# Evictions in Rushcroft Road, Brixton



## wjh (Mar 10, 2009)

Just walked past the (Ritzy) end of Rushcroft Road and there are a
*lot* of Police vans parked up.  Talked to one of the officers and he
handed me a notice:

"Illegal occupiers of council property on Rushcroft Road are being evicted
by the High Court enforcement office on behalf of Lambeth Council.

The building will now be sold and the income will be used to refurbish
social housing for those in genuine housing need."​
Lets just hope it doesn't get nasty today.


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 10, 2009)

oh shit


----------



## tarannau (Mar 10, 2009)

Bollocks. I've got mates in there - may have to go and pay a visit.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2009)

Fuck. I'll pop down later and take a look. There's at least one urbanite and several frinds living there.


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 10, 2009)

yup.
hopefully se you all later. got an appt in clapham at half eleven, otherwise my day is free


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 10, 2009)

there is also a (seemingly empty - nobody in the front, at least) police van blocking the street on the corner of electric lane and coldharbour lane, by living bar.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 10, 2009)

wjh said:


> "Illegal occupiers of council property on Rushcroft Road are being evicted by the High Court enforcement office on behalf of Lambeth Council.
> 
> The building will now be sold and the income will be used to refurbish social housing for those in genuine housing need."​



So the council is _decreasing_ its housing stock, _and_ making people homeless at the same time!
Well done!
Cunts!


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 10, 2009)

Ah. Wondered what the police presence was about. 



Crispy said:


> So the council is _decreasing_ its housing stock, _and_ making people homeless at the same time!
> Well done!
> Cunts!



Rushcroft road is far too central and has far too nice housing stock to give to scabby old council tenants, silly.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2009)

Hmm. I've texted the urbanite who lives there and not heard back yet.
Hope she's alright.


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 10, 2009)

the police are allowing residents in the building to remove their possessions.
anyone else isn't allowed in to help them cart stuff down.

once it's out the front door, looks like we need assistance to carry it away 

the plice have also been making lovely comments about the evictions where they've beaten folk up in the past. and if anyone challenges them about it, they're accused of getting shirty.  cnuts 

councillor rachel heywood, deputy cabinet member for community cohesion and involvement, is involved  - 0796110018 if anyone needs to get hold of her.

cheers xxx


----------



## Bob (Mar 10, 2009)

I agree with evicting people living illegally in Lambeth property.

But what I can't work out is why Lambeth are prioritising this rather than refurbing the hundreds of empty homes they already have.

http://reportemptyhomes.com/reports/Lambeth
and 
http://lambethlibdems.org.uk/news/000060/housing_watchdog_slams_lambeths_267_empty_homes.html
from a quick Google.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2009)

editor said:


> Hmm. I've texted the urbanite who lives there and not heard back yet.
> Hope she's alright.


She is OK.


----------



## Ground Elder (Mar 10, 2009)

Squatting is not illegal.


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 10, 2009)

well, we have *some* of the stuff out....


----------



## pboi (Mar 10, 2009)

chuck out the peasants and get those homes refurbed


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2009)

Just went past there. There's a van and a handful of cops from Kennington nick securing the building and what looked like a burly baliff outside but no other activity. The two blocks closest to Electric Lane have been closed down.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 10, 2009)

i heard about this from tufty but there isn't anything i could do.  i'm all in favour of squatting, and even squatting council houses if the council isn't using them, but to be evicted so that the council can sell them during a recession when the same council has lost 20 million quid recently to fraud and incompetence... makes me fucking angry.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> i heard about this from tufty but there isn't anything i could do.  i'm all in favour of squatting, and even squatting council houses if the council isn't using them, but to be evicted so that the council can sell them during a recession when the same council has lost 20 million quid recently to fraud and incompetence... makes me fucking angry.



What should they do otherwise? Refurb them and then let them out as council housing? I'm presuming the logic is that the money they can make selling them would pay for refurbing more m2 (or at least, occupant capacity) of housing somewhere else, than the m2 they would gain by keeping and refurbing these ones.

Certainly I can see why people would be angry that they have left them to languish for so long, though - presumably if they'd sold them a couple of years ago they would have gone for a fair bit more.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2009)

A few pics:



















http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/rushcroft-road-evictions.html


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 11, 2009)

Raverdrew posting...

As some of you may know already, some of us were illegally evicted yesterday.  Papers were not served properly, and certain people were not given the time and proper opportunity to get their possessions out of the premises.  We have been promised to retrieve our possessions this morning when the storage contractors arrive.  Unfortunately we are experiencing some problems and if anyone can make it down here to lend support/act as a witness then it would be very much appreciated.

Thank you.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 11, 2009)

teuchter said:


> What should they do otherwise? Refurb them and then let them out as council housing? I'm presuming the logic is that the money they can make selling them would pay for refurbing more m2 (or at least, occupant capacity) of housing somewhere else, than the m2 they would gain by keeping and refurbing these ones.
> 
> Certainly I can see why people would be angry that they have left them to languish for so long, though - presumably if they'd sold them a couple of years ago they would have gone for a fair bit more.


 

I understand the maths, believe me.  It's maths that is imposed on them by central government, and it fucking stinks.


----------



## boohoo (Mar 11, 2009)

They have to get permission to sell the properties. It's not that easy for a council to be allowed to sell council property at market value. Has it been part of a housing stock transfer? 

Also I don't buy the idea that the money will go back into housing. In government, the money collected from housing transfer goes to treasury piggie bank.


----------



## editor (Mar 11, 2009)

I predict that the buildings will lie empty for ages after being secured and becoming subject of some tedious council budget wrangling that will eventually see them being flogged off cheap to some developer.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 11, 2009)

editor said:


> I predict that the buildings will lie empty for ages after being secured and becoming subject of some tedious council budget wrangling that will eventually see them being flogged off cheap to some developer.



Squatting seems honourable these days does it not 

A council owned property down the road from us sat empty for ages. 
Then it was squatted and at the taxpayers expense the police and council were all over the place. 
The squatters got evicted and now the place has sat empty for ages. 

The loop continues


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 11, 2009)

well now...
the eviction summonsy papers were served to somebody who has never lived at the address or had connections with it.
the documents for the storage company include a head office address which has not been used since 1993..

i'm on the phone to shelter to see if that provides any loophole/staying power


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 11, 2009)

boohoo said:


> They have to get permission to sell the properties. It's not that easy for a council to be allowed to sell council property at market value. Has it been part of a housing stock transfer?
> 
> Also I don't buy the idea that the money will go back into housing. In government, the money collected from housing transfer goes to treasury piggie bank.


 

Not always.  It's often the case that local councils are allowed to sell of properties in order to raise fnds funds for major project refurbs.  Especially if the property is squatted.


----------



## editor (Mar 11, 2009)

Badgers said:


> Squatting seems honourable these days does it not
> 
> A council owned property down the road from us sat empty for ages.
> Then it was squatted and at the taxpayers expense the police and council were all over the place.
> ...


Cooltan in Brixton was a thriving squatted community centre before being closed down, left to rot for ten years and now we have a big flattened site full of rubble occupying the space.


----------



## boohoo (Mar 11, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> Not always.  It's often the case that local councils are allowed to sell of properties in order to raise fnds funds for major project refurbs.  Especially if the property is squatted.




There was certain control about this in stock transfer so that the rsl couldn't sell off all the nice houses of high value at market prices. Though thinking about it, I'm not sure why not, when many of the estates tennanted market values were negative and they were transfered (sold off) with nice posh houses which have a high market value and money from sales could have been invested into the poorer properties.


----------



## bang (Mar 11, 2009)

tufty79 said:


> well now...
> the eviction summonsy papers were served to somebody who has never lived at the address or had connections with it.
> the documents for the storage company include a head office address which has not been used since 1993..
> 
> i'm on the phone to shelter to see if that provides any loophole/staying power



that was the case for a couple of mates who were living there too, we thought that would be enough to keep the eviction off but since not please keep me posted on any updates you get - cheers


----------



## sheothebudworths (Mar 11, 2009)

tufty - you may find that the Advisory Service for Squatters are actually able to offer much better help/advice than Shelter.


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 11, 2009)

RaverDrew posting...

tufty is doing her damn best to help us all try and get our stuff back or at least not just chucked into storage any old how.

absolute star


----------



## sheothebudworths (Mar 11, 2009)

tufty79 said:


> RaverDrew posting...
> 
> tufty is doing her damn best to help us all try and get our stuff back or at least not just chucked into storage any old how.
> 
> absolute star



Drew! 

See post above! 

They put my ex on to a solicitor who took up his case in a similar situation (re retrieving possessions/compensation for possessions which were broken by the removal contractors).


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 11, 2009)

(tufty back on a loo break and posting): well... no phone credit to call the ASS, innit? 

shelter have advised us that the mis=addressing of the notices is irrelevant - because others were addressed 'occupier unknown', they are still valid 
if the wrong address has been given for the storage company, or if goods are not dealt with responsibly, the 'inteference with goods act 1977' might be applied (in what context, i am not sure)
the council has a duty of care to rehouse any vulnerable adults (lone parents, medical probs etc) if they have legal residency in the UK.  if they don't we've to refer them to the refugee council etc... 

and that's as far as i've got 

everything's being well packed and wrapped, so far...


----------



## Badgers (Mar 11, 2009)

editor said:


> Cooltan in Brixton was a thriving squatted community centre before being closed down, left to rot for ten years and now we have a big flattened site full of rubble occupying the space.



I have never squatted before and possibly won't, but with the current housing fuck ups all over London it is almost the best 'affordable' housing option available it seems. 

If I owned a property I would never let it sit empty, even if I could afford to run it empty. I would much rather it was put to good use and giving somebody a home. 

Although I guess that a lot of people will use the services of 'property guardians/caretakers' like these jokers who place 'candidates with military background and combat experience' in peoples empty properties. The fact that someone pays for the privilege of a hired goon in a property is fucking stupid. Guess they are too busy and greedy to make the effort to accomodate a tenant at low cost.... 

Rant, rant, mumbe, moan


----------



## T & P (Mar 11, 2009)

editor said:


> A few pics:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Aren't you breaking the law now by photographing coppers? Watch it or they'll throw you into the slammer like the terrorist you must clearly be...


----------



## Choc (Mar 11, 2009)

tufty79 said:


> RaverDrew posting...
> 
> tufty is doing her damn best to help us all try and get our stuff back or at least not just chucked into storage any old how.
> 
> absolute star




as far as i am aware the squatters knew of the eviction since a few weeks.  i knew its gonna come. good luck for everyone who had to move out.


----------



## RaverDrew2 (Mar 13, 2009)

Choc said:


> as far as i am aware the squatters knew of the eviction since a few weeks.  i knew its gonna come. good luck for everyone who had to move out.



We were told to pack up our gear via threatening letters from the council who were going to "take steps" to remove us. We were taking legal advice and had been informed that we would receive an exact date in the next few weeks giving us at least 24hrs notice with the correct papers being served. 

Of course many residents knew what the threatening letters _really_ meant and had moved all their valuables out or had walked voluntarily. The threat of an illegal eviction was all too obvious.


----------



## RaverDrew2 (Mar 13, 2009)

pboi said:


> chuck out the peasants and get those homes refurbed



Edit: haven't got the energy to pick fights with morons like you, but consider your card well and truly marked.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 13, 2009)

Alright Drew. Hope all's alright. I popped down on the first day but didn't see you and couldn't reach P**L by phone (he of the sound system). You all as good as could be expected? If you've a new number for P please PM it to me.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Mar 13, 2009)

Yeah, hope you're alright Drew and have somewhere to stay etc. xxxx


----------



## RaverDrew2 (Mar 13, 2009)

I'm ok, have somewhere to stay thanks to tufty79, who I will say again, has been an absolute star through all this.  

Others haven't been so lucky, one resident is still walking around in the one set of clothes he managed to get out of there in time.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 13, 2009)

RaverDrew2 said:


> We were told to pack up our gear via threatening letters from the council who were going to "take steps" to remove us. We were taking legal advice and had been informed that we would receive an exact date in the next few weeks giving us at least 24hrs notice with the correct papers being served.
> 
> Of course many residents knew what the threatening letters _really_ meant and had moved all their valuables out or had walked voluntarily. The threat of an illegal eviction was all too obvious.


fwiw, my info is that the evictions were brought forward a few weeks on public order grounds, as the police believed that rocks were being dealt from the premises.


----------



## RaverDrew2 (Mar 13, 2009)

Afaik no evidence of that was found and no arrests made.


----------



## Casaubon (Mar 13, 2009)

*Rushcroft Rd - historical perspective.*

Hi everyone.
As this is my first post I should introduce myself.
This is going to be very long for a first post – apologies, but I want to get a few things off my chest. 

My main original reason for joining U75 was to keep informed about developments in central Brixton and Rushcroft Rd, where I lived. 
A few years ago I moved up the Hill, as part of the re-housing by Lambeth of ex-London & Quadrant tenants from Rushcroft Rd. 

I was involved in the fights to keep our homes and community on Rushcroft Rd, and I try to keep informed even though I don’t live there any more. 
June ’09 will be the tenth anniversary of the case in the House of Lords that was meant to definitively resolve the tenure/occupation issues of Rushcroft Rd. 
I was intending to end my long lurk by using the boards to ask whether there have been any developments on Rushcroft, as I’ve been horrified that Lambeth council still hasn’t resolved the issues – TEN YEARS AFTER THE HOUSE OF LORDS JUDGEMENT. 

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

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

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

During my time on Rushcroft, Lambeth was ruled at different times by all three main political parties, and there was ‘no overall controll’ for a couple of years too, I think.
I dealt directly with representatives of all three main parties – and I can sincerely say that they were almost entirely a bunch of short-sighted, stupid, ill-informed, self-serving, mealy-mouthed, lying cunts. 

I also had a lot of dealings with officers of Lambeth council, and they were worse than the politicians – really, where do they find such stupid and heartless staff, is there an agency?
With one exception, I wouldn’t cross the road to piss in their mouths if their teeth were on fire. 

In my experience there’s simply no point in trying to deal Lambeth in a constructive, intelligent manner – they’re simply not capable. 
Good things happen in Brixton despite the council, not because of it.
Direct and/or legal action is the only way to get them to engage meaningfully with issues.  

Good luck to the evictees and remaining occupants – take heart from the fact that it’s Lambeth you’re fighting, and they can usually be relied on to fuck everything up.

Sorry for the length of the post/rant, it seems a bit pretentious for a first post, but I feel a lot better for getting (some of) it off my chest.
Casaubon.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 13, 2009)

Thanks for the background info - great post!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2009)

Yes.


----------



## Nixon (Mar 13, 2009)

so many people i know have been screwed over in the past few months with this fucking illegal eviction bullshit..resist to exsist.


----------



## Missez (Mar 13, 2009)

I wish I could say I was surprised, but Lambeth council are not known for their efficiency and integrity.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 13, 2009)

> 13-03-2009, 14:34
> Casaubon Casaubon is offline
> Registered User
> 
> ...


Most excellent!


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 14, 2009)

Casaubon Casaubon : thank you


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Mar 14, 2009)

Trollope fan, one assumes


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2009)

Thank you Casaubon.  It hadn't occurred to me that there was more story behind it past making use of empty properties. 

I managed to unneccessarily panic someone I know who lives in a squat there but not one of those ones.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2009)

That's a great post -  have you thought of sending it to Private  Eye? They'd love it!


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 15, 2009)

To confirm the points made by Casaubon Rushcroft Road Action Group (RAG) spent years trying to prove they had security of tenure.There was a stable community there who could have been granted secure tenancies.The L&Q system of short life was giving "Licences" to individual occupiers.Where as most S/L was as S/L Housing Coops not to individuals (my situation).The "Head License" was held by a RSL and a "sub License" to a S/L Housing Coop.Whilst not getting rent for the properties the Council got the Council Tax. There was talk of a "levy" to the Council .But the Council realised this might give us security of tenure so it never happened.The argument against S/L is that we wont pay rent.The fact is the Council never wanted us to.

  Most of central Brixton was to be demolished for "redevelopment".Only the Barrier Block and were ever built.Council properties were emptied and private owns CPOd (compulsory purchased). As the late 1970s led to these plans for a Workers Paradise diminished the properties were squatted.After many battles the comprimise between the squatters and Council led to Short Life housing.Also known as Self Help housing as ex squatters did up the properties themselves. As the 1970s were,in hindsight, a period of idealism Housing Coops were the basis of most S/L. (This was not the case in Rushcroft Road or Clifton Mansions.) Initialy they were often "communal"- Free Love etcetc.Though this changed later as it was a bit much.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 15, 2009)

wjh said:


> "Illegal occupiers of council property on Rushcroft Road are being evicted
> by the High Court enforcement office on behalf of Lambeth Council.
> 
> The building will now be sold and the income will be used to refurbish
> social housing for those in genuine housing need."​



I thought that the Labour Group had decided not to sell off S/L property but do it up to let to those on the so called "Waiting List". Or sell it to an RSL so it stays as social housing.

 a) There is a shortage of "affordable housing" in London.

 b) House prices have collapsed so the Council wont get much for that asset sale.

 c) From what Ive heard in the housing sector no developer is buying and if they do it will only be for a knock down price.If a developer gets the property they might not be able to finace doing it up.So it will be left empty or kept and resold when the "market" is better.

  Given the above IMO its pointless to flog off Council owned assets (our assets) at this time.

  If the police think Rocks are being sold there then thats a policing issue.Funny how they suddenly get an interest in sorting out dealing in Brixton when it comes to evicting squatters.On that logic it might be an idea to evict KFC from Brixton as it attracts dealers to hang about outside.

 There this mentality in the Police that squatters/non conformists/hard drug dealing all go together.If "squatters" are replaced by so called "Ordinary Decent People" then Brixton would be a better place in there eyes.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 15, 2009)

I feel really sorry for those who got evicted from RR.Ive heard so many times from Labour Councillors that Squatters and Short Life have "jumped" the housing queue.

Whilst they have been in power Labour have done next to nothing about building affordable housing.

I find this even more sickening when you see Sir Fred the shred Goodwin (Gordon Browns former advisor) keeping his big house and pension whilst playing a big part in destroying the British economy.

A former friend of New Labour doesnt get the bailiffs at his door oh no thats for the little people.They need the smack of firm government .They need to learn to get off there backsides get a job in Europe and save like responsible to pay for there housing. Under new Labour there wont be a something for nothing society --unless you are a Banker.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 15, 2009)

some of my mates were in rushcroft road (and clifton mansions) and only now reading this thread have i discovered the ridiculous history of this. how can the council still be cocking this situation up after 30 YEARS??!! incredible. Then they choose now to flog them off, the worse time for the housing market in years. lambeth must be really short of cash from various frauds and misinvestments to be in this position.

Yeah i agree with Ed, gramsci and Casaubon, you should get in touch with private eye, they'd have a field day with this and hopefully shame Lambeth into some sense.


----------



## dwenfish (Mar 15, 2009)

Badgers said:


> Although I guess that a lot of people will use the services of 'property guardians/caretakers' like these jokers who place 'candidates with military background and combat experience' in peoples empty properties. The fact that someone pays for the privilege of a hired goon in a property is fucking stupid. Guess they are too busy and greedy to make the effort to accomodate a tenant at low cost....
> 
> Rant, rant, mumbe, moan



there's also camelot who provide 'security through occupation', basically they're employed by the owners of empty buildings and rent out rooms for (relatively) cheap rent- but will kick people out with very little warning if the owners want to do something with the building- so you're basically paying for the privilege of having less rights than squatting, proper shower of cunts... a few friends tried to break that big old building on mare street (my memory fails me for the name of the building- clarence house? but it's quite well known) and got chased away by vietnamese gangsters, it's now occupied by camelot....completely stupid, still lots of broken windows etc..

anyway drew, if you're stuck for somewhere to stay send me a pm, i know a few squats in north london that could put you up for a few days...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 15, 2009)

Casaubon said:


> Hi everyone.
> As this is my first post I should introduce myself.
> This is going to be very long for a first post – apologies, but I want to get a few things off my chest.
> 
> ...



Jesus, I knew Lambeth council had a reputation for incompetence but that is really staggering.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 15, 2009)

Nothing about Lambeth surprises me.


----------



## dwenfish (Mar 15, 2009)

wjh said:


> "Illegal occupiers of council property on Rushcroft Road are being evicted
> by the High Court enforcement office on behalf of Lambeth Council.
> 
> The building will now be sold and the income will be used to refurbish
> social housing for those in genuine housing need."​



that's a nice note- exactly how weren't the people living there in 'genuine housing need' ??


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Mar 15, 2009)

You might approach "Rotten Boroughs" - I know that this is written by a variety of correspondents around the country and they obviously have somebody who knows a bit about Lambeth. You'd need to put the case well, though. The aspect of the evictions being apparently illegal would be of interest but so would the business of the squatters having made a longterm effort to pay rent.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 21, 2009)

Theres a rumour going around Brixton that the block in RR that was evicted was due to Crack etc being sold there. The rumour seems to be that other squatters in central Brixton are not going to be evicted as thay arent selling hard drugs from there flats.

 The person i talked to was adament about this.That impression i got was that the police/council are letting it be known this eviction was done for "community safety" issues.

 I did say to the person i didnt really believe this.But he said he had been told it by other squatters in the area.

 Has anyone else heard this? Or clarify this? I now a little of that block and it doesnt seem correct to me.Anyway if it was going on in one flat that doesnt mean everyone should be evicted.

 Im concerned also that this might become a standard excuse from the Council/Police so they dont look so bad.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 21, 2009)

I was talking to someone who had been involved in trying to help fight this for a while and was shocked by how apathetic most of the residents seem to have been towards impending eviction.  Not setting up an action group, not contacting housing helping organisations etc.  Is there any truth to this?


----------



## RaverDrew (Mar 21, 2009)

Gramsci said:


> Theres a rumour going around Brixton that the block in RR that was evicted was due to Crack etc being sold there. The rumour seems to be that other squatters in central Brixton are not going to be evicted as thay arent selling hard drugs from there flats.
> 
> The person i talked to was adament about this.That impression i got was that the police/council are letting it be known this eviction was done for "community safety" issues.
> 
> ...





bluestreak said:


> I was talking to someone who had been involved in trying to help fight this for a while and was shocked by how apathetic most of the residents seem to have been towards impending eviction.  Not setting up an action group, not contacting housing helping organisations etc.  Is there any truth to this?



Not the whole truth.

I will tell you the full story next time I see you in person, if you want ?  

Am not prepared to discuss this on a public BB.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Mar 21, 2009)

How you doing, Drew?  And have you managed to get all your stuff back ok? xxxx


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 22, 2009)

RaverDrew said:


> Not the whole truth.
> 
> I will tell you the full story next time I see you in person, if you want ?
> 
> Am not prepared to discuss this on a public BB.




I'd be very interested Drew, PM me the story.


----------



## Fenian (Mar 23, 2009)

Badgers said:


> Although I guess that a lot of people will use the services of 'property guardians/caretakers' like these jokers who place 'candidates with military background and combat experience' in peoples empty properties.



Jesus 50 quid a week to have a hired thug keep homeless people out, and check this on the web-site:  'Other security solutions, using visiting security teams often fail because the security is intermittent and has no real personal interest in the safety of the property.

Under new legislation a live in care taker has more rights when defending themselves or the place where they live from intruders.'

In other words a bunch of scabs who'll rough up homeless people.


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 23, 2009)

^^ i've been close enough to sleeping rough to consider using their cheapo rent possibilities....
didn't do it cos i wasn't comfortable, for the reasons of your last statement (even being a tenant is being complicit in that...)

been to scared to consider squatting, cos i didn't know any current squatters


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 23, 2009)

Just caught up with this, very belatedly. I knew a little bit about the Rushcroft and Clifton histories, but Casaubon's excellent post has been a real eye opener, Gramsci's posts too.

This is all disgraceful news .... compare and contrast what happened a good few years ago woth the Pullens estate in Walworth, a former mass squat from the late eighties. This, after early, partly successful resistance to eviction attempts,  later ended up in the early nineties with its remaining residents (many of them still former squatters, 20 years on!) having their status legitimised. Southwark Council had and still have plenty of faults but Lambeth's incompetence and outrageous behaviour is on a *completely* different level 

Hope you're OK Drew.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 25, 2009)

In actual fact Lambeth Council has rehoused many ex Short Life but its not a consistent policy. They are agreeing to rehouse most S/L in order to sell of the Short life housing they are in. 

 In RR seems to me as the Land and property prices have collapsed theres no need to pursue heavy handed large scale evictions. If they arent causing trouble leave them there.

 Thats what happened before in the late 70s when funding for large scale building projects dried up.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 3, 2009)

Heard that 2 evicted blocks will be sold off.But the money will be recycled to redo up remaining Council owned property in RR "for much needed flats for those in need" etc.

THe money from selling the blocks cannot be specifically ringfenced but this is the assurance ive got.


----------



## Casaubon (Apr 3, 2009)

*Selling Flats, Re-investing the Proceeds.*

Hi everyone
Thanks for your feedback, and sorry I haven’t had time to post further. 
I was notified of Gramsci’s post  (#72) and decided to make the time to reminisce about Elmwood House, a block of flats on Rushcroft Rd. 
(It was a long time ago, and there’s been a lot of water under the bridge, so my memory is incomplete and possibly faulty. If anyone has additions or corrections to my account I’d be happy to hear them). 

About 10(?) years ago Elmwood was owned by Lambeth council but nominally controlled by London and Quadrant. There were only a couple of L&Q ‘short-life’ tenants living there, the other flats were empty or squatted, and there may have been a council tenant.  
The residents association of the time, Rushcroft Rd Action Group (a.k.a. RAG) had been in lengthy negotiations with Lambeth council about the future of Rushcroft Rd.
It was agreed that Elmwood would be emptied and sold, and the money would be used to start a rolling regeneration of Rushcroft Rd. 
The few L&Q or council tenants were re-housed. 
The property developer who bought Elmwood turned out to be a very sensible, straightforward and honest bloke. (Honestly, after years of dealing with council politicians and officers, he was a diamond.) The woman who was the driving force behind RAG (can I mention names?) brokered a deal between the developer and the squatters that was acceptable to both sides. (One of the squatters, who’d been there a couple of weeks, got £2K – he was very happy.)

As soon as they had the money in the bank, the council reneged on the agreement to use the money to start the rolling regeneration. 
They’d been lying to us all along. 
RAG had put huge effort into realistic plans for regeneration and the council shafted us, and left 100-odd flats to rot for another 10 years.

I wouldn’t bet on a single penny being re-invested in Rushcroft Rd. 
The council has never had the ability to deal with the complexities of Rushcroft Rd, and I can’t imagine that any of the current shower of politicians and officers will be any more able than the previous shifty, self-seeking deadbeats. 
The complexities will defeat them, and they’ll probably let Rushcroft Rd sink back into relative obscurity, bearing in mind the challenge of selling the flats in this economic climate and the countless other ways they could spend the money. 

Casaubon

p.s. Do I have the Longest Lurk record?
p.p.s. Donna Ferentes – no, Umberto Eco/George Eliot


----------



## Crispy (Apr 3, 2009)

I could have sworn I saw a 2001 de-lurk recently, but yours is top 10 material


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2009)

Casaubon said:


> I wouldn’t bet on a single penny being re-invested in Rushcroft Rd.


Sadly, I tend to agree with you. But at least the council will have two nice apartment blocks to flog off, if they ever get around to refurbishing them.


----------



## slcr (Apr 3, 2009)

Noticed that large empty building next to the carpark on Porden Road finally seems to have been squatted, which made me kinda happy.. been wandering past for a couple o years thinking it seemed a shame and an ideal empty property.  Anyone know who's in there - organised collective or just some peeps looking for somewhere to live?  Only idle curiousity, mind


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 9, 2009)

An email to Lambeth's internal communications who produced the hatchet job on the lambeth life paper from a friend of mine who works for the council:



> You should be ashamed of that report into the squatters eviction.  As a local resident with an interest in Housing issues I am well aware that the properties are not being returned to use for housing but are being sold, and that the money cannot be ringfenced in any way.  Which runs contradictory to that piece, which directly implies otherwise.  I am also aware that Lambeth has refused repeatedly to receive rents from the occupants there from the moment that the properties were handed to them by the previous landlords, a social housing provider.  I am also well aware of the Inside Housing investigation into Lambeth’s handling of the properties, with its damning conclusions.  These properties have been allowed to be squatted, and allowed to be run down, and are now being sold at the worst possible time to do so, in the worst possible method of sale, in the worst possible condition.  This is a propaganda smear piece designed to reflect blame from the council rather than trumpet its achievement.  It shames all of us who work here, and insults those of us who live here.


 
I wonder if he'll get a response in any way.  I imagine it will be a formal complaint to his manager for his temerity.


----------



## Onket (Apr 9, 2009)

I doubt it. I emailed them about something a month ago.

Fair play to him though.


----------



## editor (Apr 9, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> An email to Lambeth's internal communications who produced the hatchet job on the lambeth life paper from a friend of mine who works for the council:


That's a great letter.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 9, 2009)

Timely that this thread's popped up again. As some of you may remember, I was a bit concerned about my mate P, who was evicted from Rushcroft and uncontactable.

I've just seen him in the blinking freebie London Paper though - featured in the latest 'squatters take over multimillion ubermansion' story.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 9, 2009)

Casaubon said:


> Hi everyone
> Thanks for your feedback, and sorry I haven’t had time to post further.
> I was notified of Gramsci’s post  (#72) and decided to make the time to reminisce about Elmwood House, a block of flats on Rushcroft Rd.
> (It was a long time ago, and there’s been a lot of water under the bridge, so my memory is incomplete and possibly faulty. If anyone has additions or corrections to my account I’d be happy to hear them).
> ...



Yes as far as I can remember Elmwood House had three Council tenants and the rest was L&Q "shortlife".

I remember some years later the issue came up and the Council denied that Elmwood house had ever been Council owned.

Long time no see Casaubon. Hope life is ok on sunny Brixton hill


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 9, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> An email to Lambeth's internal communications who produced the hatchet job on the lambeth life paper from a friend of mine who works for the council:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if he'll get a response in any way.  I imagine it will be a formal complaint to his manager for his temerity.



I must say i found the front page of the new "Lambeth Life" rather annoying.Its like the Council are gloating about it as thought they have doen a good job.


----------



## TONYSW9 (Dec 11, 2009)

Yes better not talk about our coop business in public,lets carry on the ideal of a mutually exclusive society of peace loving hippys protected from the nasty world by our insular superiority.
As real estate prices have escalated in recent years, forced up by competition for housing in communities across the UK, pressure has increased on local people to sell up and move out. But some organisations have been fighting back to protect the people that make the communities what they are.

Lambeth Self Help Housing Association (LSHHA) is one of the most effective. The groundbreaking mutual cooperative helps local people stay in the heart of their community by providing affordable housing in South East London. Managed by its tenants, LSHHA is described as the only genuinely self-funding housing association of its kind currently active in the UK. It receives no external funding and still fulfils all its legal obligations as a housing association.

Two years ago Lambeth Council expressed an interest in selling off 62 properties, all of which were managed by LSHHA, and many of which were large enough to accommodate families. A loan from Triodos Bank helped the Association to start to buy them. The deal with Lambeth Council gave LSHHA a discount on the properties in return for a promise that they would only offer new places to council applicants. The agreement allowed the Association to buy the homes and secure the future housing needs of a significant number of families in the community.

Abraham Krespin, Director of LSHHA, has worked for the Association for over 20 years and manages the day-to-day running of the Co-operative. He believes the organisation and its tenants can look forward to a bright future. “There is a second phase of the development in the pipeline, hopefully involving the purchase of over a hundred more residential properties in the Lambeth area in the next few years,” says Mr Krespin. “This kind of housing scheme really does meet the needs of its customers. It allows the tenants to manage their homes and to make the decisions which affect their lives.” 

Call 020 7274 8848 for more information.

If any coop people want to PM me to engage in a bit of deluded fantasy of staying where they are or getting some dirt on LBL to pressurse CBL into giving them good rehousing options feel free,but you should know that CBL are illegally puutig coop decant in band C (supply transfers) instead of band H,so they really got jack to whine about.
oops i think i may have disclosed something just now


----------



## Laughing Toad (Dec 11, 2009)

TONYSW9 said:


> LSHHA is described as the only genuinely self-funding housing association of its kind . . . . .
> 
> 
> .. . . . . deal with Lambeth Council gave LSHHA a discount on the properties in return for . . . . . . . . . . . .



'Self-funding' as long as it gets its houses at a discount, isn't really self-funding.

Some of us, who pay the full market rent for our housing, resent this fantasy bookkeeping.


----------



## linerider (Dec 11, 2009)

Laughing Toad said:


> 'Self-funding' as long as it gets its houses at a discount, isn't really self-funding.
> 
> Some of us, who pay the full market rent for our housing, resent this fantasy bookkeeping.


And those of us who can't afford the rents asked because so many twats did the 'buy to rent' route,and others who lived on equity due to inflated house prices,and are now suffering the fucking credit crunch,think social house is more than just a good idea it is essential.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Dec 12, 2009)

Even if social housing were essential, there's no reason to pretend that it doesn't cost taxpayers anything.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 12, 2009)

[I hope my presence in this forum can be excused for once]

I know some people who lived there.  If anyone reading this knows who I mean and has any news of them, a PM would be great.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 13, 2009)

Article from Inside Housing sent to me 

Local authority bids to recover budget deficit
Lambeth sells 10 homes for £1.68m
13/11/2009 | By Jamie Obertelli




Lambeth Council attempted to sell more of its social housing stock than any other local authority last month, as it claws back an overspend on last year’s annual budget.



Figures from EIG, which collates data from all auctions across the country, revealed Lambeth made 14 properties available for auction in October, selling 10 homes for £1.68 million. Camden Council raised more money than any other local authority, selling the eight properties that it made available at auction for £2.7 million.

Both authorities said the properties were auctioned to help raise funds to meet the decent homes standards.

Lib Peck, cabinet member for housing and regeneration at Lambeth, said it was the council’s policy to sell off one and two-bedroom flats that were ‘prohibitively expensive’ to repair.

Ms Peck explained: ‘These sales help to fund the refurbishment of empty properties - for every one property sold, we can repair and bring back into use three homes that have lain empty - for the benefit of those in housing need.’

In January this year Lambeth was branded ‘reckless’ by a committee of three councillors who investigated a £6 million overspend in its annual homelessness accommodation budget of £11 million.

Abigail Davies, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: ‘Councils are trying to recoup money either because it is not easy to upgrade the properties being sold or the local authorities in question need to raise the revenue to improve other properties in their stock.’

A spokesperson for London Councils said local authorities were in the business of providing the best quality affordable homes so selling off stock was always a ‘last resort’.

Readers' comments (11) 
Harry Lime | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:45 GMT

It doesn't say in this article if the "empty properties" that they're refurbishing are owned by Lambeth Council, if not, the selling of council stock to refurb "other" people's properties, regardless of any nomination rights they may obtain, seems perverse. If the refurbed units are owned by Lambeth it seems even worse!!

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

kass | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:40 GMT

Unless right to buy (and sell) is banned this is what happens. Social landlords will use any excuse to sell stock to cover up for their maladiministration and inefficiency in others sectors for which individuals should be prosecuted. And there is very little anyone can do to stop it. 
Anyone who maintains this can be controlled, is either living in dreamland or has some personal speculative interest in it.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Peter | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:47 GMT

This is not a new policy and it has been going on for many years in Lambeth. The process begins when a property becomes void. An assessment is made on the cost of repair and if the costs exceeds the set limit i.e £10K than the property it will recommended for disposal (through an auction).

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

kass | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:00 GMT

Peter | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:47 GMT
You quoted 10k as an example or as the actual figure?... Because it seems to me a very good price to pay to keep a property, compared to buying or building a new one.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

panjandrum | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:02 GMT

Lambeth had almost 1000 empty units less than a year ago, consisting of about 600 long-cycle voids and 400 shortlife units. Long cycle voids arose because Lambeth didn't place any orders for void works for over 6 months due to an 'administrative error'! The Housing Revenue account was at least £11M overspent due to their inefficiency and incompetence.
They are evicting all shortlife occupants and rehousing only those people who they have a statutory duty to rehouse. These properties then stand empty until they decide what to do with them. They invited RSL's to submit proposals to acquire shortlife units, with vacant possession, and several RSL's submitted proposals. None were accepted because they didn't come close to market value. RSL's could only buy the properties at considerable discount due to the amount of work needed to bring the properties up to decent homes standard. Lambeth's incompetence means that its stock of unlet social housing is being sold to private developers at knock-down prices at auction (Lambeth had to withdraw properties from auction 6 months ago because they didn't reach the reserve prices)

Scandalous!

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6507252


----------



## TONYSW9 (Dec 14, 2009)

Gramsci and co are correct in what they say,there are other factors that affect the discounting of disposals however.
one is the occupants and the purchasers retention of those in the stock,another is the nomination rights agreed with lbl,coin st has 50%southwark,50% lbl.
whole estates have been transferred to almo,stockwell park etc.
the problem with the coops is they never developed into the sustainable housing model for inner city regeneration that they were expected to because of competetion from the housing associations.


----------



## TONYSW9 (Dec 16, 2009)

FINANCE SCRUTINY SUB-COMMITTEE
VOIDS FORMULA
SECOND DESPATCH
Date and Time: Thursday, 4 September 2008 7.00 pm
Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
Democratic Services Officer:
Democratic Services
London Borough of Lambeth,
Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill,
London, SW2 1RW
Despatched: Wednesday, 27
August 2008
Matthew Mannion
Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 2225
Fax: 020 7926 2361
Email: mmannion@lambeth.gov.uk
Website: www.lambeth.gov.uk
MEMBERS: Councillors ROBBINS (Chair), TRUESDALE (Vice-Chair),
C. BENNETT, MORRIS and SABHARWAL
SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors CAMERON, DODSWORTH, HIPWELL and
PALMER
AGENDA
Appendices to reports- bulky appendices are published on the Website
www.lambeth.gov.uk and can be obtained from report authors/Clerk or at the meeting.
They are not circulated with the agenda.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING
Page
Nos.
2. Long Cycle Voids Update Report
1 - 28
(Report 135/08-09)
All Wards
Non-Key Decision
Executive Director of Housing Regeneration and Environment
Contact: Claire Drummond 020 7926 2751
E-Mail: cdrummond@lambeth.gov.uk
London Borough of Lambeth
Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee – Special Meeting 04/09/08
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST
Long Cycle Voids
1. Background/Context
1.1 Following consideration of draft reports by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the
Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee additional information was requested to
supplement the report on Long Cycle Voids (agenda item 2) and to assist
members in their scrutiny of the matter.
1.2 The responses to these questions will be material to the discussion held on 4th
September, will be provided to all members of the Committee and will be made
available to the public in accordance with the council’s access to information
rules.
2. Consultation
Name of
consultee
Department Date sent Date
response
received
Comments
appear in
report para:
Internal
Richard Hornby DD Finance & Resources 29.08.08 2.09.08 Throughout
Greg Carson Legal and Democratic Services 29.08.08 1.09.08 None
Conrad Hall DD Corporate Finance 29.08.08 1.09.08 None
3. Reasons for Consideration
3.1 The following reasons for consideration will be provided if required:
The Chair is of the opinion that although this information will not have been
available for at least five clear days before the meeting, nonetheless it should be
considered because of the special circumstances that failure to receive the
information at this meeting will compromise the committee’s ability to conduct
thorough and effective scrutiny of the matter.
4. Additional Questions
4.1 The following additional information was sought from officers:
1 Confirmation of the accuracy of the figure of 376 Long Cycle Voids (LCVs)
at 2nd April 2006 (see appendix 1).
2 The latest figures for LCV numbers in the borough excluding temporary
decants (see appendix 2).
3 An indication of which of the current voids were in their current LCV status
prior to 2nd April 2006 (see appendix 2).
4 A copy of the delegated decision of July 2002 referred to in 1.3 of the report
(see appendix 3).
5 A copy of the Housing Performance Digests for March 2005 and March
2006 (see appendix 4 and 5).
6 How long has each LCV been empty for (see appendix 6), including:
Agenda Item 2 Page 1
• How many properties have been removed from the LCV list in the
period March 2006 until now;
• What caused them to be taken off of the list;
• If they were brought back into residential use, what was the cost of
repairs required to bring them to a lettable standard?
7 When did the existing policy review commence, who initiated this and what
is the timetable?
5. Commentary
Accuracy of the figure of 376 LCVs at 2nd April 2006
5.1 Officers can confirm that on 2nd April 2006 the number of LCVs were as follows:
Total
LCVs 458
Temporary decants 82
LCVs excl. temp decants 376
5.2 The figure of 82 can be seen on page 7 of appendix 1 under ‘Major Works
Decant’.
Current LCVs excluding temporary decants
5.3 Officers can confirm that as of 22nd August 2008 (the latest available set of
figures) the council has 393 current LCVs excluding temporary decants (see
appendix 2).
Current LCVs’ status prior to 2nd April 2006
5.4 Appendix 2 displays all current voids (as of 10th August) and indicates those that
were void prior to 2nd April 2006 and those that were in their current LCV status
prior to 2nd April 2006.
5.5 109 of the 393 current LCVs at 22nd August 2008 were void before 2nd April 06.
5.6 57 of the 393 current longcycle empties at 22nd August 2008 were in their current
longcycle void status before 2nd April 06.
5.7 This means that there are 52 current longcycle empty dwellings which were void
before 2-Apr-06, but which weren’t in there current longcycle void status at the
date. These 52 properties will have been void, but in another void status at that
time - many will have been in another longcycle void status at that time, some will
have been squatted, and some may have been in use as shortlife. It is also
possible that some will at that time have been considered as shortcycle voids,
before a later assessment was made that they were in fact longcycle.
How long have the LCVs been vacant?
5.8 Appendix 61 includes the figures for the length of time properties have been void,
although these are in weeks rather than days.
1 Please note that officers have not been able to access a list of the 376 properties recorded
as LCV on 2 April 2006, but have been able to access a list of LCVs recorded the previous
week, when the figure was 361.
Page 2
5.9 The analysis notes that 110 are still void and 251 properties have been removed
from the list and the reasons given as follows:
• 42 have been Relet, and are now Tenanted
• 15 have been Sold Leasehold at auction
• 12 have been Sold Freehold at auction
• 105 have been Demolished
• 77 have been Stock Transferred
5.10 It has not been possible to extract the costs of the voids removed at this point as
no report currently exists to capture this information, and there was not the time
available to obtain this information manually or go into each record.
Policy review
5.11 The policy review has been a piece of work undertaken by the Housing
Disposals Group (HDG), which is an officer meeting that reviews progress on
properties agreed for disposal and discusses other properties that may
subsequently be approved for disposal. This group meets every 6 weeks and
consists of officers within Strategy and Partnerships; Valuation and Asset
Management Services and Lambeth Living.
5.12 Following a weekly update with the Cabinet Member on 2nd May 2008 an
instruction was given to review to explore the option of retaining and refurbishing
properties. HDG, subsequently started work on a disposals policy on 9th May
2008 and a final version is to be presented back to CMH in September.
6. Appendices
Appendix 1: Extract from week 52 Empty Homes Weekly Report (2nd April
2006).
Appendix 2: Long Cycle Voids - Week 18 (10th August 2008)
Appendix 3: Delegated Decision Report, July 2002: Model for evaluating high
cost void disposals
Appendix 4: Housing Performance Digest March 2005
Appendix 5: Housing Performance Digest March 2006
Appendix 6: Long Cycle Voids at 31st March 2006 and status of these at 10
August 2008
SORRY HAD TO CUT IT SHORT TO LONG! FOR MESSAGE.
HOT TIP IF YOU HAVE GIVEN YOUR NAME AND GOT A REPLY FROM LBL DO A DATA REQEST ACT TO FIND OUT WHAT WHAT THE INTER OFFICE COMM WERE TAHT GOT YOUR DESCISION


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 12, 2010)

As an update here is one of the properties in Rushcroft road that the Council has sold. I noticed in the window of a local estate agent its up for  for rent:

"EXCLUSIVE TO HARMENS - Stunning, refurbished two bedroom, two bathroom (one en-suite) penthouse apartment located only moments away from the vibrant, cultural heart of Brixton."

for £1290pcm

http://www.harmens.co.uk/propertyde...d171e0f8f21f&dealtype=2&propertytype=lettings


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

£1290pcm!!!!!


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> £1290pcm!!!!!


Not an uncommon amount for a newly refurbished 2 bedroom flat close to amenities these days.

edit:  lol, oh yeah a penthouse apartment at that!  cheap in that case...


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

"penthouse" in this case means tiny windows, sloped ceilings and loads of stairs to climb 
(unless they put a lift in?)


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> "EXCLUSIVE TO HARMENS - Stunning, refurbished two bedroom, two bathroom (one en-suite) penthouse apartment located only moments away from the vibrant, cultural heart of Brixton."


So incredibly vibrant that the 'penthouse' is on the same street that my mate nearly got murdered on two weeks ago.


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> "penthouse" in this case means tiny windows, sloped ceilings and loads of stairs to climb
> (unless they put a lift in?)


I don't think there's a lift in there. Anyone climbing all those stairs may well be disappointed by the "penthouse" they find at the top, too.


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> "penthouse" in this case means tiny windows, sloped ceilings and loads of stairs to climb
> (unless they put a lift in?)


In London 'penthouse' means the joy of not living with somebody stomping around on the floor above, who cares about views,terraces,pools or flamingos!


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

true, true. And if they haven't done any major soundproofing, that means a lot in those Rushcroft road buildings - the floors are very thin


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Oct 12, 2010)

When you squeeze a flat under the eaves of a roof, with just skylights & no windows in any vertical wall, isn't it usually called a garret?


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 12, 2010)

Ms Ordinary said:


> When you squeeze a flat under the eaves of a roof, with just skylights & no windows in any vertical wall, isn't it usually called a garret?


In romantic European cities yes.  In London its usually just called a loft conversion.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2010)

More here and here

They are asking about 1400pcm for the 2 bed one but less for the 3 bed.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> More here and here
> 
> They are asking about 1400pcm for the 2 bed one but less for the 3 bed.


The 325 one is across the road - not the same landlord.
IIRC the 3 bedders were pretty small.


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Oct 12, 2010)

Yes - they were


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> true, true. And if they haven't done any major soundproofing, that means a lot in those Rushcroft road buildings - the floors are very thin


yep, my friend is in constant arguments with his upstairs neighbours about the noise levels of their footsteps.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> true, true. And if they haven't done any major soundproofing, that means a lot in those Rushcroft road buildings - the floors are very thin


 
They won't have been under any regulatory obligation to soundproof any except the loft flats because the others were in existence already - so it is just a refurbishment.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> "penthouse" in this case means tiny windows, sloped ceilings and loads of stairs to climb
> (unless they put a lift in?)


 
The idea that its a Penthouse did make me smile. As someone else posted its a garret.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2010)

I also think that if a developer could buy this building off the Council and in a short time do it up to sell why couldnt it have stayed as Council housing? There didnt seem to be any major structural repairs done by the Council so it was feasible imo for the Council to to up. They are supposed to keep properties that do not need more than £40 000 per unit to do up to Decent Homes Standard.

I know that there were Council tenants in at least one of the flats for a while.


----------



## grit (Oct 14, 2010)

editor said:


> So incredibly vibrant that the 'penthouse' is on the same street that my mate nearly got murdered on two weeks ago.



In general do you consider that particular part of brixton unsafe?


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2010)

grit said:


> In general do you consider that particular part of brixton unsafe?


I don't consider any part of Brixton as being particularly 'unsafe', but there's areas where I'm a bit more wary than usual when it's late at night. Rushcroft Road is one of them, Somerleyton Road is another.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 16, 2010)

Not Rushcroft Rd but some squatters in my street got evicted recently.  The bailiffs smashed up all their furniture and the toilet while they were about it.   

I'm ambivalent about squatting, tbh, but these particular squatters had made a real effort to get involved in the community and held cinema evenings in their house once a month.  They also actively contributed to the street party.  And now the house is boarded up and got knows when it will be renovated.  I'm not holding my breath as another house that belongs to the council and suffered a serious fire two years ago is standing empty and waiting for major repairs.  And they presumably have insurance money to pay for that.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 17, 2010)

The house will be left empty. This is what Lambeth Living do. They say they have "Zero Tolerance" policy towards squatting but then leave buildings empty. They have unofficial policy of letting street properties decline until they they cost to much to do up . So they have to sell them.


----------



## gaijingirl (Oct 17, 2010)

What's the deal with all the flats that are boarded up with that dark grey metal?  There's loads on my estate and I don't get why?  We've got nice flats and there's supposed to be a housing shortage?  They seem to get closed up and never reopened... ??


----------



## Cowley (Oct 19, 2010)

> there's supposed to be a housing shortage? They seem to get closed up and never reopened... ??



Aye, there are 3 Terraced Houses on the street I live on in Streatham that are Lambeth owned that are now empty, 1 of them boarded up, the other 2 just vacant.  They've been this way for a couple of years now.

Housing Shortage?  You wouldn't have thought so in Lambeth!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 19, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> What's the deal with all the flats that are boarded up with that dark grey metal?  There's loads on my estate and I don't get why?  We've got nice flats and there's supposed to be a housing shortage?  They seem to get closed up and never reopened... ??


 
They probably are not up to standard. Now that Lambeth are eliminating Short Life housing flats like this get left empty.


----------



## gaijingirl (Oct 19, 2010)

I don't really understand .. sorry.  I don't know what short life housing is.  All I know is that our flat is lovely and there are plenty of other people who have really nice flats too.  Are you saying that they rented them out for short lets and they got trashed and the council has closed them down rather than fix them up?


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 19, 2010)

The council used to rent out 'uninhabitable' (anything not up to HC standards) properties on Short Life licences.  Now that they can't do that the properties will stand empty until they are scheduled to be done up.

Short Life licences were the solution to squatting and dereliction in the 70's and 80's.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 20, 2010)

i reckon I can think of at least 100 empty/boarded up properties in the Brixton area alone. I cycle/walk a lot and I spot new ones all the time. That's potentially 300+ people who could be given a home.


----------



## gaijingirl (Oct 20, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> The council used to rent out 'uninhabitable' (anything not up to HC standards) properties on Short Life licences.  Now that they can't do that the properties will stand empty until they are scheduled to be done up.
> 
> Short Life licences were the solution to squatting and dereliction in the 70's and 80's.



ok - I understand now.  Thanks.

It's shit though - I wish they'd just do them up - apart from the fact that it's good housing going to waste - it makes the rest of the place look like shit - there's lots of people doing all sorts to make their homes and the estate in general look nice, despite it not being the most aesthetically pleasing building - flowerpots along the walkways, veg growing in the communal garden etc... those boarded up flats don't exactly make the place feel homely...


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 20, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> The council used to rent out 'uninhabitable' (anything not up to HC standards) properties on Short Life licences.  Now that they can't do that the properties will stand empty until they are scheduled to be done up.
> 
> Short Life licences were the solution to squatting and dereliction in the 70's and 80's.


 
The Council could use short life if it wanted to. Its made a political decision to "withdraw" from Short life.


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 20, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> The Council could use short life if it wanted to. Its made a political decision to "withdraw" from Short life.


But Short Life properties were classified as 'empty' and councils were forced to have less than x% (2? 6? or something) empty properties iirc, therefore councils (well certainly LBL) had to reduce their SL tenancies and not start new ones.  Its been a while but that's how I remember it going down.  Could be wrong though.


----------

