About this blog

Ramblings, thoughts, facts and opinions about political things - starting point council tenant participation with my land-lord Camden council and council tenant reps plus other housing issues, and whatever.


NOTE: I believe this account has been illegally hacked. Little clues have been left for me. They like playing games.

Tuesday 18 October 2016

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.




Saturday 27 August 2016

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/

Wednesday 29 June 2016

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

Tuesday 21 June 2016

Friday 17 June 2016

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

Friday 10 June 2016

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.”


 

Friday 3 June 2016

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)