Amnesty for Tenancy Fraudsters 2013

Camden council is proposing a two month amnesty for tenants who are committing tenancy fraud. DMC report June 2013 HERE

Report Summary:

To inform DMCs of the proposal to hold an amnesty for a period of two months for those tenants committing housing tenancy fraud

- making a false declaration to obtain their council tenancy,subletting their property or not using it as their main home.

The amnesty will allow tenants to return the keys and vacant possession of their properties without facing the consequences of further legal action or risk of prosecution under the new powers contained within the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013. 

Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 HERE  - 
yet to come into force. 

Legislation already exists that makes fraud a criminal offence such as the Fraud Act 2006 HERE which the council has used before HERE

Council Meeting - the Sabotage of Gospel Oak Community Partnership

Webcast of the Development Control committee meeting held on Thursday 21 March 2013 HERE, 

Agenda Item 7(4) Housing and Adult Social Care: Planning application for the site 121-211 Bacton Low Rise estate, 113a, 115 and 117 Wellesley Road and 2-16 Vicars Road Gospel Oak NW5. HERE

113a Wellesey Road is the council owned community hall run by Bacton Low Rise TRA and Wendling TRA. 
115-117 Wellesy Road is the councils Gospel Oak District Housing Office site.  2-16 Vicars Rd are council owned workshops. 

Approximately £68m is cited as the development cost.  

To the east of the site is the junction of Grafton Road and Vicar’s Road, with Grafton Road at this point extending over the rail line. 

To the south are further residential properties along both sides of Vicar’s Road (a combination of Victorian properties, blocks of residential flats and the vicarage building on the junction of Vicar’ s Road and Wellesley Road), the Grade II former St Martin’s Church Hall (now a French School) and the Grade I listed St Martin’s Church. 

To the west of the site is the 22 storey Bacton High Rise Tower residential block of flats (No’s 1-120 Bacton).  

 

Dorian Cortesi chair of Barrington Crt TRA gave a deputation to the committee on behalf of the 9 local organisations neighbouring the development site. 

He isn’t against the application, the deputation is specifically about section 106. He is referring to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 HERE  
 

Section 106 Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy HERE 
The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 HERE

Place Plans HERE

The CIL is money that " developers of larger sites pay to the council to reduce the impact of the development. Developers sign a S106 agreement as part of their planning permission. This is a legal document that specifies what the money is spent on and where. For example, S106 money is used to make improvements to highways, parks, public transport, schools." 

 

The gist of the deputation as I understand it is that during the consultation period when the council were engaging well with the wider community on the proposed redevelopment the section 106 money was not mentioned. 

Meanwhile the council has been working with one group (the Real Deal Community Partnership (RDCP)) on how to spend a significant amount of the money – all other local groups where excluded. They didn't know until recently that the RDCP  had been selected by the council to play an active role in the allocation of places spaces provisions. The existing council forum (I'm guessing he means the gospel oak community partnership the council agreed to in March 2012 HERE ) was in place and overlooked in favour of the rdcp.  

Cllr Valerie Leach cabinet member for Regeneration and Growth and ward cllr for Highgate has been involved in project meetings about the development. She says “we asked the real deal community partnership to take a lead because they are the one’s being most affected by the redevelopment” 

The rdcp 'real dealers' seem to be: (I say seem to be because the rdcp website HERE doesn't identify who the directors of the rdcp are so I am working with a deputation the below group gave to cllr Sarah Hayward  on 30 March 2012 HERE to try and persuade her,  that they are the group that should be recognised as the gospel oak community partnership, hence the name): 

Bacton Low Rise TRA – Dave and Simone Lewis and Sarah Robbins (the housing estate that is being demolished)

Kiln Place TRA –Rita Thorpe and Jackie Kanaris 

Maitland Park TRA – Lynne Bateman

Wendling TRA 

Chair of Gospel Oak DMC, - Terry Wigget 

CASP  

Bobby Armstrong  - Grafton

Onto the meeting where after the presentation had been given, members of the development committee asked questions: 

Cllr Paul Braithwaite says “my main area of concern … There is no doubt here that (makes ref to a deputation) the community does not feel that this process is being transparent….. I got the impression from Cllr Leach that fortunately this is redeemable". 

Cllr Braithwaite goes onto to say " I think it is a concern of this committee of the engagement of community (I think he means the "other" wider community) in the allocation of the section 106 money and indeed engagement with the cllrs..." he goes on to make reference to Maiden Lane Estate - the council had many problems (from the councils side of things) in getting tenants to agree to the councils plans for the estate and it took many years to get to the planning application stage.  

“ ... this real deal community partnership, and it is apparent that quite a few of the resident bodies felt that that it came out of left field, the real deal community partnership has been in a steady dialogue and are quite heavily engaged in making recommendations, so I would really like Stuart Dilley to come back to us on on going transparency and engagement on the 106 money and why it is that real deal community partnership have been elevated and given special treatment to date.” 

Council legal officer states “ there is no legal requirement to consult on the section 106 …. As a matter of law the council can’t delegate expenditure, section 106 money to other parties”(my emphasis) 

Stuart Dilley (senior housing officer) says “the council has asked the real deal community partnership to look at opportunities for committing the 106"  

Cllr Braithwaite “can I come back again on the real deal community partnership and can it be explained to us why they have enjoyed, lets say, this exclusive relationship …”
 

Stuart Dilley “ the real deal community partnership was set up by the community"  … 

NB the development committee chair said “ members have the capacity to direct officers on how to spend the section 106 money…." 

What is clear, is that there are two different "communities" at loggerheads here: the rdcp ( a handful of council tenants who are chums of old and any 'chancers' who may come along - it seems) who the council for whatever reason other than the official "we asked the real deal community partnership to take a lead because they are the one’s being most affected by the redevelopment" favours and the wider community ie other affected council tenants, private tenants, businesses, community groups etc. 

In my view, It wasn't the council who approached the RDCP, it was the rdcp who approached the council and that is plain to see. Regardless of what any council person says the council does have an "agreement" with the rdcp - whether its in writing or verbal (a wink and a nod) I don't know.   

There is a danger I think, that the rdcp "agreement" with the council will turn out to be like the one the council has with the other council tenant group of 5 - the district management committee's (dmc's) who have an "agreement" with the council to allocate money to themselves - but the council "holds" the money and allows tenant reps direct access to it either by way of a council procurement card or a cheque sent to the tra to be deposited in the tra bank account. No annual accounts produced at their agms, no receipts.

Has the ultimate aim been to get their hands on the section 106 money? 

Update
The councils lib dem members  don't seem happy about the shenanigans going on in Gospel Oak ward regarding the rdcp and the section 106 money and have, according to official documents for the upcoming full council meeting to be held on Monday 15 April 2013 HERE, put the following question to the Cabinet member for Regeneration and Growth cllr Valerie Leach:

" There is growing concern over the democratic deficit over the use of Section 106 funds. Residents, community groups and councillors often have no idea where - or even if - the money was spent.  

How much money has the Council administered under Section 106 agreements over the last three years?

How many of these distributions been raised with the Cabinet Member? How many have been raised with ward councillors?

At what level are officer decisions actually being made? 

Does she acknowledge that in light of the great frustrations around the huge Gospel Oak regeneration schemes – amongst many others – much greater clarity should be given and much greater input from local people should be routinely sought?"

And a motion

"  This Council notes that the decision making process for the spending of Section 106 funds allocated for public benefit in a particular ward is still shrouded in mystery for councillors and constituents alike.

This Council agrees that once Section 106 funds are deposited with the Council, the decision to spend them is best taken by the appropriate ward councillors while respecting the s106 allocation agreed by Development Control Committee. Ward councillors will be required to consult their constituents about their proposed decision through consulting their Area Action Group." 

Wonders whose idea it was to set the 'real dealers' up as a private company, and just how did they manage to persuade the responsible people in the council that it was a good idea to work with them - initially on job/fair days and entering into what could be termed as a shady "shadow" section 106 allocation "agreement" with the RDCP - at the exclusion of all others?

Surely by setting themselves up as a private company (with no liability to speak of), the 'real dealers' where expecting (had been promised?) significant sums of public money to come their way?  

Popcorn anyone?  

PS some council tenant reps (the shadow cllrs) have been known to turn up at the town hall and other venues where council business is being conducted - in order to tell council members what they should or shouldn't be doing.

update 25 Dec 2021

The linked is an odd case [imo] of the last remaining leaseholder of the Bacton Low Rise estate - a Russian, who had bought the leasehold  in 2010

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2019/2614353/fer0736963.pdf

Some more about the case HERE 

Rutland County Council Legal Action Against Members

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Rutland-County-Council-plans-legal-action/story-17829181-detail/story.html

Saturday, January 12, 2013

By Tim Healy

A council has voted to take legal action to stop three councillors from allegedly harassing senior staff.

Rutland County Council has set aside £90,000 to seek an injunction against Richard Gale, David Richardson and Nick Wainwright.

The trio have been accused of sending e-mails to chief executive Helen Briggs that, according to legal advisers, "are very likely to amount to harassment".

The councillors, who formed Rutland Anti-Corruption Group (RACP), have repeatedly called for her to launch an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the suspension of a senior officer last summer who, hours later, took his own life.

Ms Briggs has explained to the councillors the widow of the officer wanted the circumstances of the disciplinary action against her husband to remain confidential.

The council claimed the group had also sent it baseless e-mails alleging officers had manipulated land deals, flouted financial rules and regulations and had tried to manipulate the award of contracts.

The council voted on Thursday to seek the injunction. Twenty-three backed the motion, three abstained.

Members also backed a motion to support officers who wish to bring legal action for harassment against the three councillors.

Speaking after the meeting, leader Roger Begy said: "The £90,000 is an insurance policy. Should our senior officers sue us for constructive dismissal, that could cost us £250,000.

"We have a chief executive and staff team who are simply doing their jobs to the best of their ability.

"Of course they should be subject to scrutiny and challenge as that is the basis of local democracy.

"However, they should not have to put up with false allegations about their conduct and regular questioning of their integrity."

A report by lawyers Bevan Brittan said the actions of RACP were damaging the ability of the council to recruit outstanding officers, hampering efforts to secure funding for education and recreation and distracting senior officers.

Councillors Begy said: "As councillors, we have to protect our staff and this decision sends out a strong message. Now we have to move forward."

The council decided to defer a claim for defamation against the group.

It decided to monitor all communications with the group through a single point of contact, subject to review by the chief executive, and that members of RACP must use the council's secure e-mail system.

Alan Duncan, MP for Rutland and Melton, said: 'The council has been forced to take this entirely proportionate action in response to the disgraceful conduct of these three councillors.

"Their campaign of harassment went far beyond legitimate and open scrutiny of the council

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

Heres a blog by Martin Brookes Oakham: Private Eye, The Rotten Borough, Helen Briggs, Aman Mehra, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Leicestershire Police 

apparently a senior council officer Aman Mehra died [found hanging at his home] following being suspended and escorted from the council building by the councils CEO Helen Briggs. 

What Really Happened at CFTRA HQ?

According to a website allegedly set up by the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) (content quickly taken down when they found out people in the council knew about it) something happened in 2009 at the offices of 11-17 the Marr, Camden Street NW1 that resulted in an employee ending up in court.

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?

Terence Patrick Ewing

The public funded (by Camden council) Camden Housing Residents Scrutiny Group member, (as well as long time Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) committee member and Gospel Oak DMC member ) Terence Ewing who came to my home to make contact with my neighbour to stir up trouble between us, has made the BBC news HERE .

The high court judge described Ewings character as ""unattractive and indicative of a lack of personal integrity and honesty".

"The High Court considered that the  applicant,  an inveterate fraudsman ...." HERE 
 

Ewing is a vexatious litigant who since 1990 has been banned by the courts from taking legal action against anyone without the courts consent. Despite this injunction he had made repeated vexatious applications to the courts, which get recorded and published.

On 11 Feb 2007 the Times newspapers published an article about Ewing and his 'Euston Trust' partner Keith Hammerton HERE. At one time Ewing tried to get this 'trust' incorporated onto CASP.

Hammerton was convicted and sent to prison in Oct 2006 for sexually abusing children in his care whilst a warden at a Surrey Council children's home. Another link is HERE as the link to the Surrey Police website that had the info about him now has error message.

Ewing was partner in a debt recovery 'firm' with Roger Gleaves.

Gleaves, the self proclaimed 'bishop of medway' (not sure exactly what his sect called themselves but was something to do with the old catholic church)  is a convicted and imprisoned rapist of children. Documentary Johnny go home 1975, some of which can be viewed HERE and HERE .  
update neither clips can be viewed now.  

Gleaves is also a vexatious litigant.

I've heard from various sources thought nothing solid yet that Gleaves was an associate of convicted paedo Sidney Cooke.

Ewing was convicted and imprisoned in 1980 for 24 fraud offences and was given a 7 year custodial sentence, which on appeal was reduced to 5 years HERE  and HERE
update only 1 of the links can be viewed now. 

Ewing was also arrested a few times in 1994 HERE and had property seized - the obscene publications squad was involved. Was the raid on his flat part of a wider police operation? 'Bishop' held as child porn is seized in dawn swoops HERE

It may be the case that it was 1994/5 when Ewing got a council housing move/swap from Islington to Camden, where at some point he got involved with his casp partners (apparently via the Camden council tenant involvement group of  5 called the *District Management Committees but he may have known casp people before that as one is believed to have worked for Islington council at some point, but that's not confirmed).

Ewing appears to like wasting public money on pursuing vexatious legal action but doesn't like having to pay the costs awarded against him - that has run into thousands of pounds. He has even been made bankrupt.

How does he manage on state benefits?

In 2007 Ewing tried to get money from a Camden resident and labour party member Meric Apac (council member since May 2010 and chair of the HASC (now Housing) scrutiny committee) over an article posted on a website. Ewing threatened legal action and 'requested' he be paid a sum of money.

A year or so later, Ewing pursued the labour party member through the courts by starting a private criminal prosecution against him. The case was not continued with. It is believed the resident was subjected to blackmail.

Then in 2009 around the same time I was arrested and "dealt with by the courts" and David Padfield the then AD housing management telling everyone at a dmc meeting about it, there was this HERE

The labour party member was at the time the chair of the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations (CFTRA) who the CASP 'fell out with' back in 2004 whilst the cftra was funding the 'relaunch' of casp on behalf of Camden council. 

Ewing and his partners on the casp committee (the 'in gang')  were working closely with Camden lib-dems who at the time had majority control over Camden council [2006-2010] and in particular housing and community safety. One of the casp gang became a lib dem member to 'exert influence/pressure' on some council members. 

Ewing is/was involved with the discredited POW Trust HERE.


* The district management committees or dmc's for short, where at one time sub-committee's of the council's then housing committee, which cllrs allowed some tenant reps to become members of.

The dmc's where supposed to have been abolished when the new local government cabinet system of governance was introduced in 2001/2 but the council allowed the dmc's to continue but with council tenants running them and having the role of allocating public funds to themselves to spend on specific external housing works and welfare ventures connected to the housing estate they belonged to. No annual accounts  or proof of what the money has been spent is required by Camden council. The council just agrees a price, hands the money over and no receipts are needed, no checking to see whether or not the goods/services/works have actually been bought.

Update
Ewing has gone into partnership with a Mr Maurice Kirk (aka the flying vet) HERE who has had his fair share of run-ins with the police/justice system.

NB Please note that TE has been one of the casp 'in gang' since around 2002/3.

The CASP 'in gang' MO is bullying, manipulation, intimidation and lies and making complaints to the police about people who pose any sort of threat to them. CASP also has strong links to the SWP/Trade Unions who in many ways run Camden council.

UPDATE newspaper report from Nov 1979 mentions Ewing.

 Update September 2014

Terence Ewing is one of 2 casp committee members who have managed to get themselves appointed onto the statutory council tenants scrutiny panel (Camden housing residents scrutiny group) the council helped set up last year - last meeting HERE which doesn't as far as I can tell have much in the way of powers, other than what the council allows them to have, to look at council housing complaints/issues. 

Tenants can still use the councils corporate complaints system or cllrs if they have complaints about a service and aren't required to use the panel.

As far as I am aware, the casp 'in gang' behaviour doesn't change -  why should it when various people in the council as well as other tenant reps pander to and support them, whilst anyone who speaks out against them is threatened, lied about and vilified?

I would advise people boycott the residents scrutiny group whilst casp people are members/involved as in my experience casp are possibly the most corrupt and nasty council tenants group in the borough and don't in my view, deserve to be part of anything let alone a serious group scrutinising the council.

Update
" Man held in contempt by Gibraltar court " Nov 2014 HERE

"Serious abuse of process ... remanding Mr Ewing in custody for two days "

Click HERE for the judgement .

The above is to do with the Sunday Times article HERE. 
He has also pursued the paper in the English, Scottish and N Ireland courts and his case was thrown out  in all.

Interesting find at the national archives: Ewing, Terence Patrick v Clark, Alan closed for 30 years dating from 1985 HERE
Wonders if Alan Clark is the former Tory MP who died in 1999?

Update
T Ewing is part of the group calling themselves the association of McKenzie Friends who released the videos of the children talking about all sorts of abuses going on at their school in Hampstead and elsewhere. What I find interesting about this is that TE has a bee in in bonnet about the Sunday Times allegedly libelling him and invading his privacy yet the group he is advisor of seems to have no qualms about invading other peoples privacy and potentially libeling them ie the hampstead case. All for the greater good no doubt one could argue - public duty, in the public interest etc. Not so when it comes to TE and some of his chums though as I have experience of. They are not adverse to using the very system and agencies they seem to hate so much against anyone who poses any sort of threat to them.

Update Dec 2015
 Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, 4 Nov 1976 HERE - page not accessible now but reportedly to do to with various convictions and 72 offences to be taken into consideration and a hospital order.

May be a first HERE  for TE (not an abuse of process/vexatious ) and a minor victory (council tax recovery costs ruled unlawful) which if I didn't know better i'd say the councils finance department handed him this one on a plate.

If I remember correctly TE had previously (when he lived in Islington I think) been taken to court by Islington council for non payment of council tax/poll tax and he said he wasn't going to pay it.

9 Feb 2016
Another minor victory for TE HERE
I guess now being into his 60's and having pursuing an adult life time of  'trouble making'  litigation and linking up with other like minded people  he must get some (minor) cases right - eventually? Wonder if hes still in contact with R Gleaves?

Like I said - point scoring.

Where does he get his energy from?

Maybe its profound anger? often misdirected i think when he helps out his dodgy mates in and outside of Camden.

Update 31 May 2016
TE's old chum  Roger Gleaves (yes he is still alive) has been let out of prison and is living not to far from Camden HERE .... in a council flat  in Tottenham, LB of Haringey apparently.


Update 8 March 2021

Whilst having a look more recently at the details/documents of the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations Limited [Company Number 03013493] on the Companies Hse website HERE

I noticed in the Filing History section page 8 Dec 1998, that T P Ewing has been a director of this company 2 times: so he has been on the TP scene earlier than I had thought and had been a CFTRA director before other members of his CASP Gang had done so even before David Rogers [Nov 1999] 

CASP Council Expenditure 2005-6

"Council officers agree all CASP expenditure before it is authorised. 

The accounts on the right are what the unofficial and unelected casp committee treasures sent into the council. 

You will find the most obvious alteration is the £960.00 that is stated as the cost of 12x £310.10 committee meetings.

The correct cost is £3,721.20 a deficit of £2,761.20

£270.00 per meeting for taxi's.

The total expenditure should be more than £15,000 and not £13,199.44 stated by the casp unofficial treasurers.

They altered the casp accounts to the sum of at least £2,761.20...plus 1 general meeting that was held but not accounted for, plus catering of all casp committee meetings.