Each co-op decided it’s own level of rent, dependent on the amount of money the group needed to maintain the houses and administer the co-op.
Rents in co-ops were generally lower than other rents partly because of the condition of the properties (CPO’d as ‘slums’ for clearance) and because most of the practical maintenance and repair work was done by the occupants of the properties. Of course, this situation is very different to paying rent to a landlord and having the expectation that repairs etc will be carried out by whoever receives the rent. I’m not sure that there is a realistic comparison to be made, for obvious reasons!

In terms of comparing licenses granted by the council with the situation surrounding so-called ‘guardians’ like Camelot etc, well, it turns out that Lambeth’s ‘Head Licenses’, supposedly existing between itself and the housing associations who managed the co-ops… often didn’t actually exist at all.
Unfortunately, the courts are refusing to consider the implications of this bit of Lambeth incompetence/skullduggery, instead, on the most part, choosing to believe Lambeth’s torrent of misinformation.
If the courts chose to honestly examine Lambeth council’s behaviour, past and present, it could set a precedent that would upset the courts’ long held bias towards supporting councils in the face of actions against it by residents.

In Europe, there are investigations taking place into ‘Guardians’, on the basis that the lack of tenants’ rights and safeguards make the current way that these companies work, illegal.
In that way, I would agree that there are similarities. Lambeth council cynically used groups of homeless young people to ‘house-sit’ many of their derelict properties, and gave no rights or security of tenure.

Charmain Lodge.