THE SELL OFF, SELL-OUT
Background: Late 1970s & early 1980s:
Housing Co-ops are established between Lambeth and people who had begun to maintain housing abandoned by the borough, people who were homeless and on the council’s housing waiting list.
Lambeth recognises that Co-ops substantially reduce reliance on undesirable lodgings and house many “vulnerable” members of the community.
Early – Mid 1990s:
Co-ops encouraged to become permanent; the promise of which disappears abruptly when Lambeth attempts transfer of its “Shortlife” stock to Housing Associations. “Deals” evaporate due to Lambeth’s frequent policy changes.
1997 onwards:
Housing Co-operatives receive renewed threats of “recall” and eviction.
Consultations between Lambeth and Housing Co-ops a stated aim BUT none occur; suggestions that residents could remain in-situ, if their houses were not “under-occupied”, are not pursued.
Occupants are offered the “opportunity” to buy their homes based on vacant possession, at inflated and unrealistic prices. 2011 – present:
Lambeth’s cabinet decrees all decisions regarding “Shortlife” will be private, made by a small group of council officers.
Despite interest from other social housing providers to manage stock, Lambeth deal exclusively with Notting Hill Housing Group (NHHG).
By end of 2011 the NHHG deal collapses but it takes months for Lambeth to acknowledge this. Lambeth continue to use this “deal” as reason for possession in the court cases they are bringing against “Shortlifers”.
Lambeth state NHHG deal was refused because too many houses would be sold off BUT, ironically, Sale By Auction is now their only disposal tool.
Vacated properties are deliberately damaged by council workers or by “vacant property managers” Camelot. Some ex-Coop homes are re-occupied, due to Camelot’s bizarre operation. In some cases serious anti-social behaviour occurs in buildings soon after stable Co-op communities have been vacated.
Meanwhile, in its legal proceedings, Lambeth engages in intimidation and coercion, threatening unreasonably high “unauthorised occupation” charges, removal of the offer to re-house, and imposition of full legal costs.
Offers to re-house residents (after first making them homeless!) involve joining “Choice-Based Lettings”, a system already failing most people on Lambeth’s waiting list. “Shortlife” residents report the lettings team is acting especially vindictively in their cases.
Analysis:
Those who brought empty properties back into use in the 1980s, on a budget and using labour from within the community, were completely in line with current government thinking as influenced by The Great British Property Scandal that is highlighting the current housing crisis.
Housing Co-ops have been praised by international management consultants Price Waterhouse as a housing model that offers the best value for money and “are a flexible model capable of delivering housing services which compare with the best of mainstream providers.”
However, Lambeth used “Shortlife” to secure their vulnerable housing stock without having to provide legal tenancies.
“Shortlife” residents invested time, effort and money on their houses, including carrying out major repairs. Their efforts have increased the value of housing stock originally bought via a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for a couple of thousand pounds and then scheduled for demolition. These houses are now selling at auction for upwards of £575,000.
Housing Co-operative residents are largely low-waged, with little or no savings or outside financial support. Many are of pensionable age, others are disabled and housebound, dependent on their immediate neighbours.
These are the vulnerable people suffering whilst Lambeth uses “Shortlife” as a “piggy bank”, raiding it to offset the deficit accrued through mismanagement and internal fraud. This comes in the context of Lambeth spending £25m on new council offices.
Despite councillors declaring that Housing Coop communities have brought “a welcome permanence and continuity to the area”, Lambeth has instituted a de facto social and economic purge.
In Conclusion:
The difference between the policy and attitude of the Lambeth c.1980 and the Lambeth of today is shocking in its disparity.
Lambeth recently published “The Co-operative Council” White Paper, trumpeting support of community and co-operative led housing. Yet Lambeth is simultaneously destabilising and destroying community led co-operative housing that has existed for the best part of half a century and was previously supported by them.
The Way Forward:
The sell-off of homes has provoked criticism from Lambeth’s own MP, Kate Hoey, and various concerns have been raised by the borough’s London Assembly Member, Val Shawcross, a number of councillors, local heritage groups, cooperative organisations and several judges commenting during the current legal action. Kate Hoey has suggested a “Super Co-op” option, conserving Lambeth’s Housing Co-op heritage. We ask you to add your voice to the growing opposition to this sell-off and to support the “Super Co-op”.