Gerard Lemos as a senior Labour Party member might have been given the plum position of controlling housing to allocate properties of the Trust to favour government policy through the 'good causes' by means of the agreed Labour party policy, however, when the discrimination reaches such a state that it results in harassment and victimisation of its vulnerable tenants, if lies and deceit become common currency, if the evidence points to the fact that senior management use bullying as a standard tactic to deal with tenants, is this not a policy that is too distasteful and corrupt to continue?

Harassment is a CRIMINAL matter.
Discrimination is a CRIMINAL matter.

There is a law - PREVENTION FROM HARRASSMENT ACT 1997.

Yet too many tenants say on Oath that such policies of Harrassment and Discrimination are being purposely directed by the senior management of the NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST directed against them on an all too regular basis.

Responsibility in law for these very serious allegations must lie at the door of the Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - MR GERARD LEMOS.

Purposeful maladministration of an organization is disturbing, but when directed against vulnerable tenants surely means that this policy takes on a new and terrifying meaning.

The HOUSING CORPORATION reports it cannot do anything about abuse by Rachman style landlords that adopt the same tactics. The HOUSING CORPORATION is a self-regulating authority to protect Registered Social Landlords set up by government - not for tenants from which to benefit.

The HOUSING OMBUDSMAN reports that the tenants are correct. Yet the HOUSING OMBUDSMAN scheme was set up by the government so that any agreement of mismanagement would be kept confidential between landlords and tenants and not made public like the open and public determination of a COUNTY COURT or the HIGH COURT, so that the landlords would not be embarrassed by adverse determinations - as have been made against NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST.

The AUDIT COMMISSION that has a legal duty to investigate public waste and public mismanagement is compromised as the Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST is a senior member of the AUDIT COMMISSION. That is why LORD TOM SAWYER as outgoing chairman of the Trust suggested to the internal communications department of the Trust and to 'the uninitiated' that the appointment of GERARD LEMOS was 'a coup' - when in reality GERARD LEMOS and LAWRENCE SAWYER were both very close and very good friends - both Labour Party members.

It has not been mentioned that GERARD LEMOS was given a CMG as a 'decoration to dangle'. This was not done merely to reward a misplaced vanity. CMG is commonly known as a 'CALL ME GOD' award! Yet those more jaded or more realistic see the award as a reward for political favours or for 'keeping their nose clean' and not causing any embarrassment to the political party. His award was recommended by the Labour Party.

Like a Kafkaesque or Stalinist state - the NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST appears to be a system that requires total control. Total life control for the Party by the Party. This is the same thinking as the political Party in power. This was the thinking behind the purpose of implementing the ID card scheme that fell at the final days of the Labour government.

Particularly if control is orchestrated by senior members of a political Party who control local and central government and control the housing function. To add to this, the law advice centres in local areas are part funded by the local authority. This funding can be compromised if it is deemed by the housing provider which is a major Registered Social Landlord as NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST that provides most of the housing for the local authority that there is a 'political' element - thereby the major landlord with significant political associations can assure and ensure that the client of the landlord is unsupported in any legal advice scenario by the law advice centre. [The threat of withdrawing funds from the local authority to the legal advice centre can be very effective in making sure the authority of the local authority is followed as directed or economies and redundancies could follow due to the 'changed economic climate'.] Witness the legal forums in the borough that are funded out of local authority funds.

Yet note that the NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST rapidly runs to one of the most expensive firms of solicitors in London. Paying such phenomenal legal fees to attack the legal rights of vulnerable tenants and to seek to make such tenants homeless seems to pose no particular concern for a Trust with a charitable status that charges £335 rent per week to the local authority for an uncomfortable and insecure cramped studio flat which is not fit for human habitation with vermin as an obligatory extra in many flats.

The Trust immediately and automatically try to discredit to say no such things exist. There are no mice, the staff are well known to rapidly protest - even when faced with a large rat in front of them that was found in the tenant's flat. Medical reports and photographic evidence paints a totally different picture to the picture the Trust staff try to mislead and deceive to other tenants. An opportunity in court would prove this evidence.

Together, acting in concert, the senior management can try to succeed in wrecking the lives of many vulnerable tenants. Evidence of this abounds in large measure.

Yet NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST is a Trust that has various legal duties. These legal duties cannot be ignored - esspecially in a legal democracy. If the Trust breaches these legal duties it crosses the rubicon and begins to act unlawfully.

A Trust has a LEGAL DUTY for the Trustees [Chairman and fellow Trustees] to CONSULT its beneficiaries - the Tenants. If not, it acts UNLAWFULLY.

The Trust has a LEGAL DUTY for the Trustees to act in the BEST INTERESTS of the beneficiaries - the Tenants. If not, it acts UNLAWFULLY.

Many written and oral undertakings have been made by senior staff that have not been honoured.

The Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - GERARD LEMOS is now acting unlawfully by not answering any letters that are addressed to him from many tenants with legitimate complaints.

The Chief Executive - KATE DAVIES cannot plead ignorance for she is equally culpable.

Senior Management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST have persisted in acting unlawfully against vulnerable tenants.
Their tactics in illegality would shock PETER RACHMAN - the slum landlord of NOTTING HILL - from which NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has its origins.


Apart from reasons of illegality, the only reason the Chairman continues to act as a person who does not want to be accountable or allow transparency can be because he has a significant amount of information to disguise or hide?

The Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - GERARD LEMOS should be aware of the effects of discrimination, bearing in mind the origins of his parents. Yet, instead of supporting discrimination he should be consulting, assisting, informing, communicating and providing help to the many tenants and not unthinkingly continuing to use the tactics of the previous Chairman, LORD TOM SAWYER together with the previous Chief Executive, Peter REDMAN and their very close political friends who were equally ruthless.

This unthinking automatic reflex is now no longer an option.

Too many tenants that have been bullied by the senior management can now support a complainant.

Kate Davies - the new Chief Executive (49) that took over from the discredited Peter REDMAN (the £117,000+ post)("after a damning assessment of the group's performance by the sector regulator, the Housing Corporation" and "the rating of an amber warning") is a mother of three [how can she cope with such responsibilities?] who previously worked as the housing director at the London Borough of Bexley and at Brighton and Hove city council has stated on record: "I'm more interested in change than in maintenance". She was also recorded as saying: "We at Notting Hill want Tom Sawyer to remain our champion!"
- I wonder why?


Write in your views: