashed the place up and/or left drugs paraphenalia all over the shop that I've seen, I've seen half a dozen squats where people repaired the fabric of buildings, renewed plumbing and sheeted or re-covered roofs that landlords had deliberately busted to accelrate delapidation.

personally, I think you're asking the wrong question (or else you're coming at the question with your answers already formulated, and just want an "alternative voice" to give your piece an appearance of balance. This is a conjecture, not an accusation, by the way). Given ahistory of squatting in Brixton and its' environs (from Clapham to Camberwell), which spans 50 or more years (up to 70 according to my late nan's stories about demobbed soldiers and their families squatting some of the bigger empty houses between the hills), I think you should be asking what squatting has contributed to the community, and whether the community-as-is, or even a whiff of it, will survive the liquidation of the squats in the coming wave of evictions.


----------



## Brixton Blog (Jun 8, 2012)

Hi all, 

Cllr Pete Robbins has responded to comments under the post about the Rushcroft eviction
- http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958 

Thanks,
Z


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 8, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> He has made definite assurance in the Blog that these properties will not be sold off to private developers.


 



Mrs Magpie said:


> Although in my experience assurances by politicians, whether on paper or verbally, are worth their weight in shit.


 
And lo and behold Mrs Magpie is right - Cllr Robbins confirms flats WILL be sold off.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2012)

So, they're flogging off a load of them. _What_ a surprise. 


> In an ideal world every single one of these properties would be brought back into use as social housing and let to people on the waiting list. But, as everyone is well aware, Lambeth’s budget is under huge pressure – capital budgets in particular (at a time when schools, roads, and libraries are all currently in need of investment). The main problem is that the properties in question are in pretty poor condition – it will cost a significant amount of money to bring them back up to a standard at which the council can legally let them to tenants. Because there is so little capital available to do this there is a need to dispose of some of the properties so we have the money needed to refurbish the rest and bring back them back into use as council flats (off the top of my head I think 24 flats will be brought into use, but I might be wrong).


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2012)

Doesn't that contradict their own Cooperative Council approach?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 8, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> And lo and behold Mrs Magpie is right - Cllr Robbins confirms flats WILL be sold off.


It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to be right 
It's borne of living in Lambeth for a very long time and the sharp memory of bitter experience. Many many bitter experiences in fact.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2012)

snowy_again said:


> Doesn't that contradict their own Cooperative Council approach?


 
Of course it does, but they can hide behind the "budget cuts from evil Tories" argument for so long it makes no fucking difference, as long as the local electorate "buy" the excuse.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> it makes no fucking difference, as long as the local electorate "buy" the excuse.


Which makes no difference either. Tories, Labour, New Labour, SDP, Lib-Dems; they've all shat upon Lambeth from a great height.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Which makes no difference either. Tories, Labour, New Labour, SDP, Lib-Dems; they've all shat upon Lambeth from a great height.


 
Well, it makes a difference insofar as getting rid of one set of pricks, and giving another set of pricks yet another chance to bend us over and give us a rogering.


----------



## Casaubon (Jun 8, 2012)

Megglewel said:


> Hi, I'm from the Lambeth Weekender local paper (but the U75 editor said I could post on here!). We're writing a feature about 'squatting - is it a blight on the community?' following the recent change in the law and are looking for someone to speak for squatting. Maybe someone from Rushcroft Rd or Clifton Mansions? Casaubon are you still around? We need to speak to you tomorrow as we press tomorrow night (June 8). Would just need 15 mins with you on the phone. Could you email me megan@myweekender.co.uk or call me or Martha on 0207 231 5258. Thank you!


 
Hi
I'm still around, but I think I've missed your deadline.
I was a 'short life' tenant, not a squatter, so I couldn't speak on behalf of squatters.
I'd be happy to give you my (mostly positive) opinions on squatting in Rushcroft Rd and Clifton Mansions.
Casaubon

p.s. Hi Gramsci, how's it going?


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2012)

Makes you wonder what joys will be contained in the Future Brixton Masterplan that is currently being whizzed up by the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




"cooperative council"


----------



## Winot (Jun 8, 2012)

I actually think that's a pretty impressive response from the Councillor.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 8, 2012)

Winot said:


> I actually think that's a pretty impressive response from the Councillor.


Impressive is as impressive does.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 9, 2012)

Winot said:


> I actually think that's a pretty impressive response from the Councillor.


 
He could explain why his party when in power did little to build new Council Housing or provide funds for Housing Associations to do so.

Blaming it all on Tory cuts is only part of it.

Other than say that the Council is under a lot of pressure (true) he , as a member of the Labour party, does not say how the Labour party will deal with the housing crisis in this country.

The legacy of the Labour party in power is that Housing Associations now have to behave more like private developers.

The last government poured money into banks using "Quantitative Easing" ( which is were it stays as economists reckon banks have been using it to save there industry). That money could have been used to build new affordable housing. As any Keynesian would tell you this would leave a lasting asset for the country for the long term. Also it would help the construction industry and provide jobs. As I heard the economist Krugman say last week the problem is lack of demand in the economy. The Government can step in to increase demand.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 9, 2012)

"Because there is so little capital available to do this there is a need to dispose of some of the properties so we have the money needed to refurbish the rest and bring back them back into use as council flats (off the top of my head I think 24 flats will be brought into use, but I might be wrong). It will cost a lot more to refurbish these properties – frankly it’s not particularly economic when compared to the rental income they will generate as social housing – but we took the decision to refurbish these homes precisely because of the point you make about a shortage of social housing in the centre of Brixton – particulalry large family-sezied properties. Local ward councillors were particularly vocal about this, and they were right to be."

from Brixton Blog Cllrs reply

The problem with saying this is that, the Cllr seems to be unaware, you cannot ringfence money from sales of some Council stock to use to refurbish remaining nearby housing.

This means that it is not definite that there will be money to refurbish remaining flat on RR.

He says  (off the top of his head) 24 flat will be kept.

That remains to be seen in the long term. The properties need to be surveyed to see how much it will cost first before any definite decision is made.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 9, 2012)

Winot said:


> I actually think that's a pretty impressive response from the Councillor.


 
Impressive in what terms, please?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 9, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Impressive is as impressive does.


 
Quite.
Anyone can chunter out a line of bullshit. What would be impressive is if any of his glib off-the-cuff assurances are held to.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Quite.
> Anyone can chunter out a line of bullshit. What would be impressive is if any of his glib off-the-cuff assurances are held to.


 
Quite.

We should all remember his statement 24 flats to be kept as affordable housing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 10, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Quite.
> 
> We should all remember his statement 24 flats to be kept as affordable housing.


 
I've taken the liberty of making a series of 4 screen-grabs of his comment/reply on BrixtonBlog, just in case his claim w/r/t "24 flats" is somehow edited or amended in the future to reflect a different amount.
I suggest that other posters may wish to the same, in the spirit of community solidarity and democracy.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've taken the liberty of making a series of 4 screen-grabs of his comment/reply on BrixtonBlog, just in case his claim w/r/t "24 flats" is somehow edited or amended in the future to reflect a different amount.
> I suggest that other posters may wish to the same, in the spirit of community solidarity and democracy.


 
Good idea. I was thinking of something like that today.

I remember that Elmwood House in RR was sold ages ago. Many years later a Council Officer denied / had no knowledge of its sale. The money from it was promised in the ,same way as now, to be put towards doing up the remaining blocks.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 10, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> We should all remember his statement 24 flats to be kept as affordable housing.


It would be interesting to find out how many existing Lambeth tenants there already are.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> It would be interesting to find out how many existing Lambeth tenants there already are.


 
on RR?

There is one person who owns his flat. The rest of his block is squatted. Heard he is pretty cool about that.

All the remaining Council tenants were moved years ago.

There were some mixed in with the S/L


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 10, 2012)

There are council tenants too on Rushcroft Road too, I believe.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2012)

Casaubon said:


> Hi
> I'm still around, but I think I've missed your deadline.
> I was a 'short life' tenant, not a squatter, so I couldn't speak on behalf of squatters.
> I'd be happy to give you my (mostly positive) opinions on squatting in Rushcroft Rd and Clifton Mansions.
> ...


 
thanks for asking. Im hanging in there. 

Hope ur ok


----------



## Winot (Jun 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Impressive in what terms, please?



I think he makes a robust and well-argued case that a housing policy based on fairness and need must inevitably mean that squatters have to be moved out once the council is in a position to take back control of the properties, and he makes his case (a) without villifying squatters and (b) whilst admitting that the council is at fault for having taken so long to take control.

If the council were now to convert the properties over to 100% properly affordable social housing, then I suspect most people would back him to the hilt (feel free to disagree).

Of course, no such thing is going to happen, and if as it appears he has changed his tune then that is not so impressive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 11, 2012)

Winot said:


> I think he makes a robust and well-argued case that a housing policy based on fairness and need must inevitably mean that squatters have to be moved out once the council is in a position to take back control of the properties, and he makes his case (a) without villifying squatters and (b) whilst admitting that the council is at fault for having taken so long to take control.


 
You see, I don't find that at all impressive. Since when should anyone be impressed by a councillor reciting "the book" on how things are supposed to be done.
I suppose it's impressive that a Lambeth councillor would actually *know* that there was an official way of doing things, but still...



> If the council were now to convert the properties over to 100% properly affordable social housing, then I suspect most people would back him to the hilt (feel free to disagree).
> 
> Of course, no such thing is going to happen, and if as it appears he has changed his tune then that is not so impressive.


 
People *would* back a council and councillors that put the interests of Lambeth residents and tenants first, I agree. There aren't too many examples of them putting anything but their own political careers first, though, unfortunately, whichever party they represent.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2012)

Winot said:


> If the council were now to convert the properties over to 100% properly affordable social housing, then I suspect most people would back him to the hilt (feel free to disagree).
> 
> Of course, no such thing is going to happen, and if as it appears he has changed his tune then that is not so impressive.


 
The Cllr says some of the properties will need to be sold to do up the rest. I was thinking yesterday what happened to the money from the ones that have been sold? At least 3 blocks in RR have been sold by Council and also Clifton Mansions around the corner. 

I would have thought that this adds up to a fair amount of money to do up the remaining flats.

Seems to have slipped the Cllrs memory that there should be, following his logic of ringfencing sales,  a pot of money already.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 12, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> The Cllr says some of the properties will need to be sold to do up the rest. I was thinking yesterday what happened to the money from the ones that have been sold? At least 3 blocks in RR have been sold by Council and also Clifton Mansions around the corner.
> 
> I would have thought that this adds up to a fair amount of money to do up the remaining flats.
> 
> Seems to have slipped the Cllrs memory that there should be, following his logic of ringfencing sales, a pot of money already.


You're absolutely right. But I thought I read somewhere that they (councils) can't ringfence money from sales of property. Does anyone know whether this is the case or not?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> You're absolutely right. But I thought I read somewhere that they (councils) can't ringfence money from sales of property. Does anyone know whether this is the case or not?


CH1 will know.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> You're absolutely right. But I thought I read somewhere that they (councils) can't ringfence money from sales of property. Does anyone know whether this is the case or not?


 
no they cannot ringfence. See my previous post on this #96


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 12, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> no they cannot ringfence. See my previous post on this #96


So the Cllr is talking bollox? All the rhetoric about using profits from the sales for 'improvements' must therefore be spin, deployed to support the argument for a sell-off.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> So the Cllr is talking bollox? All the rhetoric about using profits from the sales for 'improvements' must therefore be spin, deployed to support the argument for a sell-off.


Jeremy Paxman said the best advice he was given for interviewing was to think "Why is this bastard lying to me?"
I find it useful when reading something like a long blog comment from a councillor.


----------



## Brixton Blog (Jun 14, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> It is incorrect to say that when Council tenants left they were squatted. For many years they were Short Life. The Short Life in Rushcroft road and Clifton Mansions was run by London & Quadrant and RSL. It was never Short Life Coop.
> 
> For many years the Rushcroft Road Action Group (RAG) tried to get the Council to acknowledge there Short Life tenancies were secure tenancies. This took years of legal wrangling. A long story. Eventually the Council rehoused most of the Short Life. When the Short Life left the properties were then squatted as the Council didnt secure the properties either for sale or rehab for Council tenancies.
> 
> So this is a second time an established community has been moved on.


 
Hi Gramsci,

Apologies and thanks - I have just updated the article to include short-life housing in the history of Rushcroft. Sorry it took me a while.
For those worried, something might happen to Cllr Robbins' comment, while we would obviously never delete it, I have also kept it in form of the email notification and would be happy to pass on to anyone who needs. 

Thanks
Zoe


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2012)

Zoe has got back to Council on the flats that the Council says it will retain. This was put on Brixton Blog yesterday:

http://www.brixtonblog.com/lambeth-...l-housing-after-rushcroft-road-evictions/5794


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2012)

What percentage of the original community would 24 flats represent?


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 19, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Zoe has got back to Council on the flats that the Council says it will retain. This was put on Brixton Blog yesterday:
> 
> http://www.brixtonblog.com/lambeth-...l-housing-after-rushcroft-road-evictions/5794


 
I broadly support the Rushcroft Road squatters but recently  discovered some of them are sub-letting rooms for up to £400 a month. This has been going on for years. Seems to go a bit against the grain of what squatting is all about


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2012)

editor said:


> What percentage of the original community would 24 flats represent?


 
None that I can see. From the long winded piece the Cllr put on BB prieviously the original community will not get any of these refurbished flats.

Well its on record now that 24 flats wont be flogged of to developers. Have to see what happens in the future.


----------



## Winot (Jul 19, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> From the long winded piece the Cllr put on BB prieviously the original community will not get any of these refurbished flats.


 
Wasn't the point of the piece that the original community would have their housing needs assessed by the same yardstick that is used to assess everyone else's?  Do you disagree with that principle?


----------



## peterkro (Jul 19, 2012)

wurlycurly said:


> I broadly support the Rushcroft Road squatters but recently discovered some of them are sub-letting rooms for up to £400 a month. This has been going on for years. Seems to go a bit against the grain of what squatting is all about


Have you got any evidence of this,if so name and shame them Lee stylee.


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 19, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Have you got any evidence of this,if so name and shame them Lee stylee.


 
I'd rather not thanks, although it's hardly a secret


----------



## peterkro (Jul 19, 2012)

In my involvement in squatting I've only know this to happen once (my present upstairs neighbour as it happens).I surprised and angry if this is more common than I thought.Cunts.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 19, 2012)

peterkro said:


> In my involvement in squatting I've only know this to happen once (my present upstairs neighbour as it happens).I surprised and angry if this is more common than I thought.Cunts.


 
I bought my first flat in Brixton from the people who had originally squatted the building. They were very proud to tell me that they had gone to the council and expressed an interest in buying two neighbouring six bed houses which they were currently occupying. The council (not knowing that they were living there) advised them that the properties were squatted and agree to sell them for a massively discounted price of 10k each. Fairly soon after, they subdivided one of them and sold it off as two flats for about £150,000. Then their arty pursuit turned into a successful business and they moved to the country side, but kept the second house and rented it to sharers at close to market rent. And then they sold it for 33x what they paid for it.

To be honest, my only issue here is with the council for mismanaging the properties and agreeing to sell them off so cheaply (even for the early 90s). But there was certainly never any idealism in any of the squatters actions.

I also know people who had several coop properties in Brixton at once and rented the others out at market rates for a profit. They were eventually caught out but still have one property.


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 19, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I bought my first flat in Brixton from the people who had originally squatted the building. They were very proud to tell me that they had gone to the council and expressed an interest in buying two neighbouring six bed houses which they were currently occupying. The council (not knowing that they were living there) advised them that the properties were squatted and agree to sell them for a massively discounted price of 10k each. Fairly soon after, they subdivided one of them and sold it off as two flats for about £150,000. Then their arty pursuit turned into a successful business and they moved to the country side, but kept the second house and rented it to sharers at close to market rent. And then they sold it for 33x what they paid for it.
> 
> To be honest, my only issue here is with the council for mismanaging the properties and agreeing to sell them off so cheaply (even for the early 90s). But there was certainly never any idealism in any of the squatters actions.
> 
> I also know people who had several coop properties in Brixton at once and rented the others out at market rates for a profit. They were eventually caught out but still have one property.


 
I think subletting is a strange concept when it comes to squatting. It's very unethical. I could maybe understand it if the rent was very cheap but £400 a month for a room is fairly standard.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 19, 2012)

My community is being decimated at the moment and yes I'm surprised by the number of people who've gone for self interest.Some people (all middle class) have bought at Lambeth's discount (leveraging their families capital) some have gone for adverse possession (I've got more reason to be successful at this than any of them but politically I can't stomach it) and it breaks my heart that some of those who were the loudest about property rights are now those playing the system.There are a few brave people who won't compromise and I am amazed by them (working class to a person).Fuck them all I was serious,I don't want to "own" property I'll take my chance.I was an idealist and still am.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 19, 2012)

To be fair I've always heard stories of people letting out squats or room within, never looked into it but always thought it was wrong if true, never went for it when I was squatting despite actually having been offered money by people, it's just wrong. Same as stories of people "selling" squats.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2012)

Winot said:


> Wasn't the point of the piece that the original community would have their housing needs assessed by the same yardstick that is used to assess everyone else's? Do you disagree with that principle?


 
In effect using that yardstick means they wont get rehoused. Over the years social housing has been decimated. Assessing needs in the context of little or no social housing being built over the past ten years or so is a joke.


----------



## Winot (Jul 19, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> In effect using that yardstick means they wont get rehoused. Over the years social housing has been decimated. Assessing needs in the context of little or no social housing being built over the past ten years or so is a joke.



I'm sure you're right, but that's a different issue isn't it - the absolute amount of social housing that's available (or not).

I was talking about how that social housing is distributed.  Your post gave the impression that you thought former occupants should go to the front of the queue for the small amount of housing available. I'm not sure that's fair.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2012)

Winot said:


> I'm sure you're right, but that's a different issue isn't it - the absolute amount of social housing that's available (or not).
> 
> I was talking about how that social housing is distributed. Your post gave the impression that you thought former occupants should go to the front of the queue for the small amount of housing available. I'm not sure that's fair.


 
 I see extremely wealthy people living in big houses in London. Thats not fair. Getting into a discussion about who or who should not get affordable housing in a country like this where it would be possible to build enough housing for all is not fair.


----------



## Winot (Jul 20, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I see extremely wealthy people living in big houses in London. Thats not fair. Getting into a discussion about who or who should not get affordable housing in a country like this where it would be possible to build enough housing for all is not fair.


 
OK I'll leave it there


----------



## dappergent (Aug 7, 2012)

According to the  lawyer I spoke to,the adverse possession law only counts upto 2003,therefor everyone would have had to have claimed since 1991 to qualify.My big problem with lambeth council is the fact tht this decision has been hanging over us all since 2003 and was'finalised' in 2006,yet bugger all was actualy done,Many of my friends bailed out then in fear and yet here we are again 6 year later in the same situation with yet another councillor 'getting tough' on squatters.We IMPROVED the hovels we inherited and surely must fight this again? They have tried to frighten us out again with May's letters but on looking at it closely,why was this extension of the possession orders taken in Cardiff? To prevent any of us attending..? And why did Steeles Law not give any of us prior notice,as required by law? We may be fighting a losing battle,but I at least,intend to fight...


----------



## peterkro (Aug 7, 2012)

dappergent said:


> According to the lawyer I spoke to,the adverse possession law only counts upto 2003,therefor everyone would have had to have claimed since 1991 to qualify.My big problem with lambeth council is the fact tht this decision has been hanging over us all since 2003 and was'finalised' in 2006,yet bugger all was actualy done,Many of my friends bailed out then in fear and yet here we are again 6 year later in the same situation with yet another councillor 'getting tough' on squatters.We IMPROVED the hovels we inherited and surely must fight this again? They have tried to frighten us out again with May's letters but on looking at it closely,why was this extension of the possession orders taken in Cardiff? To prevent any of us attending..? And why did Steeles Law not give any of us prior notice,as required by law? We may be fighting a losing battle,but I at least,intend to fight...


No,after 2003 the law was tilted further in favour of the councils,after a few years of courts just rubber stamping councils claims it has now swung back in favour of the claimants ,so some of the cases now going down in Lambeth may result in successful claims for adverse possession. Personally I think those doing it are shits.Finally I've been accepted for another housing co-op in south London,so it's goodbye Brixton but I'll only be a shortish walk away.(by the way it's a defence to go to the European court to stay under the Human rights act)


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 7, 2012)

peterkro said:


> No,after 2003 the law was tilted further in favour of the councils,after a few years of courts just rubber stamping councils claims it has now swung back in favour of the claimants ,so some of the cases now going down in Lambeth may result in successful claims for adverse possession. *Personally I think those doing it are shits.*Finally I've been accepted for another housing co-op in south London,so it's goodbye Brixton but I'll only be a shortish walk away.(by the way it's a defence to go to the European court to stay under the Human rights act)


Would the bolded statement be a blanket condemnation of anyone going for adverse possession or is this specifically aimed at those going for it when squatting social housing stock?


----------



## peterkro (Aug 7, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> Would the bolded statement be a blanket condemnation of anyone going for adverse possession or is this specifically aimed at those going for it when squatting social housing stock?


 
Just social housing,people who occupy properties owned by absentee owners and keep occupation for twelve years deserve to have rights to the property.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 7, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Just social housing,people who occupy properties owned by absentee owners and keep occupation for twelve years deserve to have rights to the property.


It doesn't quite work like that anymore. After 10yrs occupiers have the right to apply to register the property into their name. The registered owner will be notified by the Land Registry and given a period (not sure whether it is 6 months or 2 years) in which they can reassert their ownership.

I'm not a fan of squatting as I don't think it should be up to an individual acting in their own interest to decide what property is fair game for occupation. That said, given that land and houses are under so much pressure in the UK, I agree that if a property owner neglects their land / building to the extent that someone else can occupy it unchallenged or without an implied agreement for 10yrs then the property owners rights should be wide open to challenge.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 7, 2012)

AFAIK it's register after 10 years so that they have 2 years to seek the registered owner.


----------



## peterkro (Aug 7, 2012)

It's six month's after notification AFIK.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 7, 2012)

found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession#England_and_Wales
"Where land is registered, the adverse possessor may apply to be registered as owner after 10 years[18] of adverse possession and the Land Registry must give notice to the true owner of this application.[19] This gives the landowner a statutory period of time [65 business days] to object to the adverse possession, and if they do so the application fails. Otherwise, the squatter becomes the registered properietor according to the land registry. If the true owner is unable to evict the squatter in the two years following the first application, the squatter can apply again after this period and be successful despite the opposition of the owner. The process effectively prevents the removal of a landowner's right to property without his knowledge, while ensuring squatters have a fair way exercising their rights."

So I was wrong.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 7, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> found this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession#England_and_Wales
> "Where land is registered, the adverse possessor may apply to be registered as owner after 10 years[18] of adverse possession and the Land Registry must give notice to the true owner of this application.[19] This gives the landowner a statutory period of time [65 business days] to object to the adverse possession, and if they do so the application fails. Otherwise, the squatter becomes the registered properietor according to the land registry. If the true owner is unable to evict the squatter in the two years following the first application, the squatter can apply again after this period and be successful despite the opposition of the owner. The process effectively prevents the removal of a landowner's right to property without his knowledge, while ensuring squatters have a fair way exercising their rights."
> 
> So I was wrong.


I think it should be easier than it currently is to evict squatters in the first 6 months of an occupation but harder than it is for the registered titleholder to reject registration after 10yrs unchallenged occupation has been proven. AFAIK Lambeth has made a point of reaffirming their interest on a fairly regular basis, even if squatters were not actually evicted, so I doubt there is any case in law for the current occupants.


----------



## peterkro (Aug 7, 2012)

As I said in an earlier post things have changed,Judges are now requiring more evidence from councils than their usual sending out of letters.For instance they did a street envelope program on my street which included in their communication "this does not imply a right to occupy" this undermines their theory they where establishing their rights as owners.I don't think many are going to get adverse possession but it's certainly more likely than it has been for the last decade.

( this makes moot that those claiming no connection with head licences are covered in communications because it admits some houses may not have been included in head licences)


----------



## Rushy (Aug 7, 2012)

peterkro said:


> As I said in an earlier post things have changed,Judges are now requiring more evidence from councils than their usual sending out of letters.For instance they did a street envelope program on my street which included in their communication "this does not imply a right to occupy" this undermines their theory they where establishing their rights as owners.I don't think many are going to get adverse possession but it's certainly more likely than it has been for the last decade.
> 
> ( this makes moot that those claiming no connection with head licences are covered in communications because it admits some houses may not have been included in head licences)


I thought I'd read a post on here from a Rushcroft resident that Lambeth had carried out proceedings a few years ago but never followed through with evictions? I can't find it now so may have imagined it!

What's a street envelope program?


----------



## peterkro (Aug 7, 2012)

Street envelope is a program to ensure weatherproofing and Maintenance painting,the point being they did all houses but felt it was important they used the the clause "this doesn't infer right to occupy" which means at that time they were unsure which houses came under the head licence.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 8, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I think it should be easier than it currently is to evict squatters in the first 6 months of an occupation but harder than it is for the registered titleholder to reject registration after 10yrs unchallenged occupation has been proven. AFAIK Lambeth has made a point of reaffirming their interest on a fairly regular basis, even if squatters were not actually evicted, so I doubt there is any case in law for the current occupants.


I only know a couple of resident there and they do not have a claim.
I think even the really long term resident would have been part of the co-op when it was running so I doubt they'd have a claim either.
The 2 lots  of squatters I know who got adverse possession were in private buildings and the owner were untraceable, in fact in one case all we could find out is that they'd had to leave the country due to some sort of wrongdoings, the house was squatted by different groups for about 18 years before someone could put a claim to it, I sure wish I'd had the faith to go and squat it myself so I could be a proud landowner and look down on all those illegal immigrants and benefit spongers.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 9, 2012)

I have a new plan to become part of the landed class:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article-2184334/Empty-houses-sale-1-Britains-cheapest-street.html


----------

