20 June 2017 Grenfell Tower

I was going to post a news story from the mainstream newspapers about this but stuff about what happened is changing daily and couldn't keep up. the following is from a website a local tenants group set up a few years ago and which is still active https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/grenfell-tower-the-kctmo-culture-of-negligence/

Grenfell Tower – The KCTMO Culture Of Negligence

 "The many who lost their lives in this catastrophe were our friends and neighbours. We tried to speak for them in life and we will continue to speak for them now. We share the pain of the homeless, the injured and the bereaved to whom we offer our heartfelt sympathy, condolences and solidarity. We also share the sense of anger and injustice that has troubled this community for years. That is why we started this blog and that is why we will continue as we started, speaking truth to power whether or not they choose to listen."  Continue reading HERE 

Since hearing of what happened, seeing pictures etc I can't find the right words to say anything other than how utterly tragic, sad and painful for many that something like this could happen. It shouldn't have.

Understandably  many are angry and upset, wanting truthful answers and justice for those who died in the fire and others how have been directly harmed by this. The emergency services have been as reported, outstanding. Its been a highly emotional and upsetting week for all included. Sending Love and Healing to all. 

https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/

Legal Action Threat for Water Charge Arrears

this post is joined with my post of Friday 10 June 2016 London Council Overcharged Tenants for Water

Land-lord Camden council has sent me a letter [received 15 June 2017] saying they will start legal action against me if I don't pay the arrears of the water charges I stopped paying around Dec 2016.

I think I have a good enough reason for stopping paying the water charges and continuing to not pay it until the landlord gives me and other tenants back the money they owe us because of overcharging us. Plus I think they need to set a new and lawful charge [ if they haven't done so already but they haven't said so].

The water charge isn't the rent, its a seperate charge to the rent yet they call it rent. Its a service charge.

I have ten days from date of letter [9 June 2017]. It says to call them if I have financial or other difficulties. I contacted them a while ago and explained why I haven't paid the charge. They didn't reply but sent the threatening letter instead. Business as usual for the housing department.

Plus all these years I have had to put up with the noise here and the landlord won't do anything about it that I'm aware of,  and estate officier comes to my flat makes 'promises' then goes away and I don't hear anything about it from her again. She could see what a state I was in. Was it just lies to try and butter me up?

Though I feel anxious at the thought of having to go to court and the risk it entails I need to hold my nerve on this.

I await the court case.

23 Aug 2017
Latest letter dated 15 August 2017 is NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION [not to begin before 24 Sept 2017] which I sent them an email in reply to and am waiting for an email reply back. This letter came very shortly after a message from someone in the council left on my home phone answering machine. They haven't been helpful at all to me with the difficulties i'm having, which doesn't come as a surprise.

They will refer my case to the councils legal team if I don't coff up the claimed arrears.

This issue isn't only about me its about all unmetered camden council tenants as well as other london boroughs tenants.

As well as me having difficulties with the water charge payments I also have difficulties with communicating verbally with camden council and find it a lot easier to do so in writing. I would prefer to avoid court but rent support won't reply to emails.


25 August 2017
Came across the following from  http://www.dpglaw.co.uk/hundreds-thousands-overcharged-water/

"A High Court ruling has established that hundreds of thousands of tenants have been overcharged for water and sewerage. Lawyers say that affected tenants will be entitled to refunds running to hundreds if not thousands of pounds.

As reported by the BBC, the test case was brought by Kim Jones, a tenant of Southwark Council.

Along with 37,000 other tenants in Southwark, Ms Jones’ tenancy agreement required to pay charges for water and sewerage to her landlord. The amount Ms Jones was required to pay her landlord was significantly more than the amount the landlord was required to pay Thames Water.

The High Court ruled that this was unlawful because it breached the Water Resale Orders, which prohibit water and sewerage from being resold at a profit.

Whilst initially criticising the decision, Southwark Council has now announced that it will not appeal and will being repaying to tenants some of the unlawful charges.
Ms Jones’ solicitor, Gareth Mitchell, of Deighton Pierce Glynn, said:
“Thames Water has confirmed that it has similar arrangements with 69 local authorities and housing associations throughout its area covering 375,000 households. For households in occupation since 2001, they will have been overcharged around £700 to £1,000.

Southwark Council’s announcement that it will only make a partial refund to the 37,000 tenants affected within its borough is unacceptable. These are low income tenants for whom this is a significant amount of money. For many years, Southwark concealed from its tenants the true nature of its relationship with Thames Water. It is not only morally unacceptable for Southwark Council to retain these unlawful charges, the legal basis for their approach is doubtful and further litigation is very likely if they do not relent.

As for the other local authorities and housing associations affected by this issue, we are expecting them to make contact with their tenants over the coming weeks and to indicate what arrangements they will be making to repay the unlawful charges.

However, the impact of the judgment does not stop there.

The judge also decided that between April 2002 and April 2010 Thames Water should have billed the owners of rented accommodation for water and sewerage, rather than tenants. Whereas Thames Water’s evidence in the High Court was that throughout this period it had billed and recovered charges from tenants, rather than landlords.

Thames Water has not yet announced what arrangements it will be making to reimburse these tenants, all of whom were incorrectly charged hundreds of pounds each year during the 2002 to 2010 period.”

BBC London TV news report on 25 April 2016 (lead item) see: here. 

DPG’s Gareth Mitchell was also interviewed about the case on Vanessa Feltz’s breakfast show on 25 April 2016 at 07:35hrs (35 mins in); with Southwark council’s response at 08.21hrs (1 hour 21 mins in): here.
An article about the implications of the case will appear in the May 2016 edition of Legal Action.


8 Sept 2017
Rent officer has passed me onto the councils Financial Inclusion officers who sent me a letter and who I emailed and await their reply.

The Notice they sent to me is a sham.


4 Nov 2017
No word yet from the Financial Inclusion officers I sent an email to about the letter they sent to me.


7 Nov 2017
Someone from the Rent service phoned me yesterday and I explained a bit why I was with- holding the water charge and that I had replied via email to every letter I received but haven't had any email replies back.  I don't know what happens next will wait and see.


11 Feb 2018
Not heard anything about this since 7 Nov 2017. 

related to this: Housing repairs department - don't get me started on the shenanigans going on there.


30 May 2018 
Letter received and phone call from rent officer - 'am i going to start paying [my landlord camden council] the water charge' 'no, no' i says. I will though as suggested contact thames water and ask about a water metre and paying them directly for my water and get back to rent officer.

I'd rather pay  the water company and their shareholders than Camden 'council' and their ...... well whats the right word?

3 July 2018 
I haven't been able to contact Thames Water as suggested by the landlords agent, and which I agreed to. I tried really I did I just been pre-occupied with other stuff I'm trying to manage and its draining.  2 further phone calls Ive not replied to as I've lost the will 'to live' in regards to this. Take to me court if you must and we can argue it out there.

20 August 2018
Apparently I'm supposed to be receiving  an explanation [or proof or something] from the councils legal or finance department [I forget which what with others things still ongoing] as to why  the court judgement doesn't apply to Camden council - not heard anything yet.

1 Jan 2019
Another recent letter from  the  housing rent service within the 'supporting communities' directorate about alleged 'rent arrears'. They are going around in circles and don't know what to do i think. 

8 April 2021  

Camden council landlord has pulled a 'sneaky underhanded' move on me by contacting the DWP and getting them to start making weekly deduction from my  ESA payments. I'm not sure this is even legal/lawful so will have to look into it. 

After all they they have put me through and they pull this stunt, how very typical. 

21 April 2021

Ive found the actual court case where the overcharging by London councils [as landlords]  was decided 

Jones v London Borough of Southwark [2016] EWHC 457 (Ch) (04 March 2016) (bailii.org)

Its the appeal court - this means that the ruling should in practice [i think] apply to all London councils who where joined with the scheme. I have asked Camden council via my then ward housing manager about the overcharging - Nov 2016 saw the councils position as such:

 "We are still reviewing the situation ..... all water charges where set by Thames Water." 

Camden says its collects the charges on behalf of Thames Water - payments made to Camden Council are put back into providing services sort of thing. 

Thats the last I heard on the matter. If you scroll up this post you will see the entry dated 25 Aug 2017, taken from Kim Jones v Southwark -100,000s overcharged for water in London (dpglaw.co.uk) 

states that: 

" Whilst initially criticising the decision, Southwark Council has now announced that it will not appeal and will being repaying to tenants some of the unlawful charges.

Ms Jones’ solicitor, Gareth Mitchell, of Deighton Pierce Glynn, said:
“Thames Water has confirmed that it has similar arrangements with 69 local authorities and housing associations throughout its area covering 375,000 households. For households in occupation since 2001, they will have been overcharged around £700 to £1,000."

on 28 Oct 2020  Inside Housing  reports that   Court dismisses London council’s appeal over water charges ruling

Link to judgement

The Mayor & Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames v Moss [2020] EWCA Civ 1381 (27 October 2020) (bailii.org)  

Friday 17 September 2021

I'm going through some of the minutes/documents from the 5 DMC's meetings that are up on camden councils website - to see if I can find any comments made by council about the water charge and I came across the below dated 6 dec 2017 

" The Housing Revenue Account Financial Advisor outlined the background to the water charges issues, emphasising that Southwark Council had been found in court to be acting as water reseller and therefore obliged to pass on any savings in the cost of water.

Camden had a different contract with Thames Water, receiving an administration fee for collecting water rates from tenants with no suggestion that tenants were being charged more as a result of this arrangement.

Councillor Meric Apak, Cabinet Member for Better Homes, advised that the Council’s position could only be tested if someone decided to challenge it in court. DMC members remarked that making a legal challenge was financial onerous, but important for testing that the Council’s position was correct."  [my emphasis] 

31 march 2023

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/2392.html  

1. " In these proceedings, the Claimant challenges the lawfulness of the Defendant's written guidance to officials ("decision-makers") who are responsible for deciding whether it is in a benefit claimant's interests to have deductions made from their subsistence benefit in order to pay sums which are owed by those claimants to utility companies. The deductions are known as Third Party Deductions ("TPDs"). The Claimant contends that the Defendant's policy approach to TPDs in respect of fuel and water debts, as set out in the written guidance, generates decisions, such as those made in her case, in an unlawful way."

I think the above can/does also apply to local councils [as landlords] and so-called rent arrears [that arent rent arrears but service charges as in water overcharging]. The DWP don't contact the person whose benefit the local council etc want money from, to ask any questions get the persons view on the mater sort of thing. 

CycleGate

 Around 9 months ago the below cycles appeared on the scene - visitors to the property occupied by myself and 2 other tenants, but owned by Camden council.

They where left there for hours and kept causing an obstruction. 




5 April 2016

15 April 2016

19 May 2016

This was becoming a regular thing.

A few other times and in Aug 2016 I decided to put up a polite notice in the hallway where the cycles where being put : Please don't leave cycles in the communal hallway that obstructs residents coming in and out of the property. Thank you

When tenant came in one day - there was some mouthing off about the notice and then later on the notice was gone. Then I put it up again and then it gone again.

I left it at that.

30 Aug 2016

7 Sept 2016
the above

happened again - ive lost the pic




10 Sept 2016

25 Sept 2016  - big bags sneaking in 

26 Sept 2016 - chained to my cycle and when I rang doorbell and called up for it to be removed I was ignored. I didn't need to use cycle at the time otherwise I would have had to call the police to come assist me.

2 Oct 2016 - chained to my cycle again. again I rang on bell and called up for it to me removed but no answer. Again I didn't need to use it at the time but (same as above).

2 oct 2016 - polite notice to not chain things to cycle that obstructs it from being used

6 Oct 2016 cycle isn't chained to my cycle this time but look at how the wheel is positioned. Was there for hours.

17 Oct 2016

It started of as 2 different cycles, one all black, one with a red strip on saddle. The all black one keeps coming back and keeps being left where it is causing an obstruction and annoyance.

Wonder how visitor would feel if someone kept coming to where he lived and kept being disrespectful? I suspect there would be a lot trouble.

I did speak to the owner of this cycle once - to thank him for not putting it where it was causing an obstruction - i wasn't taking the P - he had parked it up against the wall in front garden and though it could have been causing an obstruction as it was put in front of the electric gas meters, its not that often that the meters need to be got to. I happened to see him (he was with tenant) coming back into the property and when I thanked him he grunted at me and tenant said "I wouldn't speak to her".

Its not that there isn't anywhere for visitors to the property to chain cycles - there is a metal sign pole across the road (no sign on it that says you can't chain cycles to it) that could be used, as many people do myself included, but for some reason  this and other visitors aren't encouraged by tenant to use it.

This HERE is the tenancy agreement all tenants in the property (and most council tenants) have with the landlord Camden council. The landlord is aware of the breaches of tenancy agreement.

30 Nov 2016
Cycle wasn't seen for a few weeks then in 2 week period cycle (looks like a different  cycle) has been parked there 3 times for hours. Can't close the gate.

Vulnerable people targeted in Town Hall scam

taken from the local rag Camden New Journal HERE

Four arrests after private details of vulnerable residents are 'stolen' from Camden Council.


Published: 25 August, 2016
EXCLUSIVE by RICHARD OSLEY

FOUR people have been arrested after the private details of some of Camden’s most vulnerable residents were “stolen” from Town Hall computer systems – raising fears that personal information has already been passed to cold-call scammers, the New Journal has learned.

Detectives were called in by Camden Council after the names, dates of birth and addresses of elderly residents were allegedly plundered from confidential databases.

One line of inquiry for investigators is that information taken by an insider working for the council was passed to accomplices on the
outside looking for prime targets who would be most vulnerable to door-to-door con tricks and telephone scams ultimately aimed at obtaining bank details.

A member of council staff is understood to have been removed from a position as the probe continues. Town Hall chiefs have made a series of home visits to elderly residents to apologise for the data breach and to advise on how they can now protect themselves.

They are telling residents to check the credentials of people who call at the door unannounced and to be wary of so-called “vishing”, or voice phishing, rackets in which bogus callers insist bank information must be provided.

Martin Pratt, executive director of supporting people directorate, has written to residents explaining the council’s response. He has told those affected: “I am deeply sorry that your personal information was stolen from us and I want to assure you that we have taken steps to ensure that this does not happen again.”

The Information Commissioner, the independent watchdog that investigates data breaches of private information, has been alerted by the council.

In his letter – seen by the New Journal – Mr Pratt added: “We are strengthening our systems to protect the information held on our systems... However, the police have told us that a number of people across London have recently been contacted by ‘scammers’ who try to steal money from them.

“They use stolen information to make contact with people and then try to get hold of bank account and PIN number details.

“People have also been called by someone pretending to be a police officer. The fake police officer calls and asks the person to go immediately to their bank to withdraw money and then hand it over to another fake police officer who will call at their home address. The police or your bank will never call you and ask for your PIN number or bank account details. They will never send someone to your home to pick up your bank cards or your money.”

While arrests have been made, so far nobody has been charged.

A council spokesman said: “We are supporting police as they investigate and we have taken urgent steps to warn vulnerable residents of the dangers of scammers. This includes providing direct support to those whose information has been taken. A criminal investigation is under way and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.”

SCAM ADVICE
In the wake of the alleged theft of data from council systems, Camden residents worried they may be affected by bogus calls are advised to:

l Never give bank account details to someone you don’t know;
l Never give out any personal information, such as bank and credit card details, or copies of documents such as a passport or driving licence, unless you know who you are dealing with and why they need it; and
l Never email your financial information, even if you know the person you are emailing.

                                   

                        -------------------------------------
https://camdencouncilrottenlandlord.blogspot.com/2017/12/

Voter Registration Fraud Risks

I'd forgotten about this one. The scope for voter registration fraud is immense i think. Its from April 2015.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/16/do-i-need-my-national-insurance-number-to-register-to-vote


It is not essential to provide your national insurance (NI) number when registering to vote.

If you don’t know your NI number – which can usually be found on payslips or official letters about benefits, tax or pensions – you can just say soby giving a simple explanation.

It is then up to your local council to verify your identity.

Although online registration closes for the majority of voters on 7 June, local electoral registration offices have longer to verify your identity.

Whatever you do make sure you register to vote. You can think about who to vote for later.

“Under the new online registration system it’s just one of the ways you can have your identity verified,” says Oliver Sidorczuk, director of Bite the Ballot. “If you fill in the application, without your national insurance number, it’s your local council’s duty to verify you.”

According to the Cabinet Office, electoral registration officials will then contact you if they are unable to verify the application using other local data sources.

Such sources include cross-referencing your information with data from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Student Loans Company.

If they cannot verify you, the local electoral registration office will contact you to request further identification. (my emphasis)

This will likely be a photograph of your passport, or driving licence.

“Most progressive councils should, and I would suggest must, allow you to email in smartphone photos of your passport and driving licence,” (my emphasis) says Sidorczuk.

 Less than 25% of the population know their NI number, estimates Ben Page, head of polling organisation Ipsos Mori. If you are one of them, all you have to do when filling in the online form is explain why don’t know it. You can simply write: “I don’t know where it is.”


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


what to say?

Bite The Ballot HERE

Public Interest Report - Derby City Council

Derby City Council
Report of Grant Thornton UK LLP: Audit of Accounts 2013/14 and 2014/15
Governance Issues HERE

Bribery at the Town Hall

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/bribe-camden-council#.V2L80Z3321M.twitter

'Bribe' allegation at Town Hall has been substantiated, say council investigators

Published: 16 June, 2016
By RICHARD OSLEY

CAMDEN Council says a “bribery” allegation relating to the work of one of its own members of staff has been “substantiated”.

The case was revealed after a colleague reportedly blew the whistle at the Town Hall.

Information on an internal investigation was sent to councillors this week, although the full details of the case are understood to have been reserved for a small number of people at the council.

A report on fraud-busting is now due to be discussed at the Town Hall this evening (Thursday) by members of Camden’s cross-party Audit Committee. It reveals that there had been an allegation that an “employee is being bribed, ie that he has been ordering and receiving goods from a contractor in exchange for favourable treatment”.

The file goes on to simply state: “Allegation substantiated.” It says that the human resources department is “currently conducting disciplinary action”. It is understood police will not be involved. The allegation relates to a breach of staff rules rather than criminal behaviour.

Camden’s communications department said last night (Wednesday) that it could not comment on specific details of the case.

It is the most striking in a list of reports which came through to a confidential whistle­blowing hotline set up for staff to privately report suspicious behaviour. Several of the allegations received through this method have not been substantiated, including a claim that a member of staff was involved in funding terrorism and that another was illegally sub-letting their own council home.

Allegations still under investigation include reports of cash theft from a library, however.

Internal fraud-busters are also reporting to the committee that over the past year Camden has found substance in 18 allegations against its staff for “fraud or malpractice”.

The outcomes of the cases included 12 dismissals, two resignations and a written warning. The numbers of staff involved are, however, a tiny minority of the council workforce as a whole.

Meanwhile, Camden is set to take further action against staff found to be misusing a loan system supposed to be in place to help them buy travel season tickets. The money cannot be used for other purposes and the council said that “it is anticipated that disciplinary action will be taken against employees who failed to comply with the scheme”.

A council spokesman said: “We conduct a series of internal audits each year to ensure our staff comply with our policies and procedures.”
                                       -------------
Bribery Act 2010 HERE 

Update 19 June 2016
The council report about the above and other such things is  an officer report to the Audit and Corporate Governance committee HERE agenda item 13 - Annual Counter Fraud Report 2015 -2016 HERE

London Council Overcharged Tenants for Water

this post is joined with my post of  Thursday, 15 June 2017 Legal Action Threat for Water Charge Arrears

The below excerpts only came to light recently via the localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk  website HERE of a ruling in March 2016.

Council to refund tenants £28.6m after High Court water overcharging ruling 
 Thursday, 09 June 2016 07:00


The London Borough of Southwark has decided to repay 48,000 current and former tenants £28.6m following a High Court ruling earlier this year that it had overcharged for water and sewerage for 12 years.

In March this year Mr Justice Newey ruled that:

1. Unless and until a 2013 Deed (stating that the council was not a water reseller under the relevant regulations) took effect, the relationship between Thames Water and Southwark was not one of principal and agent but involved Southwark buying water and sewerage services from Thames Water and re-selling them to its tenants;

2. As a result, the Water Resale Order 2006 applied and served to limit what tenants could be charged; and

3. The amounts that Southwark charged the claimant, Kim Jones, (and other tenants with unmetered water supplies) exceeded the "maximum charge" allowed under the 2006 Order.

                                                                  ......................

 “However, there are approximately 330,000 other tenants in the Thames Water region entitled to claim refunds. Any tenant in the Thames Water region who is liable to pay a water charge to a local authority landlord or to a housing association landlord is likely to be able to make a claim. Tenants in this positon should seek legal advice as soon as possible.”

 

Kentish Town Neighbourhood Plan Referendum 9 June 2016

There's a vote on 9 June 2016 for eligible residents of Kentish Town to vote (or not) yes or no to the Kentish Town Forum (designated group) HERE putting forward a Plan for the ward/neighbourhood.

I wish them good luck as they have put in a lot of effort into getting things set up etc.

I do intend to vote as its not for a candidate but an issue (can't bring myself to vote for candidates anymore) but i've not made my mind up whether to vote yes or no.

I must admit I am wary of all these platforms for people to get involved in running things, I guess due too my experience of council tenant participation with the landlord and how some groups behave and dominant things and all the shenanigans that surround it.

Personally speaking I am for less people (but the right people) being involved in running things and if I am accused of being  anti-democratic by some than so be it, its my view and different views are allowed even in the 'communist republic' of Camden where capitalism thrives but say something controversial and its like its the end of the world - for some.

There are good and bad on all sides, but please no more of the 'bad' ones.

I will decide on the day.

Update 10 June 2016
Apparently most residents who voted said yes to the Plan.

Yes 1717 = 90.9 %
No 158 = 8.3%

Turnout -  13.75%.

I voted yes - thought I'd give it a go to see how the KT Forum and the Plan works in practice (not that I thought anything rested on my vote, but I figured it would be passed)
 
 

Camden Housing Resident Scrutiny Group

The group of council tenants called the Camden Housing Resident Scrutiny Group[CHRSG] are meeting this evening HERE at the town hall, but haven't put the minutes of their 15 March 2016  meeting up on the councils website.

 Meetings
12 Nov 2013 here  

14 Jan 2014 here   presentation on 6 week new tenancy visits
11 March 2014 here  presentation on the initial STAR survey results
13 May 2014 here   presentation on complaints.  72% of complaints the Council received related to HASC and most of these related to repairs and improvements.
10 June 2014 here
8 July 2014 here   the cost of the group was mentioned with officers saying it would be difficult to provide accurate data until the end of the 2014-15 financial year.
12 Aug 2014 here self-assessment forms circulated. members advised to complete and return by the end of the week. Sept for assessment interviews. Members to return their signed Code of Conduct forms by the end of the week. Introduction to the council complaints process
9 Sept 2014 here  further information about complaints. Communications strategy.
14 Oct 2014 here   extent of the groups influence
11 Nov 2014 here  info on complaints.  request to have further training on the councils finances
9 Dec 2014 here information from the last STAR survey. complaints info

13 Jan 2015 here   election of chair and vice-chair .  finance training.
10 Feb 2015 here leaseholders forum. more complaints info
10 March 2015 here 
14 April 2015 here  review of groups documents and ways of working. complaints report.
19 May 2015 here repairs 
9 June 2015 here better homes presentation. Review of Camden Housing Resident Scrutiny Group. The issue of member’s conduct outside of group activities was felt by many members to be beyond the remit of the group and its Code of Conduct.
14 July 2015 here complaints report.  references to members’ behaviour outside of the group’s activities will be removed from the group’s Code of Conduct. better homes.
11 Aug 2015 here complaints report.  better homes. a member shouldn't use the name of the group when pursuing foi
8 Sept 2015 here freedom of information applications. better homes. discussions were also had around conduct in meetings.
13 Oct 2015 here Andrew Pierce (casp member) discussed with the group feedback about CHRSG from casp
10 Nov 2015 here better homes. tenant survey. 
 8 Dec 2015 here feedback on the Croydon Learning Exchange Event. better homes external works. tenant surveys. group review.

12 Jan 2016 here   Election of chair and vice-Chair. better homes. Recruitment Plan 2016
9 Feb 2016 here Overview of anti-social behaviour
15 March 2016 here Code of Conduct. Noise nuisance. better homes.
12 April 2016 here (march minutes not included) 
Mention of members of group being unpaid volunteers. 

10 May 2016 here


Update 18 April 2016 
In regards to the minutes: I'm sure some of this years minutes put up have been amended as I remember reading where the mention of members or a member not to tell others what to do was minuted or words to that effect and the last minutes where one of the groups members threatened staff re to make a complaint but can't find them now.

Any relation to why March's minutes haven't been put up on councils website?

I wonder who the person/s are who tell others what to and who issue threats. Thats a hard one to guess .......

Update 11 July 2016
The group are meeting tomorrow 12 July 2016 HERE  but they haven't put the agenda or minutes of their 14 June 2016 meeting HERE 
up on the councils website. 


Update 12 August 2016
Another meeting ( 9 Aug 2016) HERE but no documents or agenda. Something amiss going on but not being made public i suspect.

some notes 

Despite the CHRSG terms of reference/constitution stating the membership of the group shall consist of 15 members all of whom shall be Camden tenants or leaseholders comprising

• 5 representatives from the District Management Committee (1 per district)

• 1 representative from the Camden Leaseholders Forum

• 1 representative from the Camden Association of Street Properties

• 8 independent members

casp has managed to get 2 casp reps on the panel. One I assume was put up directly by casp, the other by the Gospel Oak dmc who should have put up someone else but didn't and who shouldn't have got past the interview panel [imo] but did. 

How do casp keep getting away with breaking the rules, general taking the pee, throwing their weight around?

I suspect the answer to that is with a lot of help from various council people and other tenant reps who collude with them or who look the other way.

Also, it appears that in collusion with Camden council casp set up a 'gardening project' using public money from tenant rents/charges via various dmc's -  to provide free gardening maintenance to council street property tenants. Tenants on estates have to pay for gardening maintenance as a service charge.

Perhaps the CHRSG would look into such issues?