CAMDEN COUNCIL ROTTEN LAND-LORD

Reform of Housing Revenue Account - the Landlord Account

2012-01-15T05:18:00.000-08:00

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk

Reform of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy System

From April 2012, the system of local authority housing finance (known as the housing revenue account, or HRA) will undergo the most significant and far reaching change since the war, and will be devolved to local authorities to manage themselves. Authorities which own housing stock will gain full control of their housing income and expenditure and be able to make their own decisions on how and in what way they invest in tenants' homes. If they wish, they will even be able to build new homes using surplus rental income.

The reform of the HRA has been a long process. The previous Labour Government consulted on HRA devolution and moved towards it, but did not implement it. The Coalition Government confirmed in February 2011 that it was going ahead with HRA devolution from April 2012, a move for which there was broad cross-party and sector support.

In return for being able to manage their own HRAs, the 171 stock-owning local authorities have been allocated a share of the national housing debt, totalling some £28bn. London's boroughs have fared relatively well in this settlement, being allocated £5.5bn of debt, some 25% less than estimated was originally owed.

In addition, local authorities have had a ceiling placed on their ability to borrow against the rental income that they will now receive in full. This is because local authority borrowing counts as part of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR) and thus counts as part of the national debt, which the Government is keen to reduce.

--------------------------

Chapter 3 of The Localism Act 2011 HERE, abolishes the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy system. This takes affect from April 2012.

According to a recent council report HERE (11. Debt Management) Camden Councils share of the settlement debt will be £518m. This is bad news for tenants who through above inflation rent and service charge increases will have to foot the bill. The council recently set the increase of rents from April 2012 at 8%.

In time council housing rents are expected to come into line with housing association rents.

Revenue funds can be spent on capital expenditure.

The reason for the new system is due to the "Daylight Robbery Campaign" - lobbying by some unions , council tenant reps, MP's and clrs, under the "defend council housing" banner who object to the socialist way of distribution as the rents from better of tenants not in receipt of housing benefit have been used (distributed) across the country to give financial help to poorer tenants via housing benefit. Ref HOC Research Paper HERE.

Contrary to popular myth, housing benefit (rent rebate) does not in all cases cover the full cost of rent or service charges so that when rents and services charges are increased the cost is incurred by the tenant.

Hanging Death on Council Estate

2012-01-13T19:54:00.000-08:00

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk

Swiss Cottage basketball hoop hanging death

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Josh Pettitt and Rachael Getzels, Reporters

A man was found hanged from the frame of a basketball hoop at a Swiss Cottage sports court on this morning (Wednesday, January 11.

The man, believed to be in his 30s, was discovered shortly before 6.30am in Dobson Close estate, off Hilgrove Road, by a woman walking her dog.

The body, which has not been identified, was hanging yards from a children’s playground.

Police said they requested a tent to shield the body from children.

Clearly shaken up, Natasha Ullah, 29, who discovered the body, said: “I was walking the dog this morning, I went through the park and I noticed a guy hanging on the pitch.

“All I remember is seeing the guy hanging there. I was quite shocked at that.

“I rang up to call the police. I didn’t really want to get any nearer to him.”

There was no sign of how the man climbed the 10 feet to the top of the hoop.

Residents of the estate said they were shocked and saddened at the death.

Muna Salaad, 34, of Hillgrave Estate, who saw the body covered in a white cloth, said: “I feel sad. It was a bit weird when I saw it. It took me a few seconds, I thought ‘Oh God there’s a body there’. It’s really sad.”

Pensioner Norma Boyle, whose flat in Farjeon House, Dobson Close, overlooks the basketball court, said: “It is dreadful. We’ve never had anything like this before. We have lived here for 51 years and never known anything like it.”

Police sealed off the area for several hours, but are not treating the death as suspicious.

The area was reopened shortly before 11am the same morning.

An inquest will be opened and adjourned at St Pancras Coroners’ Court.

The State of Tenant Participation

2012-01-08T18:03:00.000-08:00

Back in 2009 David Padfield the councils present assistant director of housing management at a public meeting, named a council tenant as being "dealt with by the courts".

The tenant had been to court and was found guilty and fined for 'harassment' of other council tenants. Word about the summary conviction spread fast around the council. Chuckles all round?

The judge who was supposed to hear the case was swapped for another judge who had a reputation for being harsh.

Around the same time the boroughs leading council tenants group the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations (CFTRA), who have since around 2003 been funded by the council to provide tenants with a service and allegedly a 'voice', had also had experiences with the courts and been "dealt with".

Oddly this wasn't mentioned at any public meetings by the AD of housing management or any of his underlings.

It was deliberately kept quiet (covered-up). Shock horror.

Two of the cftra directors where Camden labour party members who wanted onto the council.

One had already had his chances of getting onto the council in 2006 sabotaged by antagonistic tenants who have 'form' when it comes to such things. They weren't fussy about who they targeted be they Labour, Fib-dem or Tory party members. Other residents where also targeted for the 'treatment'.

One of their tactics is to contact the police and make allegations against a particular person or person/s. This results in the target being contacted by the police either at home or by email. As with one such contact the person/s weren't even informed that an offence had been committed - but they where being watched.

Do they tell the police they work for the council?

Just how did they get Camden police to go around to an elderly disabled persons home and intimidate him into being quiet? A most shameful episode in the history of policing in Camden via the corruption that emanates from the boroughs council. People in the council including elected council members did nothing about it. One council member who really should have known better was passing information onto the 'gang'.

The gang have a tactic of befriending people who will be useful to them - the council knows about this and even encourages it.

What sort of council do we have in Camden that encourages this sort of nasty anti-social behaviour?

A public authority/municipal corporation that lacks integrity is my guessing.

Council Scrutiny Committees

2012-01-02T16:26:00.000-08:00

Not all members of the councils various 'scrutiny' committees are elected council members.

Some go onto 'greater' things - others have no where else to go after their stint is over.

The Housing and Adult Social Care (HASC) scrutiny committee seems biased toward council tenant problems.

There is a theory that one can get onto a council committee by using bullying, intimidation and manipulation.

Appointed committee members don't appear to have to follow any Code of Conduct.

According to the councils website "Three of the scrutiny committees mirror the three service directorates, one covers health scrutiny and the fifth will look at corporate resources, performance and policy together with covering the central departments.

Children schools and families
Culture and environment
Housing and adult social care
Health
Resources and corporate performance"

As previously reported on this blog, (link to post to follow when I can be arsed) the HASC committee breached the Councils Constitution by setting up various sub-committees. I think it was one of the committee chairs who claimed that the part of the constitution that 'forbid' the setting up of sub-groups wasn't binding.

Anyway, since the breach the councils Constitution has been altered (Nov 2011) to accommodate the hasc scrutiny committee.

NB Councils are permitted by statute to have scrutiny committee sub-panels, but it isn't against the 'law' to not have them.

Lots of odd things going on with the hasc committee since the Camden labour association got back into power in May 2010.

The councils Annual Complaints Handling report (usually given to the Cabinet committee in Sept) has also ceased being published on the councils website as like previous years. In the new era of greater public authority transparency and accountability and so-called 'devolved' power to local communities, this can only be seen as a backward step.

Hope

2011-12-24T14:02:00.000-08:00

Council Mobile Phone Charges

2011-12-19T14:50:00.000-08:00

Since August 2010 Camden Council has published on its website HERE some of its monthly spending data.

A large amount of public money has been spent on mobile phone charges.

In the period 16 month period since Aug 2010 - Nov 2011 £1,145,088. 44 has been spent.

That's 1 million, 145 thousand, 88 pounds and 44 pence.

Money well spent?

New Director of HASC?

2011-12-14T22:17:00.000-08:00

No word yet from the council of who has been been chosen to be the new housing and adult social care department chief director. Its been a few months now since the present hasc director Mike Cooke was elevated to the top post of chief executive officer following the present ceo's decision to quit the council. Mike Cooke hadn't been in the post of hasc director for long before being chosen as ceo.

The council must have made a decision by now and are keeping it secret.

If its who I think it is there may be a case for a judicial review.

Wonders on what basis one gets promoted in the council?

Anthony Hardy

2011-11-29T20:17:00.000-08:00

Anthony Hardy lived in council housing in the borough of Camden until early 2002 when he was arrested, detained and later charged with the murder of two women. He was also a mental health service user who was at the time of the murders receiving care from Camden council social services and 'care' from Camden councils housing directorate.

You know where this is going?

The Independent Review into the Care and Treatment of Mr Anthony Hardy - September 2005

10 years on - has there been a positive change in the councils housing department behaviour? Not following procedures, ignoring legal advice, trying to hound a tenant out of his only and not posh by any means council home?

Why the councils tenancy management functions haven't been out-sourced to the private sector yet is a mystery. .

Tenancy Sucessions and Council Bullying

2011-11-23T19:22:00.000-08:00

A council tenant over in West Hampstead is having problems with a rogue housing estate officer attached to the local office.

The tenant is a relative of an elderly woman who held the tenancy for many years. The relative moved into the elderly woman's home to be her live in carer and was so for at least 3 years before she sadly died last year.

Since then he has been hounded by a bullying housing officer to get out of the flat even though he is lawfully entitled to be there.

Allegedly the housing officer wants the property for a mate of his as it has three bedrooms.

The housing officer allegedly sent someone around to the property to have a look at it despite the tenant still living there.

The tenant has been threatened twice with court action to get him evicted.

Instead of talking to this tenant in a civil manner and giving him enough points to be able to move to a suitable smaller property, the landlord has resorted to type with bully boy tactics designed to cause the tenant stress and upset.

Housing Support Group

2011-11-05T19:20:00.000-07:00

A list of all services that are provided under the Housing Support banner.

The Housing Support Group is a group of smaller teams in the housing management division of the Housing and Adult Social Care Directorate. They are:

Tenancy support team - TST is a team of support workers offering support to tenants and residents whose homes may be at risk due to mental health problems. The TST is managed by the Housing support services co-ordinator who also aims to improve links between housing services and support services within and outside the Council.
Performance support team – this includes: The housing investigations team which carries out tenancy checks, carries out checks to makes sure requests to take over tenancies meet the necessary criteria and investigates unauthorised occupancy and housing fraud. They also help the Council gain access to homes to carry out safety checks
The former tenants accounts team deal with financial matters relating to former tenants, for example if tenants move out leaving rent arrears outstanding the FTA team will try to locate them to ensure the debt is paid.
The court officers attend court for the Council and prepare court cases. They usually deal with rent arrears possession cases, .
Rent service team – this team are responsible for rent arrears collection for all Council tenancies.
Service development team – the team help the management team try to ensure the Council continues to improve services. It looks at what other landlords do and new legislation and government guidance. It helps design staff guidance and training and carries out project work for the housing management division.

The team also supports and monitors the six local tenant management organisations and helps tenants who want to develop new local management agreements.

Tenant participation team – this team encourages and promotes tenant participation and provides support for tenant representatives and staff who have tenant participation activities as part of their role.
Welfare rights team – this is a team of welfare rights advisors and a financial advisor. They provide advice about welfare benefits and debt.

There are currently 70 staff in the Housing Support Group, including team managers, at a total cost of £2,486,834.

....... a formal assessment of the Groups performance as a whole has not been undertaken.

The annual budget for the Housing Support Group for the years 2008/9, 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12.
2008/09 £2,871,240
2009/10 £5,223.740
2010/11 £6,264,755
2011/12 £4,096,244

The group is funded by the Housing Revenue Account with the exception of the Tenancy Support Team that is funded by Mental Health Commissioning using the General Fund.

The client group the funding is aimed at and the criteria for eligibility:

The criteria are self explanatory relating to the titles of each individual team, with the exception of the Tenancy support team which is health related.

Between 2009 and 2011, the Customer Services provision for all five District Housing Offices was included in the group, and the Rent service team together with the Former tenants accounts team joined the group in 2010.

The reason for Camden Council not carrying out assessments of this service:

...... because the council has no formal review mechanism for team performance at this level.
(Ref FoI request)
----------------------------------------

http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/housing/general-housing-information/supporting-people/supporting-people.en

Supporting people

The supporting people programme, which provides housing-related support services to vulnerable people in Camden, is no longer delivered by a single team.

Housing related support services

services for young people (the ‘young people’s pathway’) are commissioned within children schools and families
services for older people, people with mental health problems, and people with learning and/or physical disabilities are commissioned within the strategic planning and joint commissioning division of housing and adult social care
services for single homeless people with support needs, homeless families, people with substance misuse problems, rough sleepers, ex-offenders and women escaping domestic violence (hostel pathways services) are commissioned within the needs and resources division of housing and adult social care

Strategic Housing Role of Local Authorities

2011-11-02T11:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/strategichousingrole.pdf

Local Government Transparency

2011-10-19T12:39:00.000-07:00

http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/transparency/transparencyguidance/

12. As a minimum, the public data that should be released are:

• Expenditure over £500, (including costs, supplier and transaction information). Any sole trader or body acting in a business capacity in receipt of payments of at least £500 of public money should expect such payments to be transparent.

• Senior employee salaries, names (with the option for individuals to refuse to consent for their name to be published), job descriptions, responsibilities, budgets and numbers of staff. ‘Senior employee salaries’ is defined as all salaries which are above £58,200 and above (irrespective of post), which is the Senior Civil Service minimum pay band. Budgets should include the overall salary cost of staff reporting to each senior employee.

• An organisational chart of the staff structure of the local authority including salary bands and details of currently vacant posts.

• The ‘pay multiple’ – the ratio between the highest paid salary and the median average salary of the whole of the authority’s workforce.

• Councillor allowances and expenses.

• Copies of contracts and tenders to businesses and to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector.

• Grants to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector should be clearly itemised and listed.

• Policies, performance, external audits and key inspections and key indicators on the authorities’ fiscal and financial position.

• The location of public land and building assets and key attribute information that is normally recorded on asset registers and

• Data of democratic running of the local authority including the constitution, election results, committee minutes, decision - making processes and records of decisions.

Mental Health in Camden

2011-10-11T19:45:00.000-07:00

According to the 2010-11 Annual Report of the Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust HERE, (my emphasis in bold)

" The incidence of mental ill health is much higher in London and Camden scores highly on the Mental Illness Needs Index.

Mental health need is closely correlated to deprivation , and Camden has high rates of deprivation in wards in the south and middle of the Borough.

Camden has high rates of mental illness associated with homelessness and transience. The three major rail terminals, and two large A&E departments, also attract people into Camden.

Camden has one of the highest rates of registered drug users in the Capital, with two major drug markets.

The Psychiatric Morbidity Survey estimated the prevalence of common mental health disorders in those aged 16 to 74 to be 182 per 1000 population for London. This equates to 37,000 adults in Camden.

In excess of 1400 Camden residents aged 65+ are estimated to suffer from dementia

According to the Mental Health Needs Index (MINI), Camden has one of the highest needs for mental health services in the country (109% above the England average). These figures are changing as demographics change, though Camden remains an area of high mental health need.

The mortality rate for suicide and injury of undetermined intent is 14.4 deaths per 100.000 population, almost twice the London average of 7.9 deaths, and the national average of 8.3 deaths.

The rate for women is almost three times the national average (11.3 compared to 4.2 deaths)2"

Deprivation Index Here

What isn't clear from the above report is the tenure of service users - I think it would be interesting to know whether housing tenure has any baring on incidents of mental illness.

The NHS Foundation Trust is working in partnership with Camden council to provide mental health services to Islington and Camden adult residents and given that the housing part of the council directorate responsible (housing and adult social care) doesn't have a good track record on how they manage mental health of tenants, and some could argue the housing directorate (tenant participation and landlord management) and certain ambitious political fractions add to the incidents of adult mental ill-health in the borough.

In my experience and that of others, 'tenant participation' via the District (housing) Management Committee's (DMC's) , the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) and the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations (CFTRA) isn't for faint the hearted.

Because of the harmful and vindictive behaviour (and nature) of certain council tenants, council members and council officers, it is fraught with dangers. This cabal of players whose main aim in life seems to be 'fcuking over' as many people as possible - manipulation, lying and intimidation is the name of their game has given much weight to tenant participation in Camden having a much deserved bad reputation. Nothing changes for the better because the main players are never held to account for their actions, not by the council not by the police. The political will just isn't there.

This type of environment is not healthy - well-being is not promoted. The mindset to change just isn't there and this cannot be a good thing.

Housing Support Services

2011-10-01T18:54:00.000-07:00

National Housing Federation and Sitra Briefing

Supporting People and the future of housing related support

Introduction and update

In April 2009, the ring fence around Supporting People funding was removed. The £1.66bn will continue to be paid as a named grant in 2009-10 but will not be protected. All local authorities will have the freedom to spend the money how they see fit locally.

Supporting People has helped some of the most vulnerable and socially excluded people in society who do not qualify for statutory care. The removal of the Supporting People ring fence creates a significant risk that vital services for vulnerable people will suffer as funding is diverted away to other priorities and the experience, expertise and focus of Supporting People will be lost.

However, the new funding regime also creates opportunities to respond to local needs in more flexible ways, by joining up expenditure across health, adult social care and housing related support. This will mean new or expanded partnerships with different local authority service areas. As we move through the transition to new funding arrangements there is a need to prepare for opportunities and preserve and build on the successes of Supporting People.

Continue reading HERE
---------------------------

Camden Councils website about Supporting People HERE

Types of services provided by Leeds Council HERE

I have Dementia?

2011-09-12T14:18:00.000-07:00

Apparently I have dementia and it came as quite a shock to me when I first heard the news as I had no idea.

Surely there is some mistake in the medically qualified diagnosis?

I'm not that old, well not past 50 anyway.

Wait.

I may have to contact my GP to make an appointment with a medically qualified physician for a second opinion.

I am very upset.

I found out about 'my' medical condition from a member of the public, who had phoned up the town hall to make enquires about a voluntary group (who have been receiving public money for years to allegedly provide a service) and was (much to his surprise) informed by two council employees that I have this medical condition.

I'm upset as anyone would be, to learn that I apparently have (because not 1 but 2 council employees said so so it must be true), such a serious illness.

Hang on.

Why are council staff giving out this information to members of the public - when even I didn't know I had the condition?

Does this mean I'm demented?

Surely now I have this condition I will need extra care and understanding from me lords and lordesses up at da big house?

-----------

Apparently I have also made threats of physical violence to un-named council members and used violence against a committee member of a public funded voluntary group.

If this was actually true it could I suppose be explained away by me having a serious cognitive/mental illness such as the one I have recently been made aware of that I apparently have. I'm sure the police would have arrested and charged me by now or i'd be in a care home due to my newly diagnosed mental condition?

Just how low can they go?

Whats odd about dementia in Camden residents is that it seems in many cases to only appear (along with the apparent violent tendencies) when the conduct of council officers or their little helpers comes under the spotlight. Weird or what?

SOLD: Prime Council Housing in NW3

2011-09-09T10:58:00.000-07:00

The Labour run council have sold off two prime location council street properties in NW3, through estate agents Knight Frank HERE.

Council officer report to Cabinet committee meeting 7 Sept 2011 HERE

Theo Blackwell (cabinet member in charge of finance) who seems to have taken responsible for the sell offs, (as opposed to the cabinet member for housing) claims £11m has been offered for the two properties. The money will part go towards upgrading council homes in his ward (Gospel Oak). webcast of meeting HERE, index point 14.

Perhaps if the council as landlord didn't waste so much money on 'incidental' housing/landlord 'services' and freebies there wouldn't be a need to sell off such prime and no doubt sought after properties.

NB apparently the decision to sell the properties was made in Dec 2009 at the then called executive (now called cabinet) committee meeting when the lib-dems/tories had control of the council. Officers report HERE

No minutes of the Dec 2009 executive meeting are up on the councils website.

Annual Governance Statement

2011-09-06T11:12:00.000-07:00

REPORT OF: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

FOR SUBMISSION TO: AUDIT COMMITTEE

14 SEPTEMBER 2011

Members are asked to approve the report.

Annual Governance Statement (AGS)

1. Scope of Responsibility
The London Borough of Camden is responsible for ensuring that:
 its business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper standards;

 public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for; and

 public money is used economically, efficiently and effectively.

The London Borough of Camden also has a duty under the Local Government Act 1999 to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

CASP getting to big for their boots?

2011-09-02T19:10:00.000-07:00

Reading the recently put up on the councils website, minutes of a Camden Association of Street Properties (casp) committee meeting that was held in May & June 2011, I couldn't help but think "who do CASP think they are"?

According to the minutes a 'CASP cam' has been put up in Harrington square in Camden Town to 'combat' anti-social behaviour. CASP CAM? i've heard it all now. What next a 'casp cam' on every corner spying on people?

CASP seem to be trying to work their way into every area of council street property tenants (and everyone else it seems) lifes, from plots of land to redevelop as gardens, to spy cameras. CASP even 'involved' themselves (allegedly) in trying to 'secure' funding for a community festival in Swiss cottage.

Casp seems to be acting like a district management committee, or even the council. Delusions of grandeur?

What concerns me about the 'casp cam' is why a tenants group has done this and not the police or council who receive public money to 'combat' ASB? Aren't the council or the police doing their jobs properly? Are there even any signs posted to warn people that they are being watched and caught on 'casp cam'. What about data protection?

Casp claiming in their minutes that they are "seen as democratic" is a bit mystifying - seen by whom? What evidence is there to back up this claim?

No evidence as far as I can tell as to how many registered members casp has, no publicising of when casp committee meetings are being held and a committee that appoints one another back onto the committee at AGM's.

No evidence of attendance numbers at casp general or alleged area meetings - thats democratic is it?

CASP isn't even a legally recognised group ie it isn't incorporated and isn't regulated, yet the council funds and endorses, and allows casp to gain access to vulnerable residents knowing of casps history. From mine and other peoples experience, CASP cannot be trusted with access to anyone let alone vulnerable residents.

UPDATE
A recent Camden Town DMC report states that CASP put in a bid for a CCTV camera monitor costing wait for it .............. £10,000 ......... but was refused because casp hadn't attended this dmc's meetings.

£10,000 for a monitor? I dread to think how much the 'casp cam' cost. Ow look found a website that sells cctv monitors for £114.54 HERE.

Stop funding SOLACE says Housing Minister

2011-08-25T16:30:00.000-07:00

Localgov.co.uk

25 August 2011

Shapps calls on councils to cease funding SOLACE

Jonathan Werran

Housing minister Grant Shapps has urged councils to cease funding the Society of Local Authority Chief Executive and Senior Managers (SOLACE), accusing the representative body and its commerical arms of promoting ever-higher senior salaries.

SOLACE Enterprises, which operates as a 'not for profit' public sector company helping councils make senior level appointments and fill interim management roles, is currently overhauling its business plan. Former SOLACE general director David Clark, who has been seconded from the society, leads the refresh.

In a statement issued last night, however, Mr Shapps said: 'I fail to see the business case for the public funding a body that has acted as a broker for local authority chief executives helping to bump up their pay as they move from council to council.

'There is an urgent need to rein in excessive chief exec pay packets and exercise some restraint, which is why I am calling on all public bodies to cease funding SOLACE.'

Responding to criticisms made earlier in the week, chair of SOLACE Enterprises Rich Benton said criticisms of the organisation's role in the recruitment of local government chief executives were inaccurate and misleading.

He stated the body provides independent advice on the appointment process and that no serving chief executive is involved in decisions on appointments or setting salaries.

The former Mouchel chair and Capita Sales director, who replaced Sir Michael Pitt last year added: 'We play no role in setting salary levels merely advise on market forces based on available data. Salaries are set by the Elected Members of the Council representing the public so the people who pay their salaries do in fact have a say in the process.'

------------------------------------

SOLACE Society Of Local Authority Chief Executives.

ALACE Association of Local Authority Chief Executives.

Camden Lib Dems

2011-08-18T13:48:00.000-07:00

Another Camden Lib Dem makes the headlines today HERE, - this would be the second Camden Lib dem to be had up for benefit fraud whilst claiming allowances as a clr. Then there was the Camden Lib Dem who was claiming allowances from the council whilst workin/studying in the USA, then there is the other Camden lib dem (still on the council) who broke the Data Protection Act by leaking a confidential email to a party member who went on to commit perjury.

Do the Camden Lib Dems disproportionately attract the 'wrong' types and are they in danger of getting as bad a reputation as their 'chums' CASP?

Or is it the case that the party or the councils returning officer (who oversees elections), doesn't bother to advise candidates about what the rules are on claiming benefits and claiming council allowances? Possibly neither think its their responsibility or good practice?

Link to 2009 article about Chris Basson resigning from the council HERE.

Claims and Returns

2011-08-10T14:06:00.000-07:00

"The council is required to submit claims and returns to government to show how it has spent some of the money it has received from it and whether the council has complied with the conditions that might be in place.

Consequently, the government requires the grant submission to be independently reviewed and verified by the council’s external auditor, the Audit Commission.

For 2009/10, the council:

received in excess of £250m in grant from various central government departments.
was required to submit data returns to government in regard of a further £349m."

http://democracy.camden.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=2652

Claims and Returns Annual Report 2009/10

Camden Council Housing Support Team

2011-08-08T10:31:00.000-07:00

Last week I received a letter about the annual gas safety checks to my home. The letter had an appointment on it for a contractor to call at my home to do the safety checks. The contractor didn't turn up.

The same thing happened last year.

Last year when this happened I phoned up the Apollo Group who has been contracted by Camden Council, who contracts with the contractor to carry out the safety checks, and arranged another appointment.

This time I thought I'd wait until I received another letter from the company, as I was expecting them to do. I wasn't aware that my landlord Camden Council expects me to immediately chase up contractors who don't turn up for appointments.

Anyway, 4 days later instead of receiving another letter from the company, I receive a threatening letter from Camden council housing, accusing me of breaching my tenancy conditions because I hadn't allowed the contractor to gain access to my home to carry out the checks. The letter also made threats of court action. Huh?

Today, after phoning up Apollo to make another appointment, a person from housing phones me up at home and leaves a message on my answer machine about Gas (I couldn't make out the rest of what she said) but could make out that she wanted me to call her back on a said number.

I phoned the number and asked for the named person, but didn't manage to get hold of her. But surprisingly, the number I was given put me through to the councils 'tenant participation team', which I thought was odd. What does the tenant participation team have to do with tenancy gas checks?

As far as I am concerned the less contact I have with this team the better, particularly so since Sharon Calvey had a tenant arrested at the town hall for no good reason.

I'm puzzled as to why housing team was so quick of the mark to send me out a threatening letter and then phone me up?

Any chance they get to try and mess with me?

What next sending in the heavies to break down my door on the pretence of me not allowing entry for the statutory gas checks?

For the record I have made another appointment with the contractor for next week, and hopefully he will turn up. And no there isn't a gas leak that would warrant urgent access to my home and unwanted contact from the landlords agents.

What are They Hiding?

2011-08-06T07:55:00.000-07:00

Labour run Camden Council has done away with producing and (publishing on their website) a draft of the councils accounts for 31 March 2010 - 1 April 2011 when other councils still produce them. The 'official' reason given for this is to save money (oh yeah?)

Camden Council has also done away with producing (and publishing on their website) annual complaints reports. The last report - due to be given to the executive/cabinet committee in Sept 2010 (for the 2009/10 year) wasn't produced, will the same happen this year?

What are they hiding?

Shameless

2011-08-02T19:32:00.000-07:00

Imagine the scenario: Crown prosecution witnesses and one of their 'gang members' are in the foyer of the court building waiting for the stitched up defendant to arrive.

In the meantime they happen upon the defendants barrister, who they approach and surround, (like I witnessed a gang of young street muggers do) and they try to browbeat the barrister. Old habits die hard.

On another occasion in the court room one of them tries to nobble the judge. Old habits again?

Where is their dignity?

I like to think this sort of behaviour by crown prosecution witnesses is uncommon but who knows, perhaps winning a prosecution is all that matters regardless of anything else?

Inspection of Councils 2010-11 Accounts

2011-07-22T04:48:00.000-07:00

http://camden.gov.uk/

Public inspection of council accounts

The Council’s accounts are subject to external audit by the District Auditor, Mr P. M. Johnstone of the Audit Commission, 1st Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4HQ. Members of the public and local government electors have certain rights in the audit process:

From 25 July 2011 to 19 August 2011 between 10.00am and 5.00pm any person may inspect the accounts of the Council for the year ended 31 March 2011 and certain related documents (comprising books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts) at the address given below. They may also make copies of the accounts and documents. These documents will be available on application to the Director of Finance, London Borough of Camden, 2nd Floor, Town Hall Extension, Argyle Street, London WC1H 8NG or by telephoning 0207 974 3175/3227 between 9.00am and 5.00pm on Mondays to Fridays.
From 10.00am on 22 August until the conclusion of the audit process, a local government elector for the area of the Council, or his/her representative, may ask the auditor questions about the accounts. Please contact the auditor at the address given above to make arrangements to ask any questions.
From 10.00am on 22 August until the conclusion of the audit process, a local government elector for the area of the Council, or his/her representative, may object to the Council’s accounts asking that the auditor issue a report in the public interest (under section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998) and/or apply to the court for a declaration that an item in the accounts is contrary to law (under section 17 of the Audit Commission Act 1998). Written notice of a proposed objection and the grounds on which it is made must be sent to the auditor at the address given above and copied to me at the address given below.

Mr. M O’Donnell
Director of Finance
Town Hall Extension
Argyle Street
London WC1H 8NG
3rd June 2011

Housing Repairs Part 2

2011-07-14T03:48:00.000-07:00

Went to the (for now open) housing office today (handy to have it so near) to use the phone to speak to repairs about the overflow pipe (ref previous post HERE) to see if someone would come round and fit an extension to the overflow pipe so that the end of the pipe isn't directly above the door.

At first the woman I spoke to was pleasant enough, but after putting me on hold for a short time, she came back and informed me that it wasn't the landlords policy to do such works. For some unknown reason she then started sniggering. It may have been that she had been told a joke by one of her colleagues, I don't know, she didn't say.

I can't fault the nice lady on reception at the office, who also phoned up repairs and was informed the 'repair' I was asking about comes under 'maintenance' and not repairs, but they still wouldn't do it.

What the eck is going on?

Council council has a standard tenancy agreement with tenants (last updated March 2008) HERE which states:

Repairs

We will keep in repair and maintain:

the structure and exterior of the premises

We accept only the duties given to us by the Act* no more and no less.

* Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 HERE

Housing Repairs

2011-07-04T18:30:00.000-07:00

Recently I needed to contact my landlord Camden Council to report a repair. The problem being that the overflow from my water tank is flowing (not dripping) into the garden of the flat below me. This is the second time in a couple of months the problem has occurred. The overflow pipe is bizarrely situated directly above the flat door and creates an unwelcome puddle.

The landlords new central contact point isn't working as well as it should be as for three hours I was on the phone trying to get through to repairs on 0207 974 1212/4444 but without success. I had to go round to the local housing office (that is near to where I live) and report the repair. I used the phone in the office to phone repairs (4444 number) and got through to them first time.

The landlord is thinking of closing down four of the five district housing offices. Oh joy.

Update
Due to the above mentioned water over flow pipe being situated directly above the door, the water has caused damage (expansion) to the door, and it won't close properly. The tenant reported this to repairs but was informed she had to fix the problem herself.

So whilst the landlord has cut back on expenditure for repairs and maintenance of council housing, and overcharges leaseholders every chance it gets, the landlord continues to provide non-essential, non-statutory incidental services worth hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to council tenant associations/groups such as the Camden Association of Street Properties, the Leaseholder Forum, the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations and various local tenant associations.

Latest reported annual spend on servicing the above groups £485,750 plus £84,000 on the 5 district housing committees.

Clr Julian Fulbrook (L) is the cabinet member in charge of housing. Hes doing a grand job isn't he?

Bribery Act 2010

2011-06-26T09:01:00.000-07:00

The Bribery Act 2010 HERE, comes into force on 1 July 2011.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance HERE

"Bribery and corruption are extremely serious offences, which strike at the heart of public confidence in administrative and judicial affairs. This factor alone will weigh heavily when considering the public interest in prosecuting and a prosecution will be expected unless exceptional factors apply."

Tenant Participation Review Report

2011-06-14T10:24:00.000-07:00

As reported on this blog HERE, back in Aug 2010, the housing and adult social care (hasc) scrutiny committee set up a sub-committee (the tenant participation panel) to review 'council tenant participation' in Camden.

A final report on the findings of the review was 'thrown' together, apparently by the then chair of the panel cllr Larraine Revah.

Cllr Revah is no longer on the hasc committee due to her being elected by party members onto the cabinet.

The report has caused quite a stir due to its content and its length (742 pages). Much of it looks duplicated (unnecessary). How much did the print outs of the report cost - was that even taken into account I wonder?

Looks more like a crusade against the district management committees (dmc's) and the camden federation of tenants and residents association (cftra).

The hasc committee have rejected (though not dismissed) the report and have set up further panel meetings to obtain more evidence.

By all accounts open 'warfare' has been declared between the cftra and the camden association of street properties (casp). The cftra being the 'top dog' tenants group in the borough and casp wanting to topple and replace them?

Its hilarious and goes to show how farcical tenant participation in Camden really is and has been for a long time - with little prospects of changing.

I wonder why the report is missing the monitoring information about casp? The tenant participation team (who seem very cosy with casp) won't release this information.

Apparently casp agms are full to capacity and their registered members are increasing all the time. Casp has a general membership of over 7,ooo (households) and should (by the tenant participation teams own rules) have a 10% turnout at their agms - to show support for the group and thus allow the group to continue to be funded and supported by the council. WHERES THE EVIDENCE?

NB the council doesn't have any statutory (legal) obligation to fund tenant groups - the only obligations are to do with consulting with tenants and leaseholders about housing management changes. capital works, rents and charges. The council has to consult with each and every tenant - so why are tenants groups needed other than to allow certain types of ambitious tenants to build up their political careers. Thats the main reason why groups like the cftra and casp exist, and everything else is incidental. Its a game, and one that gets very nasty and has many casualties.

Huge ego's, an inflated sense of ones own importance and a degree in the fine art of 'putting on a good panto' are a must. Its panto season all year round at the town hall.

City of London Police

2011-06-12T21:42:00.000-07:00

Ian Puddick v City of London Police

Upcoming court case on Wednesday 15 June 2011 at Westminster Magistrates Court, Horseferry Road, London SW1 at 10am http://www.ianpuddick.com/

Update 17 June 2011

Mr Puddick, who plead not guilty to the charge by City of London police of harassment via his blogs, of a man who had an affair with Mr Puddicks wife, was cleared of the charges today at Westminster Magistrates Court HERE

Sounds like he was 'allowed' to have a fair hearing, and had good legal representation. This is in stark contrast to the Camden blogger who was stitched up by Camden council and their little helpers in 2009 and brought to court by the councils chums down Holborn police station.

As like Mr Puddick, the Camden blogger plead not guilty to the charges, but the case was only allowed one day to be heard. Mr Puddick had three days allocated to his case.

In Mr Puddicks case the justice of the peace (magistrate district judge) who heard the case investigated the mitigating circumstances of why Mr Puddick set up the website. In the camden bloggers case the district judge at Highbury Corner Magistrates court didn't appear to be interested in mitigating circumstances. He didn't allow the 2 defence witnesses to speak more than a few words before dismissing them.

Sounds like Mr Puddick had a good solicitor and barrister whereas the camden blogger had a obstructive solicitor who didn't as instructed summon defence witnesses, a barrister who was only given the cps disclosure bungle 4 days before the hearing and hadn't had time to go over it properly, and who the judge wouldn't allow an adjournment of the hearing so that the barrister could go over the bundle properly. Needless to say the Camden blogger was found guilty and a disportionate restraining order imposed.

Even when the case went to appeal at the Crown court the camden blogger didn't receive a fair hearing, had a solicitor who was just as obstructive (did as the first one did and ignored instructions to summon other defence witnesses) as the first one and barristers who didn't put up anything even remotely resembling a legal argument. The defence witnesses weren't allowed to speak at all. The robed and wigged judge used to be an appointed by camden council school governor.

Mr Puddick is also reportedly a millionaire and this may have had some baring on how he was treated by the court and how good his legal presentation was, whereas the camden blogger doesn't have a pot to pee in and had to rely on (crap) legal aid and lives in council housing - managed by agents who would not be out of place in communist China.

Blogger Arrested for Filming Council Meeting

2011-06-12T08:38:00.000-07:00

A woman blogger in Wales was arrested by police for 'daring' to film a Carmarthenshire County Council meeting.

Taken from the http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.com/, the lady has the below to say about the incident

"Clearly my presence was noted when I entered the Public Gallery and when the row commenced over the Day Club, I started filming with my phone, (not terribly well I know but better than nothing) I was asked to leave by the Chairman and Mark James, I said that I was not doing anything wrong, it is not against the law nor even in their standing orders (rules for meetings), neither was I disturbing the meeting in any shape or form. Mr James sarcastically asked whether I now had a good photo of him to put on my website. As I didn't leave, Mr James and the Chair called the police and then adjourned the meeting.

Unlike my complaint of assault in the Public Gallery where the police took four days to take my statement and several more to speak to the chap concerned, it only took ten minutes today for two police cars and four police officers to appear in the Gallery.

I tried to argue my point but was then arrested in the Public Gallery for 'breaching the peace'.

I was taken outside the door, handcuffed, searched, my phone taken and marched out to the waiting police cars.

I was then taken 30 miles to Llanelli police station where I remained handcuffed for another hour before being 'processed', and put in a cell for another two hours.

By this time I was very disorientated, worried about my young daughter who needed picking up from school, I was cold (the police had taken my jacket and shoes and socks) and distressed.

Without a solicitor present, I was then threatened by three police officers who said that if I didn't sign an 'undertaking' not to film/record any more meetings I would be kept in overnight, I am not sure now whether they could even keep me that long.

Earlier in the day I had been told that they was looking at the relevant legislation and were 'talking' to the council, it is now clear exactly what was discussed; 'she probably can't be charged with anything so tell her to sign and you'll let her go'. I am now asking a solicitor about the legality of this and regardless of the outcome I will not abide by something I was forced to sign. I will be back.

I was then, eventually, released. I can't quite believe what happened to me for trying to film a public meeting"

http://youtu.be/6CNZHOOkdAs

Being Duped by Mock Elections

2011-05-31T17:13:00.000-07:00

In order for council tenant groups to become 'recognised' and 'registered' with the council, they have to act like they are the council.

Council tenant groups take part in mock annual 'elections'.

I call them mock because they are mocking in their deception that they are anything but inclusive - they are exclusive. They exclude the majority of members from the democratic process, yet pretend they are democratic and thus legitimate.

Tenant groups Constitutions are dictated by the landlord.

It works like this: at an annual general meeting (agm) the committee stands down.

More often than not the committee members who have just stepped down have planned to and do nominate ( as candidates) one another back onto the committee. One nominates another, and seconded by another, and if unopposed is by default 'elected' onto the committee.

If a particular position on the committee has two or more nominees then an election is held where all members are supposed to take part in a ballot.

This is how the council and failing tenant groups claim to be 'democratically' elected and thus legitimate.

These 'mock' elections are in line with the councils annual 'mock' elections, where every year bar the fourth year, the 'council' (council members) hold their AGM and nominate one another back onto the council.

Once every four years the boroughs eligible adults are permitted to take part in a democratic process. Some of us may even take part in another democratic process that of being 'democratically' elected onto the council by the borough.

Council tenant groups in Camden, endorsed and funded by the council seem to be mere extensions of the land-lord, some groups certainly throw their weight around like they are the land-lord and churn out propaganda to dupe the public.

Local Government uses Public Funds in Libel Action

2011-05-29T09:29:00.000-07:00

Twitter forced to hand over personal information after council launches legal action using taxpayers' money

Using taxpayers money to fund libel action is unlawful -1993 House of Lords ruling HERE. The case concerned Derbyshire County Council and the Times Newspaper Ltd. Not that local government takes that much notice of what is and isn't lawful when they make and implement decisions.

In Camden, the council is believed to use a more devious tactic to 'punish' dissenters who speak 'out of turn' on blogs etc - they are suspected of colluding with a certain public funded tenants group who are well known for making complaints to the police about their targets.

This group is known to willfully lie to the police about the person/s they are complaining about.

Such is the nature of politics in Camden this group has been allowed to prosper.

Council officers and members alike have been known to collude with this tenants group to get residents arrested.

This sort of behaviour is seemingly normal or at least is acceptable to the lords of the manor.

Its not normal or acceptable to me. I guess I'm in a minority.

The Trial of Producer of 7/7 Ripple Effect John Hill AKA Muad’dib 9 – 12 May 2011

2011-05-13T15:53:00.000-07:00

On the afternoon of Monday 9 May 2011, John Hill commenced his defence to the Common Law Crime of “Tending and intending to pervert the Course of Justice” by challenging the Jurisdiction of the Crown.

Mr Hill submitted that the “queen” was not properly crowned as the Coronation stone was not the true Stone of Destiny. It was further submitted that the Queen had broken her contract with the British People as the Oath she had sworn was to rule by God’s Law in the Bible, not statue legislation. She has broken this Oath thousands of times, rendering all proceedings held in her name as null and void.

Mr. Hill presented himself in this argument. Prosecution argued that the Coronation stone was simply ceremonial and bore no effect to the legality of the “queen’s” standing. The Judge denied Mr. Hill’s request for a jury to decide a matter where a Judge would inevitably be biased, and accepted Prosecution’s argument. The trial continued on Tuesday 10 May 2011 with the Prosecution’s opening case.

John Hill had originally been arrested in the Irish Republic and extradited to England to be tried for the offence of Perverting the Course of Justice, an English Common Law, Substantive Offence with a possible life sentence, not existent as an offence in the Irish Republic. The Prosecution witness stated he had arrested Mr Hill due to having the prima facie case of discovering his fingerprints on the envelope containing the DVDs but was not able to question him further due to extradition laws and therefore charged him and imprisoned him pending trial on that basis.

The Head Court Usher gave evidence stating that the envelope had gone through 3 postal workers before arriving at her desk. She treated the padded envelope as a suspicious package because it was addressed to the foreman of the Jury. The package was then locked in a room, cordoned off, police were called and then the package was inspected by bomb-experts, X-rayed, and checked for fingerprints and DNA. The contact details for the Producer provided in the DVD were not used however when arrested John Hill stated “I sent them”.

Before trial Mr Hill had spent 157 days in Prison awaiting trial, narrowly avoiding being lost in the system when his information was unexplainably deleted from the State’s computer systems on more than one occasion. He spent the last two and a half years living with various bail conditions and curfews.

After establishing that the Prosecution had no evidence other than a fact which Mr Hill openly admitted, the Defence Counsel began to question the Prosecuting officer about 36 other packages that had been sent to the Kingston court after John Hill had been arrested. These packages were identified as being sent by those supporting Mr. Hill and his efforts. However, she was quickly hushed and the Jury was sent out until the Judge had ruled that the Jury are not to know that John was one of many from around the world sending the 7/7 Ripple Effect and other items to Kingston Court during the trial of the defendants accused of conspiring with the alleged 7/7 bombers.

On Tuesday afternoon the Jury was shown the film made by Mr. Hill, ‘7/7 Ripple Effect’ being directed by the Judge that the Veracity of the video is irrelevant and is a matter that can be ignored. They were also told not to do any research on the internet and rely solely on evidence presented to them in Court.

In the Jury's absence the Judge refused evidence demonstrating the reliability of the '7/7 Ripple effect' claims before Mr Hill took the stand. Mr Hill told the Jury about how he had watched the 9/11 attacks on television as they were reported and noticed that the first plane struck the corner of the tower and how the fuel burned up in a fire ball outside the building and how the second tower struck collapsed first. He explained how Building 7 was still standing in the background as the BBC reported that it had already collapsed, some 25 minutes before it actually collapsed, without being struck by any plane. He said that 9/11 was clearly a false-flag attack designed to justify an illegal war on middle-eastern countries and as soon as he heard about the 7/7 London Bombings he suspected the same.

He published the film ‘7/7 Ripple Effect’ on the internet, named after ‘9/11 Ripple Effect’, 6 months before the trial he was accused of perverting. He said he believed his arrest and imprisonment was due to him making the film, which was an abuse of process when he was in fact seeking to prevent an injustice by providing crucial information in the public interest.

The Defence Counsel raised the point that Mr Hill, a man of mature years, had no criminal history whatsoever. She pointed out that the public gallery had been full each day with John’s supporters, many of which were being turned away due to lack of seats in the public gallery, with many more following the trial online.

The Prosecution claimed that Mr Hill was obsessed about the trial he sought to pervert and would not let it alone, had acted secretively by using the pseudonym “Muad’Dib” (meaning Teacher of Righteousness), and refused to co-operate with the BBC. She suggested he had shown lack of empathy by sending the film to the families of those killed or injured in the bombings 2 years earlier and he made false allegations that named people were guilty of mass murder and intended to pervert the Jury to ‘his’ way of thinking.

John confirmed he wanted to ‘right a wrong’ preventing innocent people from being convicted. He stated that the alleged bombers had never been tried and convicted in a court of Law, nor could they be at this point because they were shot in Canary Wharf. He sent the film to the Judge and Jury because he had been told by email that they were being misled into believing the alleged bombers had been found guilty and they needed the benefit of the full picture. He declared that the BBC is a government controlled propaganda machine which after lengthy correspondence with them told them clearly he would take part in their documentary if they aired the full 7/7 Ripple Effect Video so he would not be misrepresented. They, along with every other mainstream television channel refused to air it.

He described ‘7/7 Ripple Effect’ as a 2 year project to fully research and then make the film, but that he got on with his life after sending DVDs out to 100s of people, including chiefs of police, media outlets, and the defendant’s lawyers. He confirmed he did not want the defendants to be found guilty of conspiring with the bombers, because the alleged bombers were ‘innocent patsies’ in a crime committed by state agents and the upper echelons of Freemasonry.

He hadn’t attempted to track down Jury members, and he intended for Court authorities to decide whether the DVD was admissible. He sought to use visible, ‘proper channels’. His motive in making the video was to educate as many people as possible because the only way we could prevent further false-flag attacks is if everyone knows who the real perpetrators of these atrocities are. He explained that he had not accused anyone of mass-murder, but simply raised very legitimate questions in the hope it would lead to a legitimate public enquiry. Mr. Hill repeatedly told the prosecution Counsel that, even though the Juror’s had been prevented from seeing his video, the men on trial were still found not guilty because there was ‘absolutely no evidence’ to convict them of any terrorism charges.

By the end of Wednesday, both sides had concluded their cases. Thursday began with the Prosecution and Defence summing up their cases. The Prosecution stated that the authority relied on was Attorney General’s Ruling 1 of 2002 which respond ‘yes’ to the question:

“Whether the common-law offence of perverting the course of public justice is committed where false evidence is given or made, not to defeat what the witness believes to be the ends of justice, or not to procure what the witness believes to be a false verdict.”

When Court reconvened an Arabian looking female in a black hijab type veil entered Court and sat next to the Judge to observe. When the Judge addressed the Jury he told them the crime consisted of 3 aspects upon which they were to decide. 1. Did Mr Hill send the DVD to the Court – he reminded them that this fact has been agreed and they need not discuss it further. 2. Was the act of sending the DVD to the Court one that tended to pervert the course of Justice. He told them that it was the ‘course’ they were to focus on rather than the ‘justice’ due to the authority relied on. 3. Did Mr Hill ‘intend’ to change the minds of the Jurors. The facts were represented by the Judge emphasising that Mr Hill had agreed with the Prosecution’s submission that he intended to ‘cut the legs from under the trial’ and that 3 postal workers had passed the package before it was effectively intercepted on its way to the Jury by the court usher.

The Judge stated that he does not decide what evidence goes to the Jury and that Mr Hill’s previous good character is not grounds to find him not guilty as every offender has a previous good character before their first offence.

The Jury were then sent off to reach a unanimous verdict but after 2 hours of dining and deliberating they provided numbers in a note to the Judge to say this had not been achieved. Prosecution and defence agreed that a majority verdict should be accepted with at least 10 of the 12 jurors in agreement. After a further hour the Jurors returned with a ‘not guilty’ verdict. A second indictment had already been quashed by the Judge on the basis that the course of Justice of Judges cannot be perverted.

The public gallery applauded the Jurors. It is a victory for the British nation that 10 out of 12 members of the conviction free public agreed that sending to a Court what had been described as a ‘Conspiracy DVD’ in METRO newspaper (on the day Mr Hill gave his evidence), was NOT an act that tended towards injustice.

------------------------------

John Hill speaking about being stitched up by the government http://youtu.be/OAettT93gLQ

POW Trust

2011-05-08T07:02:00.000-07:00

The Charity Commission has published a report (March 2011) HERE into the findings of their investigation into a then registered charity called The Peoples Opportunity to Work (POW) Trust.

The investigation began in 2002 and finished in 2005, but due to a criminal investigation by the police the publishing of the report was delayed until the criminal proceedings finished in 2010, with the conviction and imprisonment of three members of the POW trust. Met Police report HERE. Apparently there where 9 defendants, but reports only mention that 3 where convicted.

The Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) has connections with this dodgy trust through Terence Patrick Ewing who was (still is?) a 'legal executive' for the trust. Mr Ewing is a vexatious litigant and convicted and imprisoned fraudster.

More about T Ewing HERE

Undemocratic CASP

2011-05-01T06:57:00.000-07:00

A few years ago I tried to set up a local council street property tenants group for my road and surrounding roads, I did this through the CFTRA, who where at the time contracted by the council to provide such services. Due to CASP not wanting any competition my efforts where thwarted and the CFTRA discontinued helping me set the residents group up. CASP doesn't have any local council street property groups attached to it, and those few local street property groups that where in existence when casp was set up were never included with casp. CASP wants to be the only group that represents council street property tenants, which I think is undemocratic.

Another street property resident in Highgate Newtown also wanted to set up a local street property group and had her efforts thwarted by CASP.

Council estates have strong local tra representation but council street property tenants only have CASP.

CASP doesn't to my knowledge have any active area reps, and if they do they certainly aren't easily identifiable or accessible to all council street property tenants. Despite being in operation for 6 years CASP has only held area meetings (open to general members) once and its questionable as to whether all the area meetings that where claimed to have been held, where actually held.

CASP was set up by the council and had a lot of public money spent on its relaunch (£15,000 as claimed by the CFTRA) and £15,000 the following year and has had a lot of undue support from the tenant participation team, which has in my view been to the detriment of street property tenants having proper and more localised representation.

CASP used to hold 5 general meetings a year, but reduced the number to 2 a year without getting the agreement of members at an AGM. CASP holds its monthly committee meetings in secret. CASP is in my view merely a tick box exercise.

There is no evidence that CASP has the support of even 5% of the 6,500+ council street property households in the borough, no evidence that CASP AGMS are attended by more than 5% of council street property tenants let alone the 10% that is required for CASP to be eligible to registered with the council and receive continued support from the tenant participation team.

CASP is supposed to be a 'contact of last resort' if and when council officers or members fail to sort out tenancy problems. CASP is not supposed to be a group that is automatically entitled to force itself upon street property households who don't want this group involved. Its not fair that CASP gets the level of support from the council it does, and is allowed to thwart other more localised groups from being established, as was the case with me - its simply not democratic.

Its supposed to be the age of 'localism' and CASP simply doesn't fit in to this concept. In my view if CASP is to continue to receive public funding from the council casp is better suited as an open forum (like the leaseholders forum) and not as a borough wide tra, as a forum structure would be more open and accountable.

Gagging Orders

2011-04-24T11:36:00.000-07:00

As like what has been in the news of late regarding 'gagging' (restraining) orders issued by the courts at the bequest of certain famous rich individuals, councils and companies who want to silence others from publically exposing wrongdoing and injustice, and which has prompted Liberal Democrat John Hemming, MP for Yardley, Birmingham to speak out about (well done that MP); I too have been 'gagged' by the courts from identifying in public members of a tenants group who did me and others wrong.

Perjury, which is a serious criminal offence, was committed.

Certain people in Camden council played a part - possibly to get revenge for me 'speaking out of turn' (how very dare I) and help advance a few political careers?

In the UK those who do harm to others, who breach trust, get protection whilst the 'whistle blower' gets vilified and silenced - doesn't seem right to me.

Wayward Cllrs & the Constitution

2011-04-17T16:55:00.000-07:00

The councils monitoring officer (head of legal) has issued a report HERE to the councils Audit and Corporate Governance scrutiny committee HERE for their upcoming 27 April 2011 meeting. The report concerns Constitutional matters and amendments, including a mention about the part of the constitution that states that scrutiny committees cannot set up sub-committees (or words to that effect).

As mentioned in a previous posting HERE, when the new council was elected in May 2010, the housing and adult social care (hasc) scrutiny committee set up three (farcical from start to finish) sub-committees - despite being aware that the councils Constitution does not allow them to do so. Good start eh?

One wayward cllr even argued that the clause in the Constitution wasn't binding - and the rest of the committee went along with it?

The elected cllrs on this committee are:
Meric Apak L - chair
Jonny Bucknell C
Jill Fraser LD
Thomas Gardner L
Adam Harrison L
Thomas Newmark L
Larraine Revah L
Chris Naylor LD

Also the councils single Green party elected cllr doesn't appear to have any rights to sit on any council committees - but unelected co-optees do have this right - this doesn't seem fair or democratic to me.

ALMO's

2011-04-03T16:40:00.000-07:00

The Camden branch of UNISON organised and funded the 2003 campaign against the council wanting to transfer housing management over to an arms length management organisation (almo). They did it through the group calling themselves 'camden defend council housing'.

Reportedly, less than 40% of eligible council tenants voted and of those who did vote around 77% said NO to the ALMO.

Apparently it was a moral argument as opposed to a political one. Hmm morals and housing politics, theres a novel concept.

Liberty

2011-04-02T05:43:00.000-07:00

In feudal times a 'liberty' was an area of allodial land in which the rights of the ruler or monarch had been waived.

Allodial Title

"In property law, allodial title is a concept describing a situation wherein in land, buildings, fixtures or any other real property is owned for the cost of nothing and free from any financial burdens including tax, mortgage and liens. A property with an allodial title is inalienable, it is an absolute property of its owner and is not subject to any law and authority. This means that it cannot be taken for any reason whatsoever by any operation of law."(Ref http://www.real-property-biz.com/allodial-title.html)

Allodial = Free from the tenural rights of a feudal overlord.

Apparently the feudal 'fee simple' system was abolished in Scotland under the Abolishment of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 here

FOI request on the whatdotheyknow website here

Hmmm.

DMC Spending

2011-03-31T08:17:00.000-07:00

"All property owned and managed by the council must meet the Decent Homes standard. To meet the standard, property must have reasonably modern facilities, be warm and weatherproof (emphasis added). " (Ref DirectGov website)

Camden council didn't meet the original 2010 deadline for bringing its homes up to the standard and have been given an extension of time. to do so. Thousands of Camden council owned dwellings are still not up to the decent homes standards.

For many years the council as landlord has, through the 5 dmc's (district [housing] management committees) been spending millions of pounds that could have been spent on decent homes works - but has been spent and continues to be spent on non-essential 'frilly' works on council estates such as plants, tenant managed hall upgrades, benches etc etc etc. An example can be found HERE.

Isn't it about time this council got its spending priorities straight, especially now when council services are being cut, jobs are being axed and charges are increasing?

Even on dmc spending that is allocated for capital works there seems to be little or no consultation and agreement with council leaseholders who would be billed for such works.

What a mess.

Council Bills

2011-03-20T08:51:00.000-07:00

I get peeved off when I receive an annual council tax bill from Camden council and don't even receive the courtesy of a breakdown of what I'm paying for. Council leaseholders have the same problem when their landlord bills them.

If one doesn't pay up one gets threatened with court action. Camden caring council.

Local government wants more powers and less interference from central government and are pushing hard to sell the whole 'localism' idea as a good thing that benefits the whole community - think again at who it really benefits when this council can't even show residents the courtesy of itemised bills when they demand money from us.

More power in their hands = more bullying and threats?

CASP Grant Funding

2011-03-18T07:59:00.000-07:00

A few years ago a freedom of information request was made to Camden council about the Grant-in-Aid that was given to the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP). The council or rather the housing directorate denied that CASP received grant aid from the council.

A complaint was made to the Information Commissioner, who contacted Camden council. The details of the investigation HERE.

Minutes from a CASP committee meeting held in Sept last year (2010) state that "the committee agreed to submit a grant application to cover the cost of the annual mail out".

The grant application was successful and mail outs where sent out in time for CASPs AGM which is due to take place at the town hall on 30 March 2011.

I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether or not a reasonable person with all the above information would come to the conclusion that CASP does receive grant funding from Camden council, that casp did receive it back then and that the council did mislead the Information Commissioner.

The games they play

2011-03-17T07:49:00.000-07:00

Lib dem cllr Chris Naylor allegedly stood down (more likely he was pushed?) from the housing and adult social care scrutiny committee, then at the next full council meeting was nominated by a party colleague back onto the committee.

Glad to hear that this committees remit as the councils 'crime and disorder committee' has been taken away, and given to another directorate - report due to the cabinet next month....

Crime and disorder is part of the politics of housing in Camden and has been so for far to long and to have the same types and their poodles sitting on a council committee scrutinising it is outrageous.

Leaked emails again and a coup?

2011-03-11T19:44:00.000-08:00

Seems that the Camden labour party group who have control of the council are having trouble amongst their ranks - a possible coup of the leader and cabinet is alleged to be underway and emails have been leaked to a local investigative reporter who works for a local rag ........ who the slippery mole is is anyones guess, my bettings on ........ Stern words have been issued by the labour party ole timer and 'whip' cllr Roger Robinson - expulsion from the party has been mentioned. Am I wrong to laugh?

Diversions diversions?

Is this not a case of the Camden labour party group bringing the council into disrepute?

Housing Acts

2011-03-08T07:56:00.000-08:00

HOUSING ACT 1985 HERE,
HOUSING & PLANNING ACT 1986 HERE,
HOUSING ACT 1988 HERE,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT & HOUSING ACT 1989 HERE,
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 HERE,
HOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION & REGENERATION ACT 1996 HERE,
HOUSING ACT 1996 HERE,
HOUSING & REGENERATION ACT 2008 HERE,

What Really Happened?

2011-03-06T05:41:00.000-08:00

According to a website allegedly set up by the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) something happened in 2009 at the offices of 11-17 the Marr, Camden Street NW1 that resulted in an employee ending up in court, allegedly on voyeurism charges.

These offices are council property and are currently rented out to 3/4 private companies who receive public funding from the council to provide residents with a service.

Knowing the CASP habit of taking a grain of truth and building around it a sandcastle of lies, and spreading the lies around, and how they work with people in the council to screw over their targets, a few residents made enquires to try to ascertain what really happened. Other than yes the employee was up in court, the truth about everything else that lead up to the court case and who else if anyone, was involved, has not been forthcoming.

The criminal activity is alleged to have been carried out by the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations (CFTRA), who according to the website installed a spy camera in the toilet at the marr offices and took covert photo's. Labour cllrs Larraine Revah and Meric Apak where two of the cftra directors/management committee.

Lots of residents have attended the 11-17 Marr offices for various reasons connected to the 3/4 companies who provide services to the community, (myself included) and may well have been unsuspectingly captured on camera in the toilet and elsewhere.

Potential victims have the right to know what really happened and why instead of informing their members did CASP allegedly choose to set up a website making all sorts of allegations but swiftly took the content of the site down when people in the council found out about it and why the cftra didn't inform its members, and why housing management who where allegedly informed of what happened didn't make it public at a dmc meeting as they did a week before in regards to the Camden blogger who had been stitched up by the council and its little helpers casp?

Good Time for Burying (Other) Serious Issues

2011-02-27T10:02:00.000-08:00

Is it the cynic in me that thinks that what with all the proposed council cuts in services and the various groups 'up in arms' and the Labour council blaming everyone except their own party for the economic mess the country is in, that the Labour run council can get away with burying (not mentioning them let alone 'debating' them at the next full council meeting, let alone any public meeting) two serious findings that sheds a very bad light on the council - namely the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) actually issuing a Maladministration (with Injustice?) report against the council HERE and the criminal courts fining the council yet again over serious health and safety issues HERE.

No news yet as to the cuts that are expected of senior council managers huge re-numeration packages and cuts in AD posts - best to start on the little people first eh? How much does Moira Gibb present chief statutory officer earn a year for not it seems being held accountability in any way for the LGO findings, two heath and safety deaths on her watch and countless other cock-ups, 'errors' and inappropriate behaviour by her officers?

Interestingly half the cabinet appear to be 'trustees' of some group or the other who receive public funding, but claim no prejudicial interest.

Back to basics eh - funding only for statutory services, hmm we will see how this impacts on the Labour councils core voters ie council tenants and all the money that is thrown at them under the 'tenant participation' banner namely the cftra, the dmc's and casp, all non-statutory 'services' that some tenants are still wondering 'what really happened to the reported £2-3m a year that was being spent on 'tenant participation', and how the ell has housing management got away with producing public reports about the tenant participation spending that look remarkably like false accounting?

The council does have a statutory director of finance ..... and theres even a housing finance 'director' lurking about somewhere.

Its a myth that the various elected council members who sit on the councils 'executive/cabinet' committee and who are purported to be responsible for the portfolio's they hold are actually accountable to anyone let alone the electorate because I have yet to see any evidence of this.

If voting in council elections changed anything it would have been banned years ago?

Regardless of which political party runs the council they all cover up for one another, all have their own dirty secrets?

One has to understand this as I see things: as with everything the political mobsters who desire to be part of the public gravy train and all the contacts and influences being in public offices brings, they corrupt everything, - every system they touch becomes corrupted to tailor for their needs and aims. I don't think this mindset is particular to political parties though as certain types will often seek out positions, jobs etc that allow them to participate in criminal activity and be afforded a high degree of protection against prosecution.

As with the voting system - the heart of our democracy - has become corrupted and is increasingly seen as the vehicle by which the 'mobsters' (as they are viewed by many) to con the electorate into giving them the legitimacy to do as they please and commit as many offences as they please knowing that their positions give them a high degree of protection.

They have no contract with those who elect them.

Ticking boxes at polling stations gives them the legitimacy to do as they please.

The judicary system in the UK is an ass.

Most people I suspect register and vote without thinking too much about it, I know I did for many years, but not now.

As far as I am concerned 'camden council' forfeited the right to be a legitimate council the minute they choose to place themselves above the law and wilfully commit criminal offences.

The 'council' has a whole army of 'legal eagles' on their books yet still make decisions that are against the law, that harm others, that cause loss to others. The council barely scraps together enough interest from electors to push the 60% mark of turn-out for elections - by-elections less that 50%.

I do not recognise 'camden council' as being a legitimate authority, I do not consent to 'camden council' having any lawful authority over me. I do not consent to 'camden council' perverting the course of justice.

Enough of the bulshite.

Millman Street Centre

2011-02-25T06:13:00.000-08:00

The council is cutting or at least has threatened to cut the funding it gives to the Millman Street Centre (Website HERE) - was on the London Tonight news programme last night (24 Feb 2011). Online petitition HERE.

I can vouch for how vital and essential these sorts of services are to the local community, because my elderly mother, who died last April, used to attend the resource centre in Kilburn before she became too ill to do so.

The Kilburn centre was a genuine lifeline to my mother who had nothing but praise for the centre and people who worked there - without it she would have been house bound and depressed. The centre gave her a reason to get up in the morning and friends she looked forward to meeting with a few times a week.

How the council can justify stopping the funding to such vital services is beyond me when axing a few senior non-job posts would save these services, when cutting out the freebees and 'perks' and general wastefulness of funds would save these services? Even now as I type the council wastes money on having external lights on council estates turned on 24 hours a day - maybe the council has shares in the electricity company?

Debt and Investments

2011-02-23T16:02:00.000-08:00

According to a recent report HERE, the 'council' (or is it 'the major and Burgess's ie inhabitants of the borough) is in debt to the sum of £383m, and has £256m in investments.

Most of the debt (£259M) is owed to the Public Works Loan Board HERE and is a fixed rate. The rest of the debt (£124m) is from banks and building societies at a varied rate.

How is it that a council whose annual income topped over a billion pounds last year can get into so much debt?

More Transparency at Council Meetings

2011-02-23T07:25:00.000-08:00

http://www.communities.gov.uk/newsstories/newsroom/1850364

Eric Pickles: Citizen journalists and bloggers should be let in to public council meetings

Published	23 February 2011

Councils should open up their public meetings to local news 'bloggers' and routinely allow online filming of public discussions as part of increasing their transparency, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles said today.

To ensure all parts of the modern-day media are able to scrutinise Local Government, Mr Pickles believes councils should also open up public meetings to the 'citizen journalist' as well as the mainstream media, especially as important budget decisions are being made.

Local Government Minister Bob Neill has written to all councils urging greater openness and calling on them to adopt a modern day approach so that credible community or 'hyper-local' bloggers and online broadcasters get the same routine access to council meetings as the traditional accredited media have.

The letter sent today reminds councils that local authority meetings are already open to the general public, which raises concerns about why in some cases bloggers and press have been barred.

For example Tameside Council has accredited professional journalists to report from meetings using Twitter. The decision means local bloggers, the public and even councillors are not permitted to tweet because they are not considered members of the press.

Eric Pickles said:

"Fifty years ago, Margaret Thatcher changed the law to make councils open their meetings to the press and public. This principle of openness needs to be updated for the 21st Century. More and more local news comes from bloggers or citizen journalists telling us what is happening at their local council.

"Many councils are internet-savvy and stream meetings online, but some don't seem to have caught up with the times and are refusing to let bloggers or hyper-local news sites in. With local authorities in the process of setting next year's budget this is more important than ever.

"Opening the door to new media costs nothing and will help improve public scrutiny. The greater powers and freedoms that we are giving local councils must be accompanied by stronger local accountability.

"We are in the digital age and this analogue interpretation of the press access rules is holding back a new wave of local scrutiny, accountability and armchair auditors."

The letter also reassured councils that giving greater access will not contradict data protection law requirements following concerns over personal information. In the majority of cases the citizen blogging about how they see the democratic process working is unlikely to breach the data protection principles.

Chris Taggart, of www.OpenlyLocal.com (external link), which has long championed the need to open council business up to public scrutiny, added:

"In a world where hi-definition video cameras are under £100 and hyperlocal bloggers are doing some of the best council reporting in the country, it is crazy that councils are prohibiting members of the public from videoing, tweeting and live-blogging their meetings.

"Councils need to genuinely engage their communities and giving wider access to their meetings through these technologies is one way they can do this."

Incentives

2011-02-20T06:09:00.000-08:00

Received a letter the other day from the 'investment strategy group' who are part of the councils housing and adult social care directorate, asking me to "take the time to complete the enclosed survey" about the decent homes works done on the flat just over a year ago.

If I send the (filled in) survey back to them in the prepaid enclosed envelope it will be entered into a prize draw to win £50 in high street vouchers! (yes exclamation mark was included) - golly gosh a £50 'bribe' how can I resist?

Having pondered for some half a second over the enticement of a bribe to get me to comply, I've decided the council can (politely and without causing harm to any particular individual) stick their survey where the sun don't shine.

Its insulting that the land-lord feels it has to offer monetary 'bribes' to tenants to get them to comply.

I'd have much rather received a sincere apology for how badly I have been treated over the years by the 'council' and its little helpers, - the councils 'little helpers' being those tenants who have taken their 'bribes' ie housing transfers, new computers, new blackberrys etc etc etc etc and who have in my view sold council tenants down the river for a few pieces of silver and the advancement of their political 'careers'.

Local Government Non-Jobs

2011-02-17T16:32:00.000-08:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

War on thousands of local borough council 'non-jobs'

Almost three million people are employed by local borough councils after an “explosion” in “crazy non-jobs”, the Coalition has claims.

By Andrew Porter Political Editor 10:12PM GMT 17 Feb 2011

Local authorities have taken on an extra 180,000 workers since 1997, with the total number not employed in traditional front-line roles now standing at almost 750,000, according to ministers.

The Coalition is highlighting the figures at a time when councils are threatening to cut basic services and increase charges because of cuts in central government funding.

Ministers want councils to cut middle-management waste instead.

Bob Neill, the local government minister, said: “These figures reveal the explosion in town hall jobs and bureaucracy under Labour and reinforce the need for some councils to start cutting out middle management.

“Crazy non-jobs like cheerleading development officers and press officers tasked with spinning propaganda on bin collections provide no value to the public.

“Getting rid of the bloated bureaucracy that has grown in some elements of local government will ensure local authorities can protect front-line services.”

According to the data, the number of people employed by local authorities in Britain stood at 2,728,000 in 1997 when Labour came to power. Last year the figure was 2,907,000.

There were 741,702 people on council payrolls who were not in traditional “front- line” jobs such as those in education, social services, recreation, libraries, planning, environmental health, culture, heritage or trading standards.

Ministers said that, even if trade union predictions that Coalition cuts would lead to 162,000 job losses in local government were correct, it still meant that the number of town hall workers would be higher than when Labour came to office. The local government sector is bigger than central government, according to the figures.

Among the jobs that have been spawned by the boom in “non-jobs” were a “bouncy castle attendant” on a salary of £13,000 at Angus council in Scotland and a “cheerleading development officer” in Falkirk.

Yesterday, ministers seized on Liverpool city council’s decision to advertise three highly paid “non-jobs” on a day when it was announcing job cuts in other areas.

They were for a director of regeneration and employment on a salary of “up to £140,000”; an assistant director of adult services on £90,000 a year; and an assistant director for supporting communities, also on £90,000 a year. The council said it would be making cuts of £91 million, resulting in closures of libraries, leisure centres and youth projects and hundreds of job losses.

David Cameron has accused councils of politically-motivated attempts to undermine the Coalition’s plans. Today’s figures are the latest sign of how acrimonious the split between councils and ministers has become.

Ministers are stepping up the pressure on local authorities to cut salaries to executives in particular.

Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, is demanding that councils “put their own house in order” before considering cuts to the front line.

He wants chief executives to take pay cuts, claiming that those on a salary of £150,000 can afford to take a five per cent cut, and those on £200,000 can afford a 10 per cent reduction.

This week it was disclosed that 220 town hall executives received a higher salary than the Prime Minister’s £142,500 a year.

At least 26 chief executives earned more than £200,000 last year and 1,000 council officials more than £100,000.

Mr Pickles has also seized on figures showing that more than 15,000 council workers earn more than £58,000 a year. He is about to force local authorities to publish a list of the staff earning that level and above.

The Communities Secretary has published a new code of local government transparency to ensure that taxpayers can “look under the bonnet of their council” and see where town hall chiefs are spending their money. There are 433 local authorities in England.

Ministers point out that public sector productivity fell under Labour while private sector productivity rose. Public sector salaries are now higher than those in the private sector.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted a series of “non-jobs” advertised by local authorities.

They included North East Lincolnshire council advertising for a “future shape programme manager” on £70,189 per annum.

The campaign group published research which showed that last year councils spent £5 million on 141 jobs for political advisers, £6 million on 183 European officer posts, and £10 million on 350 climate change officer roles.

This week Mr Cameron singled out Manchester city council for what he said were “politically-driven” cuts.

He said that, rather than closing help centres, libraries and swimming pools to save £110 million, the council should look closer to home at the chief executive’s pay, for example.

Around 1.4 million council workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are facing a pay freeze for the second year running, it was announced yesterday. With inflation running at 4 per cent, the freeze amounts to a real-terms cut in pay for local government employees. It will not apply to teachers and firefighters, who are covered by separate national pay arrangements.

Corruption in Local Government

2011-02-13T07:07:00.000-08:00

Types of Corruption Found in Local Government

There are several types of political corruption that occur in local government. Some are more common than others, and some are more prevalent to local governments than to larger segments of government.

Local governments may be more susceptible to corruption because interactions between private individuals and officials happen at greater levels of intimacy and with more frequency at more decentralized levels. Forms of corruption pertaining to money like bribery, extortion, embezzlement, and graft are found in local government systems. Other forms of political corruption are nepotism and patronage systems. One historical example was the Black Horse Cavalry a group of New York state legislators accused of blackmailing corporations.

Bribery is the offering of something which is most often money but can also be goods or services in order to gain an unfair advantage. Common advantages can be to sway a person’s opinion, action, or decision, reduce amounts fees collected, speed up a government grants, or change outcomes of legal processes.

Extortion is threatening or inflicting harm to a person, their reputation, or their property in order to unjustly obtain money, actions, services, or other goods from that person. Blackmail is a form of extortion.

Embezzlement is the illegal taking or appropriation of money or property that has been entrusted to a person but is actually owned by another. In political terms this is called graft which is when a political office holder unlawfully uses public funds for personal purposes.

Nepotism is the practice or inclination to favor a group or person who is a relative when giving promotions, jobs, raises, and other benefits to employees. This is often based on the concept of familism which is believing that a person must always respect and favor family in all situations including those pertaining to politics and business. This leads some political officials to give privileges and positions of authority to relatives based on relationships and regardless of their actual abilities.

Patronage systems consist of the granting favors, contracts, or appointments to positions by a local public office holder or candidate for a political office in return for political support. Many times patronage is used to gain support and votes in elections or in passing legislation. Patronage systems disregard the formal rules of a local government and use personal instead of formalized channels to gain an advantage.

excerpts from: www.Wikipedia.org

Housing Management Structure

2011-02-13T04:51:00.000-08:00

2009 Housing Management structure chart HERE

CASP COMPACT

2011-02-11T04:06:00.000-08:00

Before xmas last year the head of housing management David Padfield said in a report that the second housing related 'compact' that the council entered into with 'the camden association of street properties' (casp), would be put up on the casp website - presumably so that members can access it, but unsurprisingly its nowhere to be seen on the website. CASP doesn't as far as I can tell, consult with members yet claims to speak on behalf of them.

The first CASP 'compact' was null and void as far as I can tell due to casp not being a registered group as per the terms of the orginal tenant participation compact.

Council Fined £72,000

2011-02-06T15:53:00.000-08:00

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23920611-council-must-pay-pound-137000-after-falling-wall-kills-boy.do

Council must pay £137,000 after falling wall kills boy

Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent
4 Feb 2011

A London council was ordered to pay £137,000 today for failing to prevent a brick wall from blowing down in high wind and crushing a toddler to death.

Saurav Ghai, two, died as he walked home with his nanny on the Wending Estate, Gospel Oak, in 2007.

His parents, City banker Vinay and wife Desiree, were in court to hear that Camden council had failed in its duty to maintain the wall for 10 years.

Judge Deborah Taylor imposed a £72,000 fine with £65,000 costs and said the couple's loss was "immeasurable". She told Southwark crown court: "The most serious feature of this offence is that it was a significant cause to the death of little Saurav Ghai."

Camden admitted failing to discharge its duty under two sections of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The judge described the council's inspections as "inadequate", criticised its failure to properly supervise a contractor repairing the wall in 1997 and highlighted "complacency" among council workers, saying: "Had Camden been a commercial organisation, the fine would have been much higher."

The court heard that the Seventies-built boundary wall did not comply with modern standards. In 1997 the council had the section which would later collapse repaired by Manchester-based building contractor Chatterton's. After the tragedy inspections showed the section had not been properly bound to adjoining parts, making it effectively a free-standing wall. The mortar binding its outer edge had been packed with plastic bags and rubble.

The highest wind speed in the area on the day Saurav died was 77mph, but a properly built wall should have been able to withstand gusts up to 85mph.

Asked in court why inspections had been so inadequate, Patrick O'Neill, Camden's housing repairs chief, said he would "not lose any sleep" over whether a section was likely to collapse. "I think it would be a fair position to take that you could have relied on Chatterton's to build the wall using due diligence and the correct materials," he said.

The judge said that when a different section collapsed in high winds in 2002, a full structural survey of the entire wall should have been carried out.

The council expressed "sympathy and remorse" to the family. It said it has reviewed all its procedures since 2007 and the rest of the wall has since been demolished and rebuilt.

Mr Ghai said he and his wife were "satisfied" with the ruling and expressed gratitude for the Health and Safety Executive's work on the case.

Maladministration Finding

2011-02-03T23:59:00.000-08:00

Ham and High

Camden Council guilty of ‘maladministration’ in tragic child sex abuse case

Charlotte Newton , Reporter Tuesday, February 1, 2011
2:21 PM

A TAXI DRIVER was hired to transport vulnerable children to and from school in Camden despite having a string of convictions for sex abuse against children abroad, a report by the Local Government Ombudsman finds today.

The man’s criminal record only came to light after a boy, who he drove to school, complained to his mother that he had been sexually abused by him.

When police and social services investigated the case in November 2008, they found that the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) had not picked up on the man’s convictions abroad. Instead, the CRB gave him an enhanced certificate which allowed him to work with children.

However, in her report, Local Government Ombudsman Jane Martin highlighted failures in Camden Council’s safeguarding practices at the time, with regards to its outsourcing of transport services.

She ruled that there was no evidence that an employment history of the man was obtained or references taken up by the taxi company and that the council was guilty of maladministration.

Ms Martin wrote: “I consider the council’s inadequate procedures constituted maladministration…

“The complainant will always be left with some doubt that the council could have done more to protect her child.”

Ms Martin ordered Camden Council to pay the woman £1,000 in compensation plus £200 in recognition of her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

She added: “By doing so, she has brought important issues into the public domain.”

In her report, the Ombudsman confirmed that the council had already made improvements to its procedures and monitoring of contracts, which she otherwise would have listed as recommendations.

A spokeswoman for Camden Council said: “This is a tragic case and we would again like to express our apologies to the family and offer them our continued support.

“Our contractor did check that this man was cleared to work with children but unfortunately faults with the CRB system meant that his previous crimes were not recorded and his CRB checks confirmed that his record was clean.

“There is important learning here for all the agencies involved with children and we have been working with our contractors on recruitment and awareness to ensure that everyone has the tools and the confidence to flag up when things don’t seem right. It is right that this man has finally been brought to justice and vital that the police investigate how this happened to ensure that it can never happen again.”

The taxi driver, who is not named in the report, was handed an indeterminate prison sentence, with a recommendation that he should serve two and a quarter years, when the case went to court.

For more on this story see the Ham&High on Thursday (February 3).

-----------------------

Click HERE for LGO report

Manipulation

2011-02-02T19:17:00.001-08:00

Dealing with manipulative people

Met Police

2011-01-27T09:23:00.000-08:00

The Metropolitan Police Service have been taking quite a bashing recently with various people criticising the force, mainly to do with some of the 'accredited' newspapers hacking of famous peoples mobil phones.

In regards to my own experience of the Met police and how some so-called detectives based at Holborn (Camden police headquarters) can be relied on by ruthless people in Camden council to 'punish' lowly council tenants who don't toe the line and who react 'inappropriately' on blogs to the corruption that emanates from the '4 star' town hall.

Stealing detainees door keys from the 'evidence bag' that is being held unsecurely in the custody 'suite' whilst holding the detainee in a cell, and sneaking around to their home, entering, searching and then stealing property (all without the lawful authority to do so) isn't good practice.

Another bad practice is Holborn based police refusing to take a complaint about a Camden council employee who used the police to cause a resident considerable distress (a tactic certain public funded tenant groups also use - I wonder where they got the idea from?).

The police are increasing seen as the lackies of the corrupt and criminal 'political class' and this isn't likely to change anytime soon. This saddens me because I know there are good coppers out there who work hard and are decent human beings and have to deal with all types of horrible depraved people.

But allowing the 'force' to be used as lackies of corrupt government types does them no favours.

The courts are the same.

Legal aid lawyers the same.

nine principles of policing

2011-12 Land-lord Increases

2011-01-24T21:08:00.000-08:00

The council cabinet at a meeting held on 19 Jan 2011 HERE agreed the following:

an average rent increase of 7.1% be applied from 4^th April 2011

surplus created by increases in charges be used to fund the better homes programme (section 10.4);

increase of 7.1% in service charges for caretaking, grounds maintenance, CCTV, mobile security, and concierge from 4^th April (section 13) be agreed

That an average 1.5% increase be applied to heating charges, by adjusting the charging scales, as set out in Appendix Cii, subject to a maximum increase of £1/week

the heating pool reserve be utilised by refunding an amount equivalent to 5 weeks charges to tenants that pay heating charges and to earmark £1m for future energy efficiency initiatives (Appendix C);

That an increase in shed rents to £2/week (section 15) be agreed;

7.1% in car parking charges and new rates for clamping charges for those illegally parked on estates from 4^th April 2010 (section16) be agreed;

5.1% to Hostel service charges for amenities, lighting, cleaning and concierge for 2011/12 from 4^th April 2011 (section 17) be agreed;

Home Ownership charges (section 18) be agreed as set out in Appendix F.

Inflation
Retail Price Index (RPI) 4.8%
Consumer Price Index (CPI) 3.7 %

cpi replaced rpi as offical inflation rate in 2003
ref: HERE

Registered Political Party Constitutions

2011-01-23T15:15:00.000-08:00

Labour Party Constitution HERE - fuller version of 'rule book' HERE

The Conservative and Unionist Party Constitution - doesn't appear to be in the public domain - party won't release it even if requests to do so are made from members of the public.

Liberal Democrats Constitution HERE

Green Party Constitution HERE

--------------------------

Registration and Regulation of Political Parties by the Electoral Commission HERE

Statute Law on Registration - Registration of Political Parties 1998 HERE
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 HERE

Environmental Sustainability

2011-01-17T15:02:00.000-08:00

Despite the new Labour council claiming to be taking environmental issues seriously, they like the previous con-dem administration have failed to deal with the issue of needless and wasteful external lighting on council owned estates.

Walk through many council estates and the external communal lights will be on, 24 hours a day. Not only is this a waste of electricity and money it doesn't do much for the council claims that they are leading by example when it comes to reducing carbon dioxide emissions from its own estate.

How hard can it be to regulate the external lights on council estates? Is it a matter of housing management not being up to stratch?

Queens Honours

2011-01-17T07:33:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to the council leader, Labour member Nasim Ali, for being nominated for and receiving an OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) in the 2011 new years honours list for services to local government. I'm not personally familiar with the good works those who nominated Nasim Ali are familiar with but I'm sure like all queens honours, the OBE is merited.

Angela Mason, the Labour cabinet member for sustainability has a CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire), received in 1999 for services to homosexual rights.

According to Wikipedia HERE During the late 60's early 70's Ms Mason was a supporter of the Angry Brigade, a terrorist group. She was one of the Stock Newington Eight who where prosecuted for planting or sending bombs. Ms Mason was found not guilty, other members where sentenced to terms in prison.

One does get confused about the dual system we have in the UK - we are 'subjects' yet we are also 'citizens'. Monarchies have subjects, democratic republics have citizens, shouldn't we be one or the other?

I can think of a few outstandingly brave and principled people who have put their lives, livelihood and reputation on the line, to bring about positive change and justice who because of the 'controversial' nature of their work probably wouldn't ever receive a queens award even if nominated. Stuart Syvret (former Senator of the States of Jersey which is a crown dependancy ) for one, Robert Green (lay advocate for Hollie and Annie Greig) another and many others who, at great risk to themselves put their heads on the block to challenge political corruption and cover ups.

These brave and principled hero's work (unpaid) in the field of child abuse. They have been intimidated, harassed, threatened, lied about, arrested and their homes raided and property stolen, and brought to court by the powers that be, but they still soldier on.

Honourable human brings truly worthy of respect and admiration.

Toddler killed by council wall

2011-01-08T09:34:00.000-08:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12107215

4 January 2011 Last updated at 18:51

Camden Council 'failings' over boy crushed by wall

A north London council "failed in its duty" to maintain a wall which killed a toddler when it collapsed in high winds in January 2007, a court has heard.

Two-year-old Saurav Ghai was crushed as he and his childminder walked along Southampton Road in Gospel Oak.

Camden Council admitted two breaches of health and safety legislation but argued it was a sub-contractor's duty to ensure the wall was maintained.

Southwark Crown Court was told the wall was too thin for its height.

A trial of issue has begun at the court in south-east London.

The council initially pleaded not guilty to failing to discharge a health and safety duty, contravening two sections of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, but changed its plea to guilty in October.

The contentious point was the extent of its breach of the law, prosecutor James Ageros said.

'Risk to passers-by'

"It appears that the fact the wall was not built in accordance with good practice is agreed," he told the court.

"The issue is whether Camden Council was at fault for not realising the wall was built badly in the first place."

He said it was "unsatisfactory and unsafe" and "a risk to passers-by".

Dominic Key, defending the council, said the wall was built in the 1970s and repaired in 1997.

It was accepted that the wall was "too thin for its height", he added.

A former building surveyor for the council, Patrick Campbell, said the wall could have been cracked by sledgehammers or vehicles.

But while there was no reason to think it was unsafe, he said it was half as thick as a wall of that height would normally be.

In a statement, a council spokeswoman said: "Our deepest sympathy remains with Saurav's family, and we offer our condolences to all those affected."

The trial continues.

------------------------------

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC ACT 1974 HERE

------------------------------------------------

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23911515-im-not-losing-any-sleep-over-wall-that-killed-boy-says-council-chief.do

Council chief's defence over wall that crushed boy to death

Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent
7 Jan 2011

A council chief told a court he would not be "losing sleep" about the state of a wall which collapsed and killed a two-year-old boy.

The hearing was expected to end today.

A Camden Council spokesperson said: "Our deepest sympathy remains with Mr and Mrs Ghai, and we offer our condolences to all those affected. Safety of our residents, staff and visitors is our top priority."

--------------------

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2011/jan/wall-fatality-hearing-council-dock-over-death-two-year-old-saurav-ghai-january-2007

Published: 06 January 2011
by RICHARD OSLEY and TOM FOOT

PRIVATE contractors who botched work on a council estate wall which later collapsed and killed a two-year-old boy were left by the Town Hall to check the standard of their own work.

Camden Council did “little or nothing” to find out whether the work had been completed properly and relied on “assumptions” before the death of Saurav Ghai in January 2007, Southwark Crown Court was told this week.

HASC Scrutiny Committee

2010-12-29T09:24:00.001-08:00

A newly co-opted member of the Housing and Adult Social Care(HASC) scrutiny committee resigned - allegedly in disgust at the behaviour of the Camden Association of Street Properties.

A resident who is also a full time carer was harassed and caused considerable distress by CASP, and is now reluctant to attend further council meetings.

The council as custodians, does not ensure that members of the public who attend council meetings (held in council property) will be safe from abuse and harassment by tenant groups the council set up, endorse and fund.

The council does however (when it chooses) hold certain groups of residents ie council tenants responsible for how others behave when in tenanted council property ie through the terms of the tenancy agreement. The balance of power between most council tenants and the council as landlord is unequal.

Anyone would be forgiven for thinking there is a political agenda for allowing CASP to behave as they do whilst vilifying the victims?

Those who shout the loudest

2010-12-14T08:22:00.000-08:00

The councils cabinet meeting held on 1 Dec 2010 - I was struck by how some individuals/groups who make deputations to the council tend to wear many hats and have appointed themselves as spokespersons for the wider Camden council tenant community.

They tend to be hardcore Marxist types who (some but not all) aren't above using intimidation and bullying to get what they want - I know because I and quite a few others have been on the receiving end of such distasteful behaviour.

The council appears weak in stamping out such criminal and distasteful behaviour by the militants- but not so when it comes to 'dealing' with non-militant dis-affected residents who threaten to rock the militant boat.

Some appear quite smug in their dealings with the council and tenants. The council or at least individual officers and members have been known to meekly give into their bullying tactics and at worst collude with them.

This is what 'socialism' is all about is it - trampling all over the rights of others and especially those they proclaim to speak on behalf of?

Smugness is defined as "Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation; self-righteously complacent".

They say jump - the council says how high?

Corporate Complaints Policy

2010-12-02T06:55:00.000-08:00

The councils housing complaint handling officers won't log and investigate an allegation about misconduct by an employee of the council. The head of central complaints backs this up.

The councils officers consider that just because there is an 'alternative remedy' outside of the councils complaints system, that this is the route the aggrieved must pursue. This sends out a message that Camden council considers it acceptable for council staff to treat service users and the general public badly.

Its not that Camden council can't take complaints about staff misconduct, its that in this particular case they won't and wrongly claim they don't have jurisdiction.

Leicester County Council for example clearly state in their 'Corporate Complaints Procedure - Customer Information that "where a complaint involves an allegation of misconduct including unfair discrimination, the complaints procedure will be used to establish whether a disciplinary investigation should take place, at which point, the matter will be dealt with under the Disciplinary Policy and Procedures.

So as it stands a Camden council employee can behave abusively, criminally or unfairly and the councils stand is that 'its nowt to do with us'.

I wonder if our elected representatives on the council agree with this stance?

Maladministration?

2010-11-29T21:11:00.000-08:00

In June 2006 at a full council meeting it was decided that "scrutiny committees do not have the power to set up sub-committees". This clause was written into the councils Constitution and remains unchanged.

In Aug 2010 the councils housing and adult social care (hasc) scrutiny committee set up a sub-committee, then set up two further sub-committees.

As I see it this is council maladministration.

This example may not be huge in the grand scheme of things, but does in my view reflect on how undisciplined the three main political parties on the council are perceived to be; and how all to often monitoring officers fail to write up reports on such matters.

Local Government Transparency

2010-11-24T19:17:00.000-08:00

http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/transparency/

Local government transparency

Getting council business out in the open will revolutionise local government and enable the Big Society. Transparency is the foundation of accountability. Local people should be able to hold politicians and public bodies to account over how their council tax is being spent, and decisions made on their behalf. It is also a powerful means of promoting efficiency, without requiring the heavy-handed intervention of an unaccountable bureaucracy.

Background

This Government is committed to increasing transparency across Whitehall and local authorities in order to make data more readily available to the citizen and allow them to hold service providers to account.

Not only will transparency allow people to see where their money goes and what it delivers, throwing open the council books will also open the door to new businesses and encourage greater innovation and entrepreneurship. Greater transparency will put voluntary sector and small business in a much stronger position to pitch for contracts and bring new ideas and solutions to the table.

Financial disclosure will act as a trigger enabling local taxpayers to see how councils are using public money, shine a spotlight on waste, establish greater accountability and efficiency, open up new markets and improve access for small and local business.

As a department, the Department for Communities and Local Government is doing all it can to make its own spending and data transparent as part of the wider government agenda around transparency where we are working closely with Number 10 and Cabinet Office on this revolutionary change.

What we are doing

The Department for Communities and Local Government is doing all it can to make its own spending and data transparent as part of the wider government agenda. We are working closely with Number 10 and Cabinet Office on this revolutionary change.

Freeing up data can also help transform public services, by making services more accessible to the public, and allowing creative uses of the information by the voluntary and private sector.

All councils should be making their own spending and data transparent as a matter of course by the start of 2011.

Guidance

Draft guidance, produced by the Local Public Data Panel, is available for comment on the data.gov.uk blog at www.data.gov.uk/blog/local-spending-data-guidance (external link).

The Local Government Group has also published a draft practitioners' guide, which offers concrete advice to councils on how they should publish spending and salaries data. You can read and comment at http://lgtransparency.readandcomment.com/ (external link).

Here are the areas where we will be pushing forward on transparency:

breaking down central government spend at local area levelL: ensuring that people in the community can have a clear view of what is being spent where - not just local but central taxes too.
councillor allowances and expenses: greater clarity on councillors' costs.
council minutes and papers: consistent publication of what is being discussed and what has been decided.
council job vacancies: making sure that job vacancies are published online and in an accessible format. This will help save money by reducing advertising costs, and will ensure that the vacancies can reach as wider audience as possible, as well as make it easier for people to compare pay ranges within and across councils.
frontline service data including rubbish and recycling rates, council tax collection rates and details of major planned projects.
licensing applications and decisions: giving residents more clarity on what was happening in their area and an early opportunity to raise concerns or objections.
planning applications and decisions: making sure residents have online access to information about planning applications that could affect them and the look and feel of their area. Making it easier for them to influence emerging development ideas.
food hygiene reports for food outlets. This is one example of information which is routinely collected and of interest to residents, but not currently shared in an easily accessible format.

Some of this information is already in the public domain but not always in a format that makes it easy to be republished and re-used by outside groups, without charge or copyright hindrance.

A key part of making spending and data transparent will be to get information in the public domain in a standardised format.

In this section

Local government expenditure over £500

Related publications

DCLG Structural Reform Plan
- Published: 8 July 2010
- Site: Corporate

Diversions and Cover ups

2010-11-24T10:20:00.000-08:00

A website came to light recently that made serious allegations about a former council funded office worker - it was the first time myself and others had 'heard' the allegations.

The website only became known after the fisaco at the Town Hall on 3 Nov 2010 - reported on this blog HERE.

Public funded Political Lobbying

2010-11-22T20:05:00.000-08:00

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/tflpc.pdf

Tax Payer funded Lobbying and Political Campaigning HERE

Tenancy Agreement and Human Rights Act

2010-11-19T20:57:00.000-08:00

I think the present Tenancy Agreement HERE council tenants have with our landlord Camden Council is unfair.

I believe its unfair because it doesn't put into practice the fundamental duties the council has under the Human Rights Act 1998 HERE.

Thought the Agreement does briefly mention the Act and claims "We are committed to acting in a way that is in keeping with the Act", this has not been put into practice in any meaningful way.

The tenancy agreement imposes terms on tenants: "you must not obstruct, abuse, harass, threaten or assault any of the councils officers or agents"

The tenancy agreement does not impose the same terms on council officers or agents.

The Act says "it is unlawful for public authorities to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right". The lords of the manor haven't quite grasped it yet - and they've had 12 years to get to grips with it.

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with the Human Rights Act as such but do think it has a bad press due to the high profile cases that reach the mainstream media - such as immigration, prisioners rights etc.

Like many Acts of Parliament the legislation is open to abuse. Another piece of government legislation is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, HERE which was orginally set up to deal with stalkers, and now covers (its seems) every little incident that may cause someone 'distress'.

It is very subjective in that it relies on the word of the alleged victim who may lie through their teeth about how distressed etc they claim to be without them having to provide any evidence, even in criminal cases where the standard of proof is supposed to be higher than in civil cases.

The dumbing down of the standards of criminal proof and legal maxims is commonplace in HM courts.

Camden Council Housing Strategy 2005-10

2010-11-16T20:54:00.001-08:00

Housing Strategy 2005-10 HERE

Director of HASC 2007 Review Report HERE

HASC Strategy and Commissioning Unit HERE

Housing Revenue Account Budget HERE

Procurement Strategy HERE

The Politics of Council Tenant 'Participation'

2010-11-15T22:34:00.000-08:00

Since becoming involved in 'tenant participation' in Camden back in 2004, my eyes have been widely opened to how the politics of participation really works, particularly in the area of council housing.

I wish I hadn't have gotten 'involved' but did so unwittingly not knowing what I was letting myself in for. Once involved and experiencing the stinking rot I felt I couldn't as was expected of me, give into the bullies, liars and thugs who have control over council tenant involvement and who dictate the standards.

Its not uncommon for certain council tenants to collude with rogue housing officers to stitch up and discredit other tenants/residents who dare to challenge them and their corrupt and criminal ways - and for the stitch up to end up in court, as was the case of 2 residents that I know of.

Its not uncommon for the housing 'mafia' to use the police to intimidate and harass tenants who make a fuss, as was the case with 6 residents I know of who.

Its not uncommon for them to lie to the police and make false statements - under penalty of perjury.

Its not uncommon for politically ambitious council tenants who want to get onto the council, to be targeted for harassment and intimidation prior to being put up for council election. This continues on when they get elected onto the council, resulting in these council members appearing to be in the pocket of the blackmailers.

Council officers, tenants and cllrs alike will collude to get rid of any dissenting tenants. They will as was the case with a tenant in Swiss Cottage hold secret meetings then inform the tenant and without a reason given, that he is 'barred' from tenant participation.

They will get you arrested at town hall council meetings for no good reason, and scream and shout at you at these meetings. They make the town hall look like a spoof tv show and behave in a manner not out of place at a fish market.

Resident Arrested at Town Hall

2010-11-12T19:13:00.001-08:00

On Wednesday 3 Nov 2010, a Camden resident went along to a public council meeting being held at the town hall.

As the meeting started the resident was approached by the police and arrested inside the town hall, then taken to Holborn police station and held against their will in police custody for some hours until being released without charge and no investigation pending. A senior housing officer named Sharon Calvey (housing and adult social care directorate) who is a former district housing manager for Camden Town, made a complaint and the police came speeding to the town hall to arrest the resident/ 'dangerous criminal'.

The resident was very shaken and distressed by being wrongly arrested and held against their will by the police and having their human rights so horribly infringed.

A formal complaint was made via the councils not fit for purpose complaints system and was with no great surpise refused. The housing complaints handling officer wouldn't log the complaint.

The resident didn't sleep that night and is still recovering from the shock of what happened.

The town hall a friendly welcoming place where council officers greet you with a smile and adhere to their codes of conduct, and treat all residents with respect and without discrimination? - not likely - go along to public council meetings at your peril, as this resident found out.

Council members have been forwarded the residents side of what happened and the resident awaits to hear what disciplinary action is to be taken against this council officer.

NB the above was only half of the drama /soap opera which left others in shock and distress at the behaviour of a bully and manipulator.

District Housing Management Costs

2010-11-09T10:39:00.000-08:00

As mentioned in a previous post HERE, the council as landlord spends a lot of money on housing management and related goods and services and isn't very good at properly auditing where the money has been spent.

The information below is from a freedom of information request made to Camden council last year for 'a full breakdown of all 5 district housing office budgets for the financial year 2008/9', whether its a true account is anyone's guess.

CAMDEN TOWN
A. Employee Costs = 811, 890
C. Premises Running Costs = 12,000
E. Transport Related = 800
G. Supplies & Services = 32,090
N. Support Services Recharges = 352, 260
TOTAL 1,209, 040

GOSPEL OAK
A. EC = 797, 970.
C. PRC = 24,050
E. TR = 2,020
G. SS = 42,850
N. SSR = 334,060
TOTAL 1,200,950

KENTISH TOWN
A. EC = 761,260
C. PRC 28,500
E. TR = 990
G. SS = 38,040
N.SSR 171,600
TOTAL 1,000,390

HAMPSTEAD
A. EC = 893,020
C.PRC = 12,850
E. TR = 2,290
G. SS = 39,500
N. SSR = 253, 540
TOTAL 1,200,200

HOLBORN
A. EC = 693,200
C. PRC = 11,180
E. TR = 560
G.SS = 21,370
N.SSR = 223,700
TOTAL 950, 010

GRAND TOTAL 5,561, 590

Charted Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) guidance HERE

Hacking

2010-11-01T10:41:00.000-07:00

It has been brought to my attention that 'upstanding pillars of the community' have again used their illegal hacking 'skills' to hack into another Camden residents email account to send out an email to the account holders contacts.

This illegal hacking also occurred a few years ago, to a pensioner who 'stepped out of line' and had her email account hacked into to send out an email that requested money.

Will I be next?

The Computer Misuse Act 1990 HERE

The games the 'superior' ones play.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults

2010-10-29T07:35:00.000-07:00

The Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults Partnership Board has given an annual report to the Housing and Adult Social Care (and community safety) (HASC) scrutiny committee HERE.

The front page of the report is quite striking for its caption: 'Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults is everyone's business', which a picture of an upright hand - on the palm it says 'Say NO to abuse'

The directorate of HASC has given a report on the matter HERE

Adult safeguarding is governed by statutory guidance first published in 2000 by the Department of Heath HERE.

Though the 'No Secrets' program has been in existence for 10 years, Camden council and its partners had been slow in taking the issue seriously and only set up its partnership board around 2008.

The Home Office definition of a 'vulnerable adult' HERE

As reported previously on this blog HERE, the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) have a history of abusing vulnerable adults and this may not be an isolated case.

Whilst the safeguarding board may have the best of intentions and may be sincere in taking this issue seriously, the fact remains that due to political reasons no action was taken by the police or the council to stop the abusers.

Payments to Suppliers

2010-10-21T06:43:00.001-07:00

Camden council has put up on their website a list of suppliers the council has made public money payments of over 500.00 to. Payments to council staff have been excluded from the list.

Aug and Sept 2010 HERE

In case readers are thinking that the council are publishing these details out of some kind of ethical drive to be transparent - they are not - it comes from central government HERE. Can't see it making any difference to accountability. Can't see it making any difference to how ineptly the council procures goods and services - using public money.

The Sheridan Trial

2010-10-15T21:01:00.000-07:00

Daily reports on the Jury Trial of former Scottish Socialist Party leader Tommy Sheridan and wife Gail on alleged perjury charges HERE.

"In a court of law the truth is irrelevant. It boils down to how manipulative the parties are, and the astuteness and integrity of the presiding judge." quote by un-named.

Provocation

2010-10-06T15:11:00.000-07:00

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/provocation

prov·o·ca·tion

–noun

1. the act of provoking.

2. something that instigates, incites, angers, or irritates.

3. Criminal law: words or conduct leading to killing in hot passion and without deliberation.

I'm guessing we all do it, sometimes deliberately, sometimes not.

I'm guessing its subjective, in that what angers and irritates one person may not anger and irritate another.

Some people deliberately provoke others into reacting. They use (manipulate) others who are volatile to react directly towards people they (the provokers) are targeting.

This is the case with certain types who hang around the council.

Another tactic used is for the 'hunting pack' to approach and surround their prey, in order to brow beat them into submission. This happens in court to barristers for the defence and in the Town Hall.

When they behave badly and others react in a manner that is deemed by them and their supporters as not 'nice and proper' , their reaction is one of fake indignation - oh how unfair, how cruel, how bad...crossing the line, over stepping the mark, blah blah blah blah blah.

Always portraying themselves as innocent victims of other peoples un-provoked malice.

Local Government Pensions & Investments

2010-10-03T17:37:00.000-07:00

REPORT TITLE: PRINCIPLES FOR MAKING ETHICAL INVESTMENTS

Leader's Statement

2010-10-02T08:34:00.000-07:00

Camden Councils Leader Nasim Ali's statement to the full council 28 June 2010 HERE

Annual Audit

2010-09-27T20:20:00.000-07:00

The councils Audit and Corporate Governance Committee held on 23 Sept 2010 threw up some interesting information:

The councils previous external auditor Deloitte, who the Audit Commission (AC) took over from as the councils external auditor in 2008/9 and again 2009/10, has not signed off the councils 2007/8 accounts due to unresolved objections HERE.
The AC hasn't signed off the council's 2008/9 accounts again due to unresolved objection HERE
"A material item is one whose omission or misstatement could influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial statements. At the London Borough of Camden for 2009/10 I considered items over £20 million to be material. I also considered the sensitivity of items beneath this value when considering their materiality"
" Trivial items are those whose omission or misstatement would have no effect on the economic decisions of users of the financial statements. At the London Borough of Camden for 2009/10 I considered items under £200,000 to be trivial (though having regard to the sensitivity of items below this threshold). A non-trivial item is one above this threshold but not material"

The Audit Commission's National Fraud Initative 2008/9 briefing paper to council members HERE . The AC only seems to be concerned with certain areas of the councils accounts - grants to voluntary sector organisations doesn't seem one of them - neither does objections about them.

The AC says the below HERE about objections they have received from local electors:
"We have received correspondence from a number of local government electors during the 2009/2010 inspection period. At this stage we have not yet accepted any of the matters raised as objections."

Camden Lib-Dems where responsible for the councils finances for the period May 2006 - May 2010.

2009-10 CASP Accounts

2010-09-18T08:28:00.000-07:00

On 28 July 2010 the Housing and Adult Social Care (and community safety) (HASC) scrutiny committee received a report from the interim director of HASC titled the role and costs of Tenant Participation in Camden HERE-

Amongst other accounts given by the housing directorate of spending on 'tenant participation' the account given to the scrutiny committee states the below as the CASP expenditure:

Hire of Halls - 462.5
Vehicles - Taxi Hire 85.15
Office Equipment - 91.00
Digital Projector Hire - 39.00
Catering Contract - External - 60.57
Provisions - General - 94.20
Refreshments - Officers Meeting - 32.26
Advertising - non staff - 150.00
IT Purchase - 543.54
Stamps - 1,879. 29
Tenants Training - 240.90

Total 3678. 41

Presumably the accounts given where taken from the general ledger and are true and accurate?

* The 'office equipment' = CASP purchase of a digital camera

* The 'IT Purchase' = CASP purchase in Aug 2009 using a government procurement card (gpc) of 3 printer cartridges totalling 191.89, and 4 printer ink cartridges purchased in Dec 2009 again using a GPC totalling 433.12, grand total of all 7 ink cartridges 625.01 - not 543.54 as stated in the officers report. ( research into government procurement cards (GPC) - it appears that VAT added to purchases using this card can be claimed back and this may be why the VAT was not added to the ledger. )

This is CASP's idea of managing public money efficiently?

Only authorised council staff are supposed to use these cards and only for one off purchases? What happened to the bank account CASP allegedly set up, when the council 'holds' the CASP funds?

I suspect the council releases the CASP accounts because the amount of public money is small in comparison to the CFTRA expenditure of over 100,000 per year.

The council has come up with excuse after excuse as to why they won't release the CFTRA accounts.

NB According to the accounts (not shown) only one of the five district meetings CASP claimed to have held took place (Kentish Town).

On the general ledger it is stated that on two occasions the CASP spent some of their budget on rooms at the Town Hall - presumably the two general (1 ordinary and 1 annual) meetings CASP held?

CASP held their AGM on 2 Dec 2009 at St Stephen's church in Hampstead didn't they?

No account of the letters that would have needed to have been sent out to all 6,500+ street property households to inform then that an ordinary general meeting was to be held on 20 July 2009.

Threats of Eviction

2010-09-06T13:08:00.000-07:00

"we are writing to you to ask that you delete forthwith all posts and blogs that go beyond your right to make comments about matters of public interest, this includes but is not limited to those posts concerning CASP and Camden Council including Kentish Town Housing Office. If you fail to do so we will have no alternative but to pass this matter on to our legal team, and to ask them to commence possession proceedings against you."

The above is taken from a letter from a housing manager at Kentish Town District Housing Office which was sent to a Camden council tenant, probably on the orders of others in the council who are hiding (notice the royal "we" as opposed to "I"). This time such a letter was sent via the Royal Mail as opposed to deploying a council worker to sneak round to the tenants home and hand delivering it.

I think its in the public interest to publish it because Camden Council are using alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement under the Housing Act to threaten and intimidate disgruntled tenants into being silent. Next in line could be council tenants who write into local newspapers - providing they ain't in with the council that is. Is it right that public servants dictate what is and isn't in the public interest?

Would make for an interesting case, to test their interpretation of the Act and if they are successful what it would mean for council tenants UK wide.

Council Tax

2010-08-29T20:51:00.000-07:00

Why is it that despite the majority of residents of the borough having to pay council tax (generating around £100m per year) and thus contributing directly towards public services (and underwriting council pension investments) we have no direct say on how and where this money is spent? No proper breakdown is given.

If you don't pay it you get taken to court and fined, and can be imprisoned if you don't pay the court fine. Its not a crime to not pay your council tax demand, but it is a 'crime' not to pay a court imposed fine. Regardless of what the tax is spent on we have to pay it and the courts enforce this because they are merely extended arms of government in such matters.

Whereas a small number of council tenants via the 5 district housing management committee's have been 'allowed' to directly influence where large chunks of public money goes - and without the council properly accounting for it.

Review of Tenant Participation

2010-08-27T22:01:00.000-07:00

Apparently, the council is set to carry out a review of tenant participation. This review will allegedly be carried out by a sub-committee set up by the Housing and Adult Social Care (and community safety) scrutiny committee.

The committee will apparently consist of three council members and possibly one un-elected resident, who will apparently be required to be interviewed by the three council members . This will be called the 'tenant participation panel'.

The panel will investigate 'all aspects of TP work and strategy, the objective to find ways for the council to deliver this 'service' more effieciently, with more value to money and 100% tenant and leaseholder satisfaction rates'.

100% statisfaction rate? I like it, humour is a good start, its sure to get funnier.

Tenants will be able to send in 'evidence' to the panel, who will I'm sure be publishing all submissions on the councils website along with the reports. I suspect though there won't be much feedback - just the usual cling-ons and a few others.

Linking on to the above, the council has part published a version of the Tenants Survey that was carried out in 2009 HERE - the survey says the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) represents the interests of SP tenants better than the District (housing) Management Committee's, (DMC's) which isn't a surprise really as some representation is better than none - but some representation still isn't good enough after 6 years of CASP being in operation, and CASP still represents less than 5% of SP tenants and leaseholders.

Apparently street property leaseholders weren't asked about CASP representing them, but where 6% happier with the Leaseholder Forum representation.

No mention of the 'leading' tenants organisation the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations (CFTRA) in the survey. The CFTRA receives 133,000 per year from the housing revenue account to allegedly represent the interests of, and provide services to, council tenants in the borough.

Update Oct 2010
Evidence gathering has began, with the usual suspects attending the panel meeting to give verbal 'evidence' - expect lots of self-addrandisement.

I wonder how many residents out of the 24,000 council tenant-ed and 7,000? leaseholder households in Camden will contribute to the review? Only a handful attend the panel meetings, but others may send in written evidence to the panel for consideration.

Will we get to the bottom of where the £2-3m was spent?

NB The council is also conducting reviews of leaseholder charges, decent homes works and voluntary sector funding. The Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations as well as coming under the tenant participation banner also comes under the voluntary sector funding banner.

Annual Accounts 2009/10

2010-08-07T07:38:00.000-07:00

Each year around June the council finishes the internal audit of the accounts, and the council officers responsible for the audit send reports to the councils audit committee (currently called the Audit and Corporate Governance committee). A time scale is set from members of the public to inspect the accounts - this should be advertised in a local newspaper by the committee chair.

The accounts are then audited by an external auditor - to be finalised by the end of Sept and more reports send to the audit committee. If all goes well and there are no unresolved objections the accounts can be signed off.

The accounts the council publishes aren't the full accounts, only a summary, so any local electorate who wishes to inspect the accounts would have to put in a request to the councils finance officers.

A local elector can make objections to the accounts to the external auditor ie that fraud is suspected of being committed. The Fraud Act 2006 HERE

The legal rights of local residents to inspect the accounts are contained within the Audit Commission Act 1998 - HERE. The Act makes it an offence to obstruct or refuse a persons right to inspect the accounts.

Defining council housing

2010-08-05T14:35:00.000-07:00

Am I the only one to have noticed that the flats the council are planning on selling on the Holly Lodge (private) estate in Highgate aren't actually owned by the council, but are properties where the council is the leaseholder?

This raises the question as to what exactly is 'council' housing? Is it housing the council owns (as freeholder of a building) or housing the council is leasing (as a tenant) or both?

On another matter I feel I must pay homage to Mrs Angry from neighbouring Barnet - a blogger whose take on Barnet council is very amusing to read . Broken Barnet Mock mock away Mrs Angry.

Clr Leaks Email

2010-07-29T12:24:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago a concerned Camden resident wrote a joint email to 2 Camden council elected members (1 Lib-Dem & 1 Con) about attending the AGM of a public funded tenants group to protest about the behaviour of some committee members and their suitability for re-election.

The resident requested their support at the AGM.

Three days after receiving the email Lib-Dem council member Jill Fraser passed the email to the group, and emailed the resident giving misleading information that deterred the resident from attending the AGM.

When the resident found out about the email being leaked an official complaint was made to the councils monitoring officer who passed the complaint onto the councils Standards (sub) Committee (should be renamed the sub-standard standards sub-committee?)

Because of various reasons the complaint wasn't progressed beyond the sub-committee stage.

Some people argue that council members shouldn't get involved in such matters, but given that this group gets lots of support (including leaked emails) that argument just doesn't hold water.

This raises the questions: why did clr Fraser leak this email and does she leak correspondence other residents send to her?

No explanation has been forthcoming.

Scrutiny of Tenant Participation

2010-07-24T08:45:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday 28 July 2010 there will be a Housing and Adult Social Care (and Community Safety) (HASC) committee meeting at the town hall. The agenda items and reports for the meeting are up on the councils website HERE

Agenda item 9 Tenant Participation, is an officer report titled The role and costs of the Tenant Participation in Camden. Why this particular scrutiny committee isn't webcast is a mystery, as other scrutiny committees such as the health scrutiny committee are.

The unsigned report purports to be a report of the interim director of housing who happens to be Mike Cooke. The contact officer is Dawn Aldred who happens to be the TP co-ordinator.

The summary says:
"The purpose of this report is to provide the Housing and Adult Social Care Scrutiny committee with the information requested on:

The role and cost of the Tenant Participation Team,
Camden Federation of Tenant and Resident Associations (CFTRA),
District Management Committees (DMCs), and
Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP)

For the purpose of the report “tenant” includes leaseholders."

For anyone who takes an interest in how council officers are supposed to conduct themselves when carrying out the councils business, it will be helpful to also read the councils Constitution HERE and in particular PART 5 Codes and Protocols which says the below about staff:

"The people who live and work in Camden are entitled to high-quality services and a high standard of behaviour from all our staff. This code of conduct helps to achieve these aims."

"We know that we are only successful because of the loyalty, honesty, professionalism and hard work of our staff"

"If your behaviour falls below the standards in this code, or any other corporate and departmental standards, we may take formal action against you, including dismissal."

"You should not mislead people who use our services or lie about our business."
-----------------------

Update: Following the meeting, it was decided a sub-committee is to be set up to look further at tenant participation.

My view is the DMC's, and the borough wide groups should be scrapped because they are a waste of public money and solely a tick box exercise. Public funding for the CFTRA should cease.

These groups are not inclusive or representative of the majority of the residents they claim to be representing and all they really do is to provide strongholds for unpleasant tenants to collude with equally unpleasant council people to fcuk over anyone who doesn't agree with their rotten way of doing things.

Most of the public funds spent on TP goes on staff costs with little to show for it.

Camden Town District Housing Office

2010-07-15T19:07:00.000-07:00

I have an experience re ASBOs as Camden council managed to get one against me in Nov 05 (now spent) because of a 'community politics' situation.

Briefly, I had always been keen to start a genuine community project 'For all' in our area - Somers Town in Camden, London as most projects were earmarked as 'only for (various) ethnic groups', which some of us felt kept 'our community' separated!

* Camilla Batmanghella's kids company project inspired me.

* But I felt a need to do something for my elderly neighbours as well.

* I started Cafe Basil (for all) so named as we started out in the 'Basil Jellico Hall' - one night a week - for the teenagers.

* At the time 5 million pounds came into the area via a 5 year government 'regeneration' budget. The committee formed to run it was not neutral but made up of local people with their own agendas.

* A few of us had 'made nuicances' of ourselves by complaining to the housing committee about the way our local tenants halls were being run by a handful of (in effect) self appointed tenants.

* Various of these refused us access to local halls for our project because they could make a lot of money (£30 per hour) by hiring them out to all kinds of odd churches and similar 'outside' projects. Our community halls evidentaly are popular because we are so central.

* Matters at St Pancras housing association's Basil Jellico hall, came to a head when some kids messing around with condoms (which they had been given by a sexual healh clinic project in our area) had left some in the Basil jellico hall toilet.

* St pancras housing association then evicted our project using the excuse that we must have been encouraging under age sex!!!

* We tried again to get access to one or other of our four local tenant halls but could not.

* We were told by some local people in the know that it was because of petty corruption in tenants' committees, apparently those holding the keys were depositing money from lettings into secret accounts showing false accounts to the council each year. We were told that the housing office knew this but would not tackle it for reasons of local politics.

* Our cafe Basil project was now homeless so giving up the fight to use community halls, I found an abandoned local shop and with my own money opened it as a full time charitable Cafe Basil For all.

* The Cafe Bsil 'For All' tag became the sticking point. We could not get proper funding becuase we did not tick the right boxes - the regeneration money favoured separate groups of ethnic minorities.

* Unfortunately, the old shop belonged to the commercial letting dept of Camden council and was situated on housing land (Amthill Square) and was on the housing estate of one of the 'tenant leader' people we had made enemies with because of not being able to gain access to the tenants hall there. This tenant 'leader' was also chair of the 5 million pound regeneration money committee!

* So we plodded on regardless. It was poplar with everyone.We began to be harassed by various people including one individual who had taken to pouring hot tea and coffee from his balcony onto the heads of those entering Cafe Basil, - his blacony overlooked our entrance.

* I made a formal complaint about this and other similar harrasments to the housing dept as the culprits lived in the adjoining Council flats.

* I had credible witnesses who eventually came to the asbo court to testify for me.

HOW DID IT GET TO ASBO COURT?

* a nice neighbour who was on that particular tenants committee came in to Cafe Basil to forwarn me that a meeting was in progress in the tenant hall - about how to go about evicting our project.

* After many weeks of serious harrasment and the housing dept's local chief taking sides with the people I had made formal complaints about, I lost my cool and went in and had a bit of a shout at them all, I admit I became a touch hysterical when I saw them all sitting there looking very smug.

* My regretted my confrontation but I was working 14 hours per day 7 days per week on the project so the stress of their undermining it proved too much. my outburst was swiftly regarded as 'violence'!I had given them the excuse they wanted so that they could say I was a violent and dangerous person (their words), so they now had a reason to evict Cafe Basil from this abandonded shop for which we were paying full commercial rent!

* I was summoned to the county court. A ten minute hearing had been booked for an ASBO on me to protect tenant leaders and council officials! It was laughable.

* But the judge on seeing a barrister and so many council officials and tenants (the very same ones who had harassed us for reasons of previous arguments about there being no access to local tenant halls - AND becuase of their petty corrupt running of them), the judge said that "it seemed wrong that someone "like me" should be given an ASBO. So he deferred it and booked a 3 day hearing to get to the bottom of it.

Eventually another judge took the case and was seemingly so confused by 3 and half days of internicine hellish stories and cross examinations that he seemed to throw his hands in the air, half side with the council saying that I seemed to him to be a feisty person yet utting it on the record that their chief witness' evidence was wholly unreliable. (I was defending myself and had to cross examine them all myself).

*But he did refuse to award costs against me a full £28,000 that Camden spent on my asbo. For they had had the nerve to try to get it from me!

*instead of appealing - as I should have, I had a serious nervous breakdown (I had never had one before) which involved my stopping eating and losing 3 stone in a month! Doctors records have recorded it.

* I somehow , with the help of friends and family recovered and am now back to normal.

It was the shock of witnessing the professional council officers lying on oath about events and typing up collected false witness statements (from these old enemies of whom I had had good reason to make formal complaints about) statements that were garbled, in bad handwriting and so retyped by the housing office. they were literally made up.

I have since given up community activities and there is no community cafe for the kids and others to enjoy in our area. the building remains empty with our pretty sign still written large above the shutters.

Sandi Dunn

------------------------------

Volunteer hit by nuisance ruling: I’m the victim

editorial@hamhigh.co.uk
28 October 2005

Caroline McClatchey

A community worker has been served with an interim anti-social behaviour injunction after allegations of harassment and intimidation.

Sandi Dunn, who voluntarily runs the Café Basil community centre in Eversholt Street, has been ordered not to cause nuisance around the Ampthill Square Estate, Harrington Square, in Somers Town.

Camden Council applied for the injunction (Asbi) after complaints from residents.

At the Central London County Court in Regent's Park on Monday, Ms Dunn, 55, denied the allegations but admitted an outburst at a meeting.

She said: "After two or three years of harassment I had an outburst. I'm not aware it's a crime in Britain to have an outburst. There must be millions of outbursts in every corner of the land but they don't get an Asbi.

"I believe the whole thing to be a conspiracy. There is a horrible rumour factory going on. I got a poison pen letter saying I was being investigated for fraud and should be careful walking up and down Cranleigh Street."

The key complainants against Ms Dunn are David Parker, Ceri Thomas, Lord Timothy Thomas and Jean Haggett.

Town Hall bosses initially asked for several conditions to be attached to the injunction, banning Ms Dunn from visiting several addresses in Somers Town and "from harassing or being verbally abusive or using or threatening violence" towards Fran Heron of the Ampthill Square Estates Tenants' Association and any Camden Council worker, particularly Sharon Calvey and Lova Ramsay, who both work in the housing department.

But District Judge Barry Lightman, who had no time to read Ms Dunn's character references and witness statements, served only a general injunction, forbidding the mother-of-five from engaging in "conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance" to residents on the Ampthill Square Estate.

He said that judging from the evidence she was not the sort of person normally involved in Asbi cases, but the fact that she had put up a poster naming and shaming one of the complainants meant he had to issue the injunction.

He said to Ms Dunn: "You seem intelligent and well spoken. The evidence is surprising but I cannot ignore the fact you took the law into your own hands to some extent knowing there was a hearing coming up.

"That (putting up the poster) was an error of judgement."

The council wanted Ms Dunn arrested should she breach the injunction but Judge Lightman turned down the request. He added: "There's something clearly going on... It takes two to tango."

A full Asbi hearing, where evidence will be heard from both sides, has been set for November 9 and 10 in the Central London County Court at 10.30am.

Ms Dunn, from Cranleigh Street, has also been served with eviction papers, giving Café Basil notice to quit the council-owned building in Eversholt Street

caroline.mcclatchey@hamhigh.co.uk

CASP Membership of DMC's

2010-05-28T08:08:00.000-07:00

There is some confusion over whether or not the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) is actually registered with the council - via the tenant participation team.

The Gospel Oak District (housing) Management Committee (DMC) doesn't appear to think that CASP is registered. Click HERE for the GO DMC Constitution.

The Holborn DMC Constitution states that only registered with the council TRA's that are entirely within Holborn may elect one dmc rep and substitute to be represented on this dmc. This means that CASP and other such borough wide groups aren't permitted.

The Hampstead DMC Constitution HERE states 'each tenant and resident association within the area of the DMC and registered with the council shall elect one of its members as a DMC representative'

The council makes it very clear how a TRA becomes a registered DMC member HERE

A registration form has to be filled in and sent to the DMC's (via the TP team) - included in the form must be a list of the TRA's members - I am assuming in CASPs case that its the number of street property households who have registered with CASP.

A 10% minimum of general members in attendance at AGMs is required. Bad news for CASP as attendance is very poor considering CASP 'represents' over 6, 000 individual households. The council appears to have changed the rules on this one as I'm sure it was 20% before.

NB though the Leaseholders Forum (financed by the council) as a borough wide representative group isn't registered with the DMC's, they do send into the DMCs the minutes of their meetings. CASP (financed from public money as an alleged representative /advocate group) still continues to withhold its minutes from the DMC's.

One rule for CASP another rule for the rest.

On another note whats happened to the area meetings that CASP was supposed to have set up - and continued with - no sign of them this year - just another tick box exercise?

What has happened to the street properties decent homes monitoring group the council set up - no feedback anywhere from this group.

Word of warning to anyone who is approached by CASP or the council to join the CASP committee - the council encourages CASP to recruit committee members - this is done by way of a phony 'befriending' tactic. This tactic dupes the target into believing that CASP is their friend and can be trusted - it creates a 'personal' relationship.

Rather conveniently, the council says they cannot 'regulate' personal relationships.

Double Standards

2010-05-22T06:25:00.000-07:00

It is thought by some Camden tenant 'reps' that council members should not get involved in the 'personal' issues of tenants ie if residents complain to cllrs about the anti-social behaviour of tenants - then council members shouldn't get involved.

However, the same tenant 'reps' think its okay for council members to get involved and take sides with them when they have complaints (often made up ones) about other tenants.

Go figure out the double standards here.

DMC's Budget Allocations

2010-05-12T09:10:00.001-07:00

Going through the April 2009 - March 2010 budget spending reports that housing officers sent into the the DMC's, of the expenditure of TRA's and housing officers on improvements to council estates I couldn't help but notice that housing officers have never to my knowledge produced any follow up reports on whether or not these works have actually been carried out.

No checks appear to exist as to whether or not tenant associations and housing officers have spent the money on what is accounted for in the reports.

A lot of public money goes through the DMCs each year from three different funding 'pots':

The Revenue Account Budget of around £44, 000 per year per DMC.
i) Minor improvement works to properties and estates;
ii) Alterations to tenants’ clubrooms, facilities and additional basic equipment;
iii) Encouragement of social and community facilities at halls and community centres principally available for the benefit of the Council's tenants.

x 5 = £220,000

The Capital Account Budget of £100,000 per DMC per year.
i) The money can only be spent on Council owned stock
ii) The works must be “capital in nature”, i.e. each scheme should exceed £10,000 and add value to the stock
iii) Unallocated resources may be distributed to other DMCs.

X 5 = £500,000

Grants to tenants for the running costs of TRA's around £7,000 per DMC per year
Travel expenses, photocopiers (only for the councils favourite TRAs) photocoping, stamps, telephone calls, hiring rooms, etc.

X 5 = £35,000

Total £755,000 +

You Know You're Being Set Up When....

2010-04-25T06:38:00.000-07:00

You know you are being set up when ...... a false complaint is made to the police about you, alleging that you physically assaulted the complainant and made threats, but the complainant only wants the police to 'note' the complaint.

Despite alleging to be in 'fear' of your life and spreading it around that the target is violent and has assaulted you, you only want the police to 'note' your complaint.

The scene is then set for the complainant to get a lacky to make 'anonymous' threatening phone calls to the targets home.

Then when the target makes a complaint to the police about the threatening phone calls, and who is believed to be behind them, the police don't want to know.....

If the target continues to be a threat, leave 6 monthly intervals between making further false complaints about the target to the police.

And send another lacky round to the targets home to make contact with targets neighbour's to stir up trouble.

The above is how the borough wide council tenants group called the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) have been allowed by the police and the council to get away with operating.

CASP is funded by the council from public money.

Late Filing charges

2010-03-10T06:23:00.000-08:00

The Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations (CFTRA) are late in filing forms with Companies Hse - this means that a late filing penalty charge will be incurred of £150 and possibly more by the cftra. This fine will be paid from tenants money the cftra are given by the council from the housing revenue account.

Isn't it about time the council ceased funding this useless private company and put tenants money to better use?

Flooding in Council homes

2010-02-28T11:12:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVwvgRdb2YY