Council attempts to seize retirement home
Keith Parkins | 19.12.2006 16:42 | Repression | Social Struggles
The Rotten Borough of Rushmoor is trying to seize a bungalow in Farnborough from a local man that he has earmarked as his retirement home.
Chingford Avenue
empty flats above shops in Farnborough town centre
kitchens and bathrooms ripped out of empty properties
'I feel like a rabbit trapped in the headlights of an oncoming car.' -- David Stevens
'There are still nearly 300,000 private homes in England which have been vacant for more than six months. This is a number which clearly needs to be brought down, particularly in the context of the country's longer term housing needs. Restoring an empty home is likely to be expensive, potentially costing close to £30,000 by our estimates.' -- Tim Crawford, Group Economist at Halifax
'Rushmoor Council has tried everything to bring the property back into use and the only option left is to seek a Compulsory Purchase Order. With the high level of housing needed in Rushmoor, we have to do whatever we can to make use of all available homes.' -- Alison Whiteley, Head of Housing Services
'We do not give this man anything.' -- Rushmoor housing official
David Stevens is in poor-ish health with a heart problem. Looking ahead to the future, he plans to move into a derelict bungalow which he is attempting to renovate. At least that was his intention until Rushmoor decided to seize it, causing further stress for a man already suffering from a dickey heart.
David Stevens was given one day's notice that the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor was going to discuss at a Cabinet meeting the seizure of his bungalow.
Following a brief presentation by Rushmoor Head of Housing Alison Whiteley, a presentation that was barely audible to the Public Gallery (a request from the Public Gallery to speak up was ignored), the Cabinet rubber-stamped her recommendations. She claimed that all avenues had been explored, a claim that David Stevens strongly refutes. No questions were asked, a few seconds elapsed, and the Cabinet moved onto the next item on the agenda. Not a single person in the Cabinet had the integrity or gumption to question what was going on. David Stevens was so appalled, that he stood up to ask 'is that it', and for his pains was summarily ejected from the meeting.
David Stevens was then bundled into a side-room where there was an attempt to discuss the matter with him. A discussion in which David Stevens refused to participate.
The measure that the Cabinet agreed, was to serve a CPO (compulsory purchase order). This is an extreme measure, a CPO should be only served if there is a benefit to the local community and as a last resort after all other options have been explored and exhausted.
Once seized, the property is to be sold at auction. Only if there is any money left after Rushmoor has deducted all its costs, will David Stevens see a penny from what was to have been his retirement home.
At the time it was decided to serve the CPO, powers had come into effect in April 2006 under the Housing Act 2004, which allows a Council to take over the management of residential property and bring it back into use if it has remained empty for six months or more. This is done by means of an Empty Dwelling Management Order. The Council itself cannot serve a EDMO, it has to apply to an independent Residential Property Tribunal.
There are two types of Order – an interim EDMO and final EDMO. These allow a local authority to secure occupation and proper management of privately owned houses and flats that have been unoccupied for a specified period of time and where certain other conditions are met. The council must apply to an independent Residential Property Tribunal to authorise the interim order which precedes the final EDMO. The local authority may not sell the property but can carry out works to make the property fit to occupy and can also let the property. With an interim management order permission of the owner is required for letting, however when a final management order is made the council can let the property without the permission of the owner.
Why did Rushmoor not apply for an EDMO? At the time it was the most appropriate instrument to use. We can only guess it was because they would have had to have put their case before an independent Residential Property Tribunal, where it would have come under proper scrutiny.
Recently a housing official has admitted that they are reluctant to use an EDMO, even though it is the obvious instrument to use as it brings the property back into use, as they do not wish to bear the costs to bring the property back into use which they may not be able to recover from the rent they charge.
A CPO should only be served if there is a clear benefit to the wider community. In her report to the Cabinet, Alison Whiteley demonstrated no benefit to the local community to be achieved by serving a CPO. An EDMO would only temporarily deprive David Stevens of the use of his property, would bring the property back into use. A CPO does neither, it permanently deprives David Stevens of his property, with no guarantee that a change of ownership brings the property back into use. There would appear to be a hidden agenda. A suspicion reinforced by the Council spreading rumours that the property is rat infested.
When it was drawn recently to the attention of a housing official that a CPO was not the appropriate instrument to use as it did not guarantee that the property would be brought back into use, but merely changed the ownership, she agreed.
With a poor heart and deteriorating health, David Stevens wishes to move into a bungalow. The Cabinet was not told this. The Council claims the bungalow to be in a poor state of repair, so even if David Stevens wished to move into the bungalow tomorrow he could not do so as it is not in a fit state of repair. The Council also knows David Stevens intends to renovate the property. Nevertheless, they have decided to seize his future home.
This is how the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor treats its residents. No-one questioned what Whitely had to say. Although given only one day's notice, David Stevens nevertheless managed to be present at the meeting, he was not asked to speak or present his case or allowed to challenge the lies put before the Cabinet.
Apart from being denied his own property, in what amounts to little more than theft, there was a serious breach of the Human Rights Act on three counts: the right to property, the right to quite enjoyment of ones family home, the right to a fair hearing.
No discussion took place on Human Rights, nor were they mentioned in the report placed before the Cabinet. The failure to consider the Human Rights implication of the decision, was in itself a breach of the Human Rights Act.
Councils pay scant regard to Human Rights, as has been seen in Liverpool, where homes are being bulldozed under the Pathfinder programme by means of CPOs. When challenged in the High Court, Liverpool City Council lost.
Within days of David Stevens being threatened with the loss of his retirement home, he was approached by a property developer who offered him a paltry £70,000 (later upped to £80,00) paid in installments over the year, a fraction of what the site was worth. A coincidence?
It is known the council has been in discussion with property developers, but so far, the council has refused to release the correspondence.
An estate agent and property developer sits on the Cabinet. Should he have withdrawn when this item was discussed as he appeared to have a prejudicial interest (he withdrew when a following item was discussed)? He did not withdraw or declare a prejudicial interest. If it can be shown he had a prejudicial interest, which he failed to declare, it would invalidate any decision reached by the Cabinet. The matter has been referred to the Standard Board for England for investigation. If found guilty, he could be barred from serving as a councillor.
Last year three Rushmoor councillors were found guilty of having a prejudicial interest when the planning committee determined an application for redevelopment of Farnborough town centre.
A local estate agent has recently valued the property at £300,000, if sold with consent for redevelopment, the site would be worth more.
The property lies within a Conservation Area. At least it does at the moment. The Council is trying to shrink the area. Any future owner may have a development opportunity due to a relaxation of planning restraints, not available at present.
A property was recently served a CPO in Bagshot Lea (near Aldershot). The case was fought and won. It caused the elderly couple who owned the property a great deal of worry and distress. We have since learnt a local housing association was interested in the land for redevelopment!
Double standards are in operation here, and one could take the view that a personal vendetta is being waged and that David Stevens is being singled out and victimised.
In 2000, long before the Council had approached David Stevens, let alone had tried to determine his intentions or even knew who he was, the housing department were in talks with a local housing association to take-over the property.
Alison Whitley asked Pavilion, a local housing association, to help her out, as she was under 'political' pressure.
When these talks fell through, internal discussions took place with the planning department as to whether the 'site' had development potential.
The Council leafleted the area in an attempt to find the owner of the empty property, even though their own file shows they had this information through Council Tax records. Having publicised the fact the property was lying empty, it was subsequently broken into several times.
Housing officials threatened to put the property on an Empty Property List which would be placed in the public domain, a serious breach of personal privacy, and a further breach of the Human Rights Act.
A recent inquiry to the Council and they say the Empty Property List is not in the public domain, never has been, and they are seeking legal advice. Thus, the threat to David Stevens to publicise his empty property was nothing less than a crude attempt at intimidation.
But, even though the Council knew they were on dodgy legal grounds, following the Cabinet decision to serve a CPO, they released the address of the property to the local press, with sufficient information to enable the owner of the property to be identified.
In 2005, three CPOs were served on owners of vacant residential property. The cabinet met in closed session, no information was released to the press.
Property developers have been approached to see whether they are interested in acquiring the property.
Internal e-mails within the housing department show they were seeking properties on which CPOs could be served. The emphasis was on serving CPOs, not bringing the properties back into use.
The focus of the Council, of any council, should be on identifying and bringing back into use empty properties. The focus should not be on serving CPOs, even less on acquiring empty properties for housing associations and property developers.
David Stevens was targetted: The Environmental Health Department was asked to check out his property, but could find nothing amiss. Nor was the garden found to be in sufficiently bad state to serve him under legislation covering untidy gardens.
In 2004, a Rushmoor councillor e-mailed Alison Whiteley to ask that this property was taken off their 'hit list' and drew attention to the fact that work had taken place. The response was that they did not know work had taken place. This information, that a local councillor had informed Whiteley that work had taken place (of which she was unaware), was not communicated to the Cabinet.
Owners of empty properties can apply for grants of up to £10,000 to help bring the empty properties back into use. David Stevens has not been offered a penny. In 2005, David Steven tried to obtain a form to get a grant, but got nowhere, other than to hear the case officer shout to her colleague 'we do not give this man anything'. He came away empty handed, without even an application form.
At a meeting in May 2006, David Stevens, when he asked, was told that the Council had no intention of serving a CPO. At the same meeting David Stevens raised the use of an EDMO. Two months later, a CPO was served.
Ten days before the Cabinet met, a housing official e-mailed the Cabinet Member with responsibility for housing with a suggested attributable quote from him that would go in a press release.
David Stevens has decided to challenge the serving of the CPO.
As I write, mid-December 2006, David Stevens was still being denied by the Council documents that he needs to fight the case. This despite repeated requests. Nor has his lawyer been able to obtain all the document, neither has a councillor who has tried. David Stevens has also being denied sight of documents relating to the case that in the view of the assistant Borough Solicitor he does not need to see.
The level of hypocrisy and double standards operating in the Borough beggars belief. According to the Farnborough Mail, after claiming that the 'Council has tried everything to bring the property back into use and the only option left is to seek a compulsory purchase order', a claim David Steven strongly refutes, '[Alison Whiteley] added that a high level of housing was required in the borough and the council had to make use of all available sites.'
There is a large amount of empty property within the Borough, but no attempt is being made to bring it back into use, even though there is long waiting list for housing. The worst example of property lying empty is in Farnborough town centre, not a stone's throw way from Whiteley's office.
In 2004, attention was drawn to Whiteley of the empty property in the town centre. Whiteley was asked the number of empty properties and what she intended to do to bring the properties back into use. She blatantly lied and claimed there was no empty property. She was asked to try again. She came back with a figure of half a dozen. Asked to try again, she came back with a number running into double figures, but claimed it would be too costly for the Council to bring the property back into use, and in any case it would not be an appropriate use of public funding as the area was earmarked for redevelopment.
In 2000, internal e-mails within the housing department show officials were aware and concerned at the large number of empty flats above the shops in the town centre and that pressure should be brought to bear on property developer KPI to bring them back into use. Why was no action taken? Why, four years later, did Whiteley try to claim there was no empty property, then fabricate excuses for inaction?
More than eight years ago, the town centre was bought by KPI (a Kuwaiti-financed front-company of property developer St Modwen, a company with a track record of destroying town centres). KPI has driven out retailers and residential tenants, the town centre now lies semi-derelict and has been in this state for some years. KPI has planning consent to redevelop the area, demolition to build an unwanted superstore, and demolition of a housing estate of social housing for the car park for the superstore. When Whiteley made her statement in 2004, KPI did not have planning consent, thus she prejudiced the planning decision. Flats above the shops are sitting empty, maisonettes are sitting empty at Firgrove Court. Pavilion, a local housing association, has destroyed kitchens, bathrooms and boilers to render the maisonettes uninhabitable. The Council does not own any of this property, where therefore is the cost to the public purse?
Although void of tenants, the empty maisonettes at Firgrove Court are being put to some use by Pavilion. Pavilion is using these empty properties to store possessions from other empty properties where the tenants have either been evicted or done a runner, thus creating a fire risk for the tenants in the remaining occupied maisonettes. To increase the risk, fire doors across communal exits have been locked shut.
We know from internal e-mails, that Whitely and her housing department have been aware since April 2000 of empty property in Farnborough town centre. It is now November 2006, and still no action has been taken to bring this empty property back into use.
Not only are the council aware of the empty properties at Firgrove Court and turning a blind eye, but actually condone what is going on. In a reply to queries on empty property in the town centre and at Firgrove Court, housing official Jane Abraham (the same official trying to seize the bungalow from David Stevens), not only admitted that she knew that Pavilion was ripping out kitchens, bathrooms and boilers, but supported what Pavilion were doing in making their empty properties uninhabitable as it made the few remaining tenants feel more secure!
The role of Jane Abraham within Rushmoor housing department is to identify empty housing and bring it back into use!
Had there ever existed a genuine desire by Whiteley and her team to bring the bungalow back into habitable use, they would have approached the owner David Stevens, asked for a guided tour, to enable him to show them the work carried out, his future plans, and to provide them with the opportunity to outline possibilities. No such approach was ever made.
On the other hand, David Stevens wrote to Rushmoor Head of Housing Alison Whiteley inviting her to come on a site visit to see for herself the work in progress. Not only did she never take up his offer, she lacked the common courtesy to reply.
Mid-November 2006, the assistant Borough Solicitor in brief conversation with David Stevens, claimed Rushmoor had done much to help him to bring the property back into use. Challenged to provide examples of what they had done, all she could respond with was that they had given him a leaflet Let it, Don't Waste It. She also suggested he not contest the CPO and sell his property to developers!
The irony is that before any talks or discussions had taken place with the owner of the property, Alison Whiteley was trying to offer it Pavilion, a local housing association, the same housing association that not only has kept properties empty for several years at Firgrove Court, but has gone in and ripped out the kitchens, bathrooms and boilers to make the properties uninhabitable.
A couple of years ago, Pavilion received a damning report from the Audit Commission, which resulted in their Chief Executive at the time being forced out. Not wishing to alienate her friends at Pavilion upon whom she is dependent for political favours, Alison Whitely was claiming there was nothing wrong.
With the help of Alison Whiteley, Pavilion was subsequently taken over by Eastleigh-based Atlantic to form First Wessex.
Against the wishes of tenants, but with the help and support of Alison Whiteley, First Wessex is now trying to take over Portsmouth Housing Association.
If the superstore is ever built in Farnborough town centre, there will flats above the superstore. The development will not meet Council policy on the percentage of social housing, and that is not counting the loss of social housing at Firgrove Court. As a consultee, Alison Whiteley raised no objection, indeed according to the official record, she made no comment at all, ie the head of housing raised no objection that Council policy on social housing was not being met!
Residential tenants above the derelict shops were driven out by bully-boy tactics and intimidation. One lady arrived home to find chicken wire preventing access to her home. KPI claimed they had made a mistake and did not know the flat was occupied! She, after a year of hassle and stress, was eventually rehoused, it is not known what has happened to the other tenants. Head of Housing Alison Whiteley was aware of what was going on, but made no attempt to help or intervene.
The remaining occupants of Firgrove Court, the estate of 28 maisonettes, are being driven out by disrepair. The handful of owner occupiers who had exercised their right to buy, were threatened with CPOs to drive them out. Persons who intervened on behalf of the tenants were told by the Council to mind their own business!
Retailers have also been threatened with CPOs to drive them out.
CPOs are very useful for aiding ones property developer friends. It is of course a mere coincidence that the leader of the Council has regular secret meetings with KPI who have done such a good job of trashing Farnborough town centre.
More than two years on from when Whiteley was first asked the question, the properties in the town centre are still sitting empty. There are now more lying empty.
Currently there are around 40-50 flats lying empty in Farnborough town centre, a dozen maisonettes at Firgrove Court.
Meetings have been organised by Whiteley and her housing department to help landlords understand the Housing Act 2004. No meetings have been organised for tenants. A blind eye is turned to the activities of known local Rachman landlords. The Council refuses to take enforcement action against bad landlords to force repair when their properties are in serious disrepair.
Homeless are turned away by the housing department, with no offer of help. They are treated like dirt.
One of the worst recent cases was a pregnant girl living in a car. Her car has since been repossessed.
It is not just the homeless, tenants fare little better, especially those with serious disrepair.
A disabled, vulnerable adult is facing a second winter with a home in very serious disrepair, including lack of hot water and heating, water pouring down the walls when it rains. Housing officials, including Alison Whiteley, have repeatedly lied about his case. The lies have become so convoluted, that they now contradict themselves and each other every time they comment on the case. One small illustration, a housing official claimed there was no problems with the gutters, he made his unannounced inspection on a dry sunny day when there had been no rain for weeks. Since then, the official has been forced to admit there is a problem, but refused to take action unless there was evidence of damp. The walls are saturated with water and covered in green mould! The Council has powers to enforce repairs, which it refuses to use, on the other hand, officials have been happy to conspire with the landlord to evict the tenant. When the tenant was being harassed by the landlord to force him to leave the property and he sought help from the Council, the Council responded by advising the landlord how to evict the tenant legally and from where further information could be obtained.
When the tenant refused to play ball and protested his treatment, he was threatened with an ABC (the precursor to an ASBO) and refused a place on the Housing List. Meanwhile, the tenant suffers deteriorating health, has at least twice been driven to suicide.
A schizophrenic was dumped in a flat in Aldershot without any support from the agencies charged with his mental and social welfare, what is jokingly called 'Care in the Community'. The flat has now lain empty for well over a year, no attempt has been made to clean the flat of the human excrement that carpets the flat. The flat belongs to Pavilion. According to statements made by Pavilion at public meetings in Aldershot, the person responsible for dumping the schizophrenic in the flat with no support package was Alison Whiteley.
Pavilion, with the help of Alison Whiteley, sought to dispose of a property in Aldershot that had been empty for three years. It was in such a derelict state of repair, that Pavilion decided it was not cost effective to carry our repairs. In their damning report on Pavilion, the Audit Commission criticised Pavilion for the number of empty properties, the state of these empty property, the length of time they were void of tenants and the fact that Pavilion seemed to have little idea of how many empty properties they had or for how long they had remained empty.
Currently, one in five of Pavilion homes fail to meet the Decent Home Standard.
Pavilion is the same housing association to which Whiteley tried to offer the bungalow belonging to David Stevens.
David Stevens has suffered harassment by officials of the housing department, they have followed him home, have trespassed at his bungalow to take photos.
David Stevens is of the view that Alison Whiteley is conducting a personal vendetta against him. If true, this will not be the first time that Whiteley has abused her position, used her office and public resources to conduct vendettas against individuals who have dared cross her path and challenged her incompetence.
Harassment, personal vendettas, of anyone who disagrees with Alison Whiteley, appears to be the norm.
Peter Sandy, a hard-working Rushmoor councillor and community activist, has suffered years of a personal vendetta being waged against him by Whiteley that predates him becoming a councillor. Her latest action, was to put Peter Sandy before the Standards Board for England for allegedly daring to criticise her on a local radio programme. She claims the allegations caused her severe distress, even though she never actually heard the programme!
Peter Sandy has experienced nothing but bloody-minded obstruction from Whiteley ever since he became a councillor. The most recent example being denied documents relating to the David Stevens CPO.
The conduct of Whiteley has at times to be seen as childish in the extreme.
Rushmoor recently co-hosted a housing conference to explain the Housing Act 2004 to landlords. The second conference they have hosted this year for landlords. No such conference has been held for tenants. Peter Sandy is the only councillor who takes a keen interest in housing, who is knowledgeable on the subject. Whiteley failed to inform him of the conference and he had to learn of it from a member of the public.
David Stevens has seen his health deteriorate as a result of the distress he is being caused by Alison Whiteley and her housing department. With every knock on his door or a delivery by the postman, he fears the worst, yet more bad news.
The Department for Communities and Local Government has estimated that there is around 680,000 homes sitting empty in England, of which half are long-term empty properties, ie have been empty for six months or more, and a significant number have been abandoned for years. Halifax estimate nearly 300,000 homes have been sitting empty for more than six months. Empty homes are a wasted resource, and everything possible should be done to bring them back into use. Local authorities possess the powers to bring these properties back into use, powers which should only be used sparingly and as a last resort. But as with any powers, there is always the possibility of the powers being misused and abused.
CPOs and EDMOs have their uses, to bring empty properties back into use, but as we have seen in the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor, these powers can all too easily be abused.
The impression being given in the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor is that personal vendettas are being waged, the Council pimping on behalf of property developers and housing associations.
David Stevens has appealed to the Secretary of State. A Public Inquiry is to take place 9 January 2007 at the Council Offices in Farnborough. The Local Authority Ombudsman may be asked to investigate the maladministration.
Note: A request has been made to the Planning Inspectorate for the inquiry to be adjourned due to the failure of Rushmoor to supply requested documents.
David Stevens has added his voice to that of a growing number of people who are calling for the resignation of Alison Whiteley and an independent investigation into the activities of her housing department.
Reference
Council moves to bring empty bungalow back into use, press release, Rushmoor Borough Council, 11 July 2006
Council backs plan for another Pavilion merger, Farnborough Mail, 12 September 2006
Empty Dwelling Management Orders: Guidance for residential property owners on new powers available to local councils, Department for Communities and Local Government, May 2006
Homes to stay empty until town centre redevelopment, Farnborough Mail, 5 December 2006
http://www.farnborough.co.uk/news/2005/2005925/homes_to_stay_empty_until_town_centre_redevelopment
Mike Lane, The Regeneration Game, November 2006 {DVD}
Marcus Mabberley, Council seeks to force owner of derelict home to sell, Farnborough Mail, 18 July 2006
Nearly 300,000 Homes Empty for more than 6 months, press release, Halifax, 21 October 2006
Nooks and Corners, Private Eye, 13-26 October 2006
Keith Parkins, Farnborough town centre – compulsory purchase orders, Indymedia UK, 16 October 2003
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/10/279026.html
Keith Parkins, Farnborough town centre judicial review, Indymedia UK, 18 February 2004
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285606.html
Keith Parkins, Rushmoor councillors guilty!, Indymedia UK, 8 November 2005
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327535.html
Keith Parkins, Tragedy of Firgrove Court, Indymedia UK, 30 January 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332594.html
Keith Parkins, Public Inquiry into road closures in Farnborough town centre, Indymedia UK, 30 January 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332595.html
Keith Parkins, Curitiba – Designing a sustainable city, April 2006
http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/curitiba.htm
Keith Parkins, First Wessex plan takeover of Portsmouth housing, Indymedia UK, 12 September 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350606.html
Keith Parkins, Liverpool resident halts Pathfinder programme, Indymedia UK, 27 September 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/351960.html
Keith Parkins, M3 Landlord Link Forum, Indymedia UK, 16 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353666.html
Keith Parkins, Pathfinder hits the buffer, Indymedia UK, 17 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353777.html
Keith Parkins, Big business to decide future of town centre, Indymedia UK, 30 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/354742.html
Keith Parkins, Peter Sandy cleared of police allegations, Indymedia UK, 27 November 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/357114.html
Keith Parkins, Empty property in Farnborough town centre, Indymedia UK, 27 November 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/357115.html
Keith Parkins, Dodgy land deals in Farnborough town centre?, Indymedia UK, 18 December 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358511.html
Jen Rivett, One in five homes fail to meet standards, Farnborough News, 30 June 2006
Alison Whiteley, Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO): 12 Chingford Avenue, Farnborough, Rushmoor Borough Council, 11 July 2006
Alison Whiteley, No 16 Redan Road, Aldershot, Rushmoor Borough Council, 26 September 2006
websites
http://www.communities.gov.uk/
http://www.communities.gov.uk/emptyhomes
http://www.emptyhomes.com/
http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/
http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/
http://www.thetruthinrushmoor.co.uk/
Council attempts to seize retirement home
The Rotten Borough of Rushmoor is trying to seize a bungalow in Farnborough from a local man that he has earmarked as his retirement home.
'I feel like a rabbit trapped in the headlights of an oncoming car.' -- David Stevens
'There are still nearly 300,000 private homes in England which have been vacant for more than six months. This is a number which clearly needs to be brought down, particularly in the context of the country's longer term housing needs. Restoring an empty home is likely to be expensive, potentially costing close to £30,000 by our estimates.' -- Tim Crawford, Group Economist at Halifax
'Rushmoor Council has tried everything to bring the property back into use and the only option left is to seek a Compulsory Purchase Order. With the high level of housing needed in Rushmoor, we have to do whatever we can to make use of all available homes.' -- Alison Whiteley, Head of Housing Services
'We do not give this man anything.' -- Rushmoor housing official
David Stevens is in poor-ish health with a heart problem. Looking ahead to the future, he plans to move into a derelict bungalow which he is attempting to renovate. At least that was his intention until Rushmoor decided to seize it, causing further stress for a man already suffering from a dickey heart.
David Stevens was given one day's notice that the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor was going to discuss at a Cabinet meeting the seizure of his bungalow.
Following a brief presentation by Rushmoor Head of Housing Alison Whiteley, a presentation that was barely audible to the Public Gallery (a request from the Public Gallery to speak up was ignored), the Cabinet rubber-stamped her recommendations. She claimed that all avenues had been explored, a claim that David Stevens strongly refutes. No questions were asked, a few seconds elapsed, and the Cabinet moved onto the next item on the agenda. Not a single person in the Cabinet had the integrity or gumption to question what was going on. David Stevens was so appalled, that he stood up to ask 'is that it', and for his pains was summarily ejected from the meeting.
David Stevens was then bundled into a side-room where there was an attempt to discuss the matter with him. A discussion in which David Stevens refused to participate.
The measure that the Cabinet agreed, was to serve a CPO (compulsory purchase order). This is an extreme measure, a CPO should be only served if there is a benefit to the local community and as a last resort after all other options have been explored and exhausted.
Once seized, the property is to be sold at auction. Only if there is any money left after Rushmoor has deducted all its costs, will David Stevens see a penny from what was to have been his retirement home.
At the time it was decided to serve the CPO, powers had come into effect in April 2006 under the Housing Act 2004, which allows a Council to take over the management of residential property and bring it back into use if it has remained empty for six months or more. This is done by means of an Empty Dwelling Management Order. The Council itself cannot serve a EDMO, it has to apply to an independent Residential Property Tribunal.
There are two types of Order – an interim EDMO and final EDMO. These allow a local authority to secure occupation and proper management of privately owned houses and flats that have been unoccupied for a specified period of time and where certain other conditions are met. The council must apply to an independent Residential Property Tribunal to authorise the interim order which precedes the final EDMO. The local authority may not sell the property but can carry out works to make the property fit to occupy and can also let the property. With an interim management order permission of the owner is required for letting, however when a final management order is made the council can let the property without the permission of the owner.
Why did Rushmoor not apply for an EDMO? At the time it was the most appropriate instrument to use. We can only guess it was because they would have had to have put their case before an independent Residential Property Tribunal, where it would have come under proper scrutiny.
Recently a housing official has admitted that they are reluctant to use an EDMO, even though it is the obvious instrument to use as it brings the property back into use, as they do not wish to bear the costs to bring the property back into use which they may not be able to recover from the rent they charge.
A CPO should only be served if there is a clear benefit to the wider community. In her report to the Cabinet, Alison Whiteley demonstrated no benefit to the local community to be achieved by serving a CPO. An EDMO would only temporarily deprive David Stevens of the use of his property, would bring the property back into use. A CPO does neither, it permanently deprives David Stevens of his property, with no guarantee that a change of ownership brings the property back into use. There would appear to be a hidden agenda. A suspicion reinforced by the Council spreading rumours that the property is rat infested.
When it was drawn recently to the attention of a housing official that a CPO was not the appropriate instrument to use as it did not guarantee that the property would be brought back into use, but merely changed the ownership, she agreed.
With a poor heart and deteriorating health, David Stevens wishes to move into a bungalow. The Cabinet was not told this. The Council claims the bungalow to be in a poor state of repair, so even if David Stevens wished to move into the bungalow tomorrow he could not do so as it is not in a fit state of repair. The Council also knows David Stevens intends to renovate the property. Nevertheless, they have decided to seize his future home.
This is how the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor treats its residents. No-one questioned what Whitely had to say. Although given only one day's notice, David Stevens nevertheless managed to be present at the meeting, he was not asked to speak or present his case or allowed to challenge the lies put before the Cabinet.
Apart from being denied his own property, in what amounts to little more than theft, there was a serious breach of the Human Rights Act on three counts: the right to property, the right to quite enjoyment of ones family home, the right to a fair hearing.
No discussion took place on Human Rights, nor were they mentioned in the report placed before the Cabinet. The failure to consider the Human Rights implication of the decision, was in itself a breach of the Human Rights Act.
Councils pay scant regard to Human Rights, as has been seen in Liverpool, where homes are being bulldozed under the Pathfinder programme by means of CPOs. When challenged in the High Court, Liverpool City Council lost.
Within days of David Stevens being threatened with the loss of his retirement home, he was approached by a property developer who offered him a paltry £70,000 (later upped to £80,00) paid in installments over the year, a fraction of what the site was worth. A coincidence?
It is known the council has been in discussion with property developers, but so far, the council has refused to release the correspondence.
An estate agent and property developer sits on the Cabinet. Should he have withdrawn when this item was discussed as he appeared to have a prejudicial interest (he withdrew when a following item was discussed)? He did not withdraw or declare a prejudicial interest. If it can be shown he had a prejudicial interest, which he failed to declare, it would invalidate any decision reached by the Cabinet. The matter has been referred to the Standard Board for England for investigation. If found guilty, he could be barred from serving as a councillor.
Last year three Rushmoor councillors were found guilty of having a prejudicial interest when the planning committee determined an application for redevelopment of Farnborough town centre.
A local estate agent has recently valued the property at £300,000, if sold with consent for redevelopment, the site would be worth more.
The property lies within a Conservation Area. At least it does at the moment. The Council is trying to shrink the area. Any future owner may have a development opportunity due to a relaxation of planning restraints, not available at present.
A property was recently served a CPO in Bagshot Lea (near Aldershot). The case was fought and won. It caused the elderly couple who owned the property a great deal of worry and distress. We have since learnt a local housing association was interested in the land for redevelopment!
Double standards are in operation here, and one could take the view that a personal vendetta is being waged and that David Stevens is being singled out and victimised.
In 2000, long before the Council had approached David Stevens, let alone had tried to determine his intentions or even knew who he was, the housing department were in talks with a local housing association to take-over the property.
Alison Whitley asked Pavilion, a local housing association, to help her out, as she was under 'political' pressure.
When these talks fell through, internal discussions took place with the planning department as to whether the 'site' had development potential.
The Council leafleted the area in an attempt to find the owner of the empty property, even though their own file shows they had this information through Council Tax records. Having publicised the fact the property was lying empty, it was subsequently broken into several times.
Housing officials threatened to put the property on an Empty Property List which would be placed in the public domain, a serious breach of personal privacy, and a further breach of the Human Rights Act.
A recent inquiry to the Council and they say the Empty Property List is not in the public domain, never has been, and they are seeking legal advice. Thus, the threat to David Stevens to publicise his empty property was nothing less than a crude attempt at intimidation.
But, even though the Council knew they were on dodgy legal grounds, following the Cabinet decision to serve a CPO, they released the address of the property to the local press, with sufficient information to enable the owner of the property to be identified.
In 2005, three CPOs were served on owners of vacant residential property. The cabinet met in closed session, no information was released to the press.
Property developers have been approached to see whether they are interested in acquiring the property.
Internal e-mails within the housing department show they were seeking properties on which CPOs could be served. The emphasis was on serving CPOs, not bringing the properties back into use.
The focus of the Council, of any council, should be on identifying and bringing back into use empty properties. The focus should not be on serving CPOs, even less on acquiring empty properties for housing associations and property developers.
David Stevens was targetted: The Environmental Health Department was asked to check out his property, but could find nothing amiss. Nor was the garden found to be in sufficiently bad state to serve him under legislation covering untidy gardens.
In 2004, a Rushmoor councillor e-mailed Alison Whiteley to ask that this property was taken off their 'hit list' and drew attention to the fact that work had taken place. The response was that they did not know work had taken place. This information, that a local councillor had informed Whiteley that work had taken place (of which she was unaware), was not communicated to the Cabinet.
Owners of empty properties can apply for grants of up to £10,000 to help bring the empty properties back into use. David Stevens has not been offered a penny. In 2005, David Steven tried to obtain a form to get a grant, but got nowhere, other than to hear the case officer shout to her colleague 'we do not give this man anything'. He came away empty handed, without even an application form.
At a meeting in May 2006, David Stevens, when he asked, was told that the Council had no intention of serving a CPO. At the same meeting David Stevens raised the use of an EDMO. Two months later, a CPO was served.
Ten days before the Cabinet met, a housing official e-mailed the Cabinet Member with responsibility for housing with a suggested attributable quote from him that would go in a press release.
David Stevens has decided to challenge the serving of the CPO.
As I write, mid-December 2006, David Stevens was still being denied by the Council documents that he needs to fight the case. This despite repeated requests. Nor has his lawyer been able to obtain all the document, neither has a councillor who has tried. David Stevens has also being denied sight of documents relating to the case that in the view of the assistant Borough Solicitor he does not need to see.
The level of hypocrisy and double standards operating in the Borough beggars belief. According to the Farnborough Mail, after claiming that the 'Council has tried everything to bring the property back into use and the only option left is to seek a compulsory purchase order', a claim David Steven strongly refutes, '[Alison Whiteley] added that a high level of housing was required in the borough and the council had to make use of all available sites.'
There is a large amount of empty property within the Borough, but no attempt is being made to bring it back into use, even though there is long waiting list for housing. The worst example of property lying empty is in Farnborough town centre, not a stone's throw way from Whiteley's office.
In 2004, attention was drawn to Whiteley of the empty property in the town centre. Whiteley was asked the number of empty properties and what she intended to do to bring the properties back into use. She blatantly lied and claimed there was no empty property. She was asked to try again. She came back with a figure of half a dozen. Asked to try again, she came back with a number running into double figures, but claimed it would be too costly for the Council to bring the property back into use, and in any case it would not be an appropriate use of public funding as the area was earmarked for redevelopment.
In 2000, internal e-mails within the housing department show officials were aware and concerned at the large number of empty flats above the shops in the town centre and that pressure should be brought to bear on property developer KPI to bring them back into use. Why was no action taken? Why, four years later, did Whiteley try to claim there was no empty property, then fabricate excuses for inaction?
More than eight years ago, the town centre was bought by KPI (a Kuwaiti-financed front-company of property developer St Modwen, a company with a track record of destroying town centres). KPI has driven out retailers and residential tenants, the town centre now lies semi-derelict and has been in this state for some years. KPI has planning consent to redevelop the area, demolition to build an unwanted superstore, and demolition of a housing estate of social housing for the car park for the superstore. When Whiteley made her statement in 2004, KPI did not have planning consent, thus she prejudiced the planning decision. Flats above the shops are sitting empty, maisonettes are sitting empty at Firgrove Court. Pavilion, a local housing association, has destroyed kitchens, bathrooms and boilers to render the maisonettes uninhabitable. The Council does not own any of this property, where therefore is the cost to the public purse?
Although void of tenants, the empty maisonettes at Firgrove Court are being put to some use by Pavilion. Pavilion is using these empty properties to store possessions from other empty properties where the tenants have either been evicted or done a runner, thus creating a fire risk for the tenants in the remaining occupied maisonettes. To increase the risk, fire doors across communal exits have been locked shut.
We know from internal e-mails, that Whitely and her housing department have been aware since April 2000 of empty property in Farnborough town centre. It is now November 2006, and still no action has been taken to bring this empty property back into use.
Not only are the council aware of the empty properties at Firgrove Court and turning a blind eye, but actually condone what is going on. In a reply to queries on empty property in the town centre and at Firgrove Court, housing official Jane Abraham (the same official trying to seize the bungalow from David Stevens), not only admitted that she knew that Pavilion was ripping out kitchens, bathrooms and boilers, but supported what Pavilion were doing in making their empty properties uninhabitable as it made the few remaining tenants feel more secure!
The role of Jane Abraham within Rushmoor housing department is to identify empty housing and bring it back into use!
Had there ever existed a genuine desire by Whiteley and her team to bring the bungalow back into habitable use, they would have approached the owner David Stevens, asked for a guided tour, to enable him to show them the work carried out, his future plans, and to provide them with the opportunity to outline possibilities. No such approach was ever made.
On the other hand, David Stevens wrote to Rushmoor Head of Housing Alison Whiteley inviting her to come on a site visit to see for herself the work in progress. Not only did she never take up his offer, she lacked the common courtesy to reply.
Mid-November 2006, the assistant Borough Solicitor in brief conversation with David Stevens, claimed Rushmoor had done much to help him to bring the property back into use. Challenged to provide examples of what they had done, all she could respond with was that they had given him a leaflet Let it, Don't Waste It. She also suggested he not contest the CPO and sell his property to developers!
The irony is that before any talks or discussions had taken place with the owner of the property, Alison Whiteley was trying to offer it Pavilion, a local housing association, the same housing association that not only has kept properties empty for several years at Firgrove Court, but has gone in and ripped out the kitchens, bathrooms and boilers to make the properties uninhabitable.
A couple of years ago, Pavilion received a damning report from the Audit Commission, which resulted in their Chief Executive at the time being forced out. Not wishing to alienate her friends at Pavilion upon whom she is dependent for political favours, Alison Whitely was claiming there was nothing wrong.
With the help of Alison Whiteley, Pavilion was subsequently taken over by Eastleigh-based Atlantic to form First Wessex.
Against the wishes of tenants, but with the help and support of Alison Whiteley, First Wessex is now trying to take over Portsmouth Housing Association.
If the superstore is ever built in Farnborough town centre, there will flats above the superstore. The development will not meet Council policy on the percentage of social housing, and that is not counting the loss of social housing at Firgrove Court. As a consultee, Alison Whiteley raised no objection, indeed according to the official record, she made no comment at all, ie the head of housing raised no objection that Council policy on social housing was not being met!
Residential tenants above the derelict shops were driven out by bully-boy tactics and intimidation. One lady arrived home to find chicken wire preventing access to her home. KPI claimed they had made a mistake and did not know the flat was occupied! She, after a year of hassle and stress, was eventually rehoused, it is not known what has happened to the other tenants. Head of Housing Alison Whiteley was aware of what was going on, but made no attempt to help or intervene.
The remaining occupants of Firgrove Court, the estate of 28 maisonettes, are being driven out by disrepair. The handful of owner occupiers who had exercised their right to buy, were threatened with CPOs to drive them out. Persons who intervened on behalf of the tenants were told by the Council to mind their own business!
Retailers have also been threatened with CPOs to drive them out.
CPOs are very useful for aiding ones property developer friends. It is of course a mere coincidence that the leader of the Council has regular secret meetings with KPI who have done such a good job of trashing Farnborough town centre.
More than two years on from when Whiteley was first asked the question, the properties in the town centre are still sitting empty. There are now more lying empty.
Currently there are around 40-50 flats lying empty in Farnborough town centre, a dozen maisonettes at Firgrove Court.
Meetings have been organised by Whiteley and her housing department to help landlords understand the Housing Act 2004. No meetings have been organised for tenants. A blind eye is turned to the activities of known local Rachman landlords. The Council refuses to take enforcement action against bad landlords to force repair when their properties are in serious disrepair.
Homeless are turned away by the housing department, with no offer of help. They are treated like dirt.
One of the worst recent cases was a pregnant girl living in a car. Her car has since been repossessed.
It is not just the homeless, tenants fare little better, especially those with serious disrepair.
A disabled, vulnerable adult is facing a second winter with a home in very serious disrepair, including lack of hot water and heating, water pouring down the walls when it rains. Housing officials, including Alison Whiteley, have repeatedly lied about his case. The lies have become so convoluted, that they now contradict themselves and each other every time they comment on the case. One small illustration, a housing official claimed there was no problems with the gutters, he made his unannounced inspection on a dry sunny day when there had been no rain for weeks. Since then, the official has been forced to admit there is a problem, but refused to take action unless there was evidence of damp. The walls are saturated with water and covered in green mould! The Council has powers to enforce repairs, which it refuses to use, on the other hand, officials have been happy to conspire with the landlord to evict the tenant. When the tenant was being harassed by the landlord to force him to leave the property and he sought help from the Council, the Council responded by advising the landlord how to evict the tenant legally and from where further information could be obtained.
When the tenant refused to play ball and protested his treatment, he was threatened with an ABC (the precursor to an ASBO) and refused a place on the Housing List. Meanwhile, the tenant suffers deteriorating health, has at least twice been driven to suicide.
A schizophrenic was dumped in a flat in Aldershot without any support from the agencies charged with his mental and social welfare, what is jokingly called 'Care in the Community'. The flat has now lain empty for well over a year, no attempt has been made to clean the flat of the human excrement that carpets the flat. The flat belongs to Pavilion. According to statements made by Pavilion at public meetings in Aldershot, the person responsible for dumping the schizophrenic in the flat with no support package was Alison Whiteley.
Pavilion, with the help of Alison Whiteley, sought to dispose of a property in Aldershot that had been empty for three years. It was in such a derelict state of repair, that Pavilion decided it was not cost effective to carry our repairs. In their damning report on Pavilion, the Audit Commission criticised Pavilion for the number of empty properties, the state of these empty property, the length of time they were void of tenants and the fact that Pavilion seemed to have little idea of how many empty properties they had or for how long they had remained empty.
Currently, one in five of Pavilion homes fail to meet the Decent Home Standard.
Pavilion is the same housing association to which Whiteley tried to offer the bungalow belonging to David Stevens.
David Stevens has suffered harassment by officials of the housing department, they have followed him home, have trespassed at his bungalow to take photos.
David Stevens is of the view that Alison Whiteley is conducting a personal vendetta against him. If true, this will not be the first time that Whiteley has abused her position, used her office and public resources to conduct vendettas against individuals who have dared cross her path and challenged her incompetence.
Harassment, personal vendettas, of anyone who disagrees with Alison Whiteley, appears to be the norm.
Peter Sandy, a hard-working Rushmoor councillor and community activist, has suffered years of a personal vendetta being waged against him by Whiteley that predates him becoming a councillor. Her latest action, was to put Peter Sandy before the Standards Board for England for allegedly daring to criticise her on a local radio programme. She claims the allegations caused her severe distress, even though she never actually heard the programme!
Peter Sandy has experienced nothing but bloody-minded obstruction from Whiteley ever since he became a councillor. The most recent example being denied documents relating to the David Stevens CPO.
The conduct of Whiteley has at times to be seen as childish in the extreme.
Rushmoor recently co-hosted a housing conference to explain the Housing Act 2004 to landlords. The second conference they have hosted this year for landlords. No such conference has been held for tenants. Peter Sandy is the only councillor who takes a keen interest in housing, who is knowledgeable on the subject. Whiteley failed to inform him of the conference and he had to learn of it from a member of the public.
David Stevens has seen his health deteriorate as a result of the distress he is being caused by Alison Whiteley and her housing department. With every knock on his door or a delivery by the postman, he fears the worst, yet more bad news.
The Department for Communities and Local Government has estimated that there is around 680,000 homes sitting empty in England, of which half are long-term empty properties, ie have been empty for six months or more, and a significant number have been abandoned for years. Halifax estimate nearly 300,000 homes have been sitting empty for more than six months. Empty homes are a wasted resource, and everything possible should be done to bring them back into use. Local authorities possess the powers to bring these properties back into use, powers which should only be used sparingly and as a last resort. But as with any powers, there is always the possibility of the powers being misused and abused.
CPOs and EDMOs have their uses, to bring empty properties back into use, but as we have seen in the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor, these powers can all too easily be abused.
The impression being given in the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor is that personal vendettas are being waged, the Council pimping on behalf of property developers and housing associations.
David Stevens has appealed to the Secretary of State. A Public Inquiry is to take place 9 January 2007 at the Council Offices in Farnborough. The Local Authority Ombudsman may be asked to investigate the maladministration.
Note: A request has been made to the Planning Inspectorate for the inquiry to be adjourned due to the failure of Rushmoor to supply requested documents.
David Stevens has added his voice to that of a growing number of people who are calling for the resignation of Alison Whiteley and an independent investigation into the activities of her housing department.
Reference
Council moves to bring empty bungalow back into use, press release, Rushmoor Borough Council, 11 July 2006
Council backs plan for another Pavilion merger, Farnborough Mail, 12 September 2006
Empty Dwelling Management Orders: Guidance for residential property owners on new powers available to local councils, Department for Communities and Local Government, May 2006
Homes to stay empty until town centre redevelopment, Farnborough Mail, 5 December 2006
http://www.farnborough.co.uk/news/2005/2005925/homes_to_stay_empty_until_town_centre_redevelopment
Mike Lane, The Regeneration Game, November 2006 {DVD}
Marcus Mabberley, Council seeks to force owner of derelict home to sell, Farnborough Mail, 18 July 2006
Nearly 300,000 Homes Empty for more than 6 months, press release, Halifax, 21 October 2006
Nooks and Corners, Private Eye, 13-26 October 2006
Keith Parkins, Farnborough town centre – compulsory purchase orders, Indymedia UK, 16 October 2003
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/10/279026.html
Keith Parkins, Farnborough town centre judicial review, Indymedia UK, 18 February 2004
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285606.html
Keith Parkins, Rushmoor councillors guilty!, Indymedia UK, 8 November 2005
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327535.html
Keith Parkins, Tragedy of Firgrove Court, Indymedia UK, 30 January 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332594.html
Keith Parkins, Public Inquiry into road closures in Farnborough town centre, Indymedia UK, 30 January 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332595.html
Keith Parkins, Curitiba – Designing a sustainable city, April 2006
http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/curitiba.htm
Keith Parkins, First Wessex plan takeover of Portsmouth housing, Indymedia UK, 12 September 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350606.html
Keith Parkins, Liverpool resident halts Pathfinder programme, Indymedia UK, 27 September 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/351960.html
Keith Parkins, M3 Landlord Link Forum, Indymedia UK, 16 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353666.html
Keith Parkins, Pathfinder hits the buffer, Indymedia UK, 17 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353777.html
Keith Parkins, Big business to decide future of town centre, Indymedia UK, 30 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/354742.html
Keith Parkins, Peter Sandy cleared of police allegations, Indymedia UK, 27 November 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/357114.html
Keith Parkins, Empty property in Farnborough town centre, Indymedia UK, 27 November 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/357115.html
Keith Parkins, Dodgy land deals in Farnborough town centre?, Indymedia UK, 18 December 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358511.html
Jen Rivett, One in five homes fail to meet standards, Farnborough News, 30 June 2006
Alison Whiteley, Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO): 12 Chingford Avenue, Farnborough, Rushmoor Borough Council, 11 July 2006
Alison Whiteley, No 16 Redan Road, Aldershot, Rushmoor Borough Council, 26 September 2006
websites
http://www.communities.gov.uk/
http://www.communities.gov.uk/emptyhomes
http://www.emptyhomes.com/
http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/
http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/
http://www.thetruthinrushmoor.co.uk/
'There are still nearly 300,000 private homes in England which have been vacant for more than six months. This is a number which clearly needs to be brought down, particularly in the context of the country's longer term housing needs. Restoring an empty home is likely to be expensive, potentially costing close to £30,000 by our estimates.' -- Tim Crawford, Group Economist at Halifax
'Rushmoor Council has tried everything to bring the property back into use and the only option left is to seek a Compulsory Purchase Order. With the high level of housing needed in Rushmoor, we have to do whatever we can to make use of all available homes.' -- Alison Whiteley, Head of Housing Services
'We do not give this man anything.' -- Rushmoor housing official
David Stevens is in poor-ish health with a heart problem. Looking ahead to the future, he plans to move into a derelict bungalow which he is attempting to renovate. At least that was his intention until Rushmoor decided to seize it, causing further stress for a man already suffering from a dickey heart.
David Stevens was given one day's notice that the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor was going to discuss at a Cabinet meeting the seizure of his bungalow.
Following a brief presentation by Rushmoor Head of Housing Alison Whiteley, a presentation that was barely audible to the Public Gallery (a request from the Public Gallery to speak up was ignored), the Cabinet rubber-stamped her recommendations. She claimed that all avenues had been explored, a claim that David Stevens strongly refutes. No questions were asked, a few seconds elapsed, and the Cabinet moved onto the next item on the agenda. Not a single person in the Cabinet had the integrity or gumption to question what was going on. David Stevens was so appalled, that he stood up to ask 'is that it', and for his pains was summarily ejected from the meeting.
David Stevens was then bundled into a side-room where there was an attempt to discuss the matter with him. A discussion in which David Stevens refused to participate.
The measure that the Cabinet agreed, was to serve a CPO (compulsory purchase order). This is an extreme measure, a CPO should be only served if there is a benefit to the local community and as a last resort after all other options have been explored and exhausted.
Once seized, the property is to be sold at auction. Only if there is any money left after Rushmoor has deducted all its costs, will David Stevens see a penny from what was to have been his retirement home.
At the time it was decided to serve the CPO, powers had come into effect in April 2006 under the Housing Act 2004, which allows a Council to take over the management of residential property and bring it back into use if it has remained empty for six months or more. This is done by means of an Empty Dwelling Management Order. The Council itself cannot serve a EDMO, it has to apply to an independent Residential Property Tribunal.
There are two types of Order – an interim EDMO and final EDMO. These allow a local authority to secure occupation and proper management of privately owned houses and flats that have been unoccupied for a specified period of time and where certain other conditions are met. The council must apply to an independent Residential Property Tribunal to authorise the interim order which precedes the final EDMO. The local authority may not sell the property but can carry out works to make the property fit to occupy and can also let the property. With an interim management order permission of the owner is required for letting, however when a final management order is made the council can let the property without the permission of the owner.
Why did Rushmoor not apply for an EDMO? At the time it was the most appropriate instrument to use. We can only guess it was because they would have had to have put their case before an independent Residential Property Tribunal, where it would have come under proper scrutiny.
Recently a housing official has admitted that they are reluctant to use an EDMO, even though it is the obvious instrument to use as it brings the property back into use, as they do not wish to bear the costs to bring the property back into use which they may not be able to recover from the rent they charge.
A CPO should only be served if there is a clear benefit to the wider community. In her report to the Cabinet, Alison Whiteley demonstrated no benefit to the local community to be achieved by serving a CPO. An EDMO would only temporarily deprive David Stevens of the use of his property, would bring the property back into use. A CPO does neither, it permanently deprives David Stevens of his property, with no guarantee that a change of ownership brings the property back into use. There would appear to be a hidden agenda. A suspicion reinforced by the Council spreading rumours that the property is rat infested.
When it was drawn recently to the attention of a housing official that a CPO was not the appropriate instrument to use as it did not guarantee that the property would be brought back into use, but merely changed the ownership, she agreed.
With a poor heart and deteriorating health, David Stevens wishes to move into a bungalow. The Cabinet was not told this. The Council claims the bungalow to be in a poor state of repair, so even if David Stevens wished to move into the bungalow tomorrow he could not do so as it is not in a fit state of repair. The Council also knows David Stevens intends to renovate the property. Nevertheless, they have decided to seize his future home.
This is how the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor treats its residents. No-one questioned what Whitely had to say. Although given only one day's notice, David Stevens nevertheless managed to be present at the meeting, he was not asked to speak or present his case or allowed to challenge the lies put before the Cabinet.
Apart from being denied his own property, in what amounts to little more than theft, there was a serious breach of the Human Rights Act on three counts: the right to property, the right to quite enjoyment of ones family home, the right to a fair hearing.
No discussion took place on Human Rights, nor were they mentioned in the report placed before the Cabinet. The failure to consider the Human Rights implication of the decision, was in itself a breach of the Human Rights Act.
Councils pay scant regard to Human Rights, as has been seen in Liverpool, where homes are being bulldozed under the Pathfinder programme by means of CPOs. When challenged in the High Court, Liverpool City Council lost.
Within days of David Stevens being threatened with the loss of his retirement home, he was approached by a property developer who offered him a paltry £70,000 (later upped to £80,00) paid in installments over the year, a fraction of what the site was worth. A coincidence?
It is known the council has been in discussion with property developers, but so far, the council has refused to release the correspondence.
An estate agent and property developer sits on the Cabinet. Should he have withdrawn when this item was discussed as he appeared to have a prejudicial interest (he withdrew when a following item was discussed)? He did not withdraw or declare a prejudicial interest. If it can be shown he had a prejudicial interest, which he failed to declare, it would invalidate any decision reached by the Cabinet. The matter has been referred to the Standard Board for England for investigation. If found guilty, he could be barred from serving as a councillor.
Last year three Rushmoor councillors were found guilty of having a prejudicial interest when the planning committee determined an application for redevelopment of Farnborough town centre.
A local estate agent has recently valued the property at £300,000, if sold with consent for redevelopment, the site would be worth more.
The property lies within a Conservation Area. At least it does at the moment. The Council is trying to shrink the area. Any future owner may have a development opportunity due to a relaxation of planning restraints, not available at present.
A property was recently served a CPO in Bagshot Lea (near Aldershot). The case was fought and won. It caused the elderly couple who owned the property a great deal of worry and distress. We have since learnt a local housing association was interested in the land for redevelopment!
Double standards are in operation here, and one could take the view that a personal vendetta is being waged and that David Stevens is being singled out and victimised.
In 2000, long before the Council had approached David Stevens, let alone had tried to determine his intentions or even knew who he was, the housing department were in talks with a local housing association to take-over the property.
Alison Whitley asked Pavilion, a local housing association, to help her out, as she was under 'political' pressure.
When these talks fell through, internal discussions took place with the planning department as to whether the 'site' had development potential.
The Council leafleted the area in an attempt to find the owner of the empty property, even though their own file shows they had this information through Council Tax records. Having publicised the fact the property was lying empty, it was subsequently broken into several times.
Housing officials threatened to put the property on an Empty Property List which would be placed in the public domain, a serious breach of personal privacy, and a further breach of the Human Rights Act.
A recent inquiry to the Council and they say the Empty Property List is not in the public domain, never has been, and they are seeking legal advice. Thus, the threat to David Stevens to publicise his empty property was nothing less than a crude attempt at intimidation.
But, even though the Council knew they were on dodgy legal grounds, following the Cabinet decision to serve a CPO, they released the address of the property to the local press, with sufficient information to enable the owner of the property to be identified.
In 2005, three CPOs were served on owners of vacant residential property. The cabinet met in closed session, no information was released to the press.
Property developers have been approached to see whether they are interested in acquiring the property.
Internal e-mails within the housing department show they were seeking properties on which CPOs could be served. The emphasis was on serving CPOs, not bringing the properties back into use.
The focus of the Council, of any council, should be on identifying and bringing back into use empty properties. The focus should not be on serving CPOs, even less on acquiring empty properties for housing associations and property developers.
David Stevens was targetted: The Environmental Health Department was asked to check out his property, but could find nothing amiss. Nor was the garden found to be in sufficiently bad state to serve him under legislation covering untidy gardens.
In 2004, a Rushmoor councillor e-mailed Alison Whiteley to ask that this property was taken off their 'hit list' and drew attention to the fact that work had taken place. The response was that they did not know work had taken place. This information, that a local councillor had informed Whiteley that work had taken place (of which she was unaware), was not communicated to the Cabinet.
Owners of empty properties can apply for grants of up to £10,000 to help bring the empty properties back into use. David Stevens has not been offered a penny. In 2005, David Steven tried to obtain a form to get a grant, but got nowhere, other than to hear the case officer shout to her colleague 'we do not give this man anything'. He came away empty handed, without even an application form.
At a meeting in May 2006, David Stevens, when he asked, was told that the Council had no intention of serving a CPO. At the same meeting David Stevens raised the use of an EDMO. Two months later, a CPO was served.
Ten days before the Cabinet met, a housing official e-mailed the Cabinet Member with responsibility for housing with a suggested attributable quote from him that would go in a press release.
David Stevens has decided to challenge the serving of the CPO.
As I write, mid-December 2006, David Stevens was still being denied by the Council documents that he needs to fight the case. This despite repeated requests. Nor has his lawyer been able to obtain all the document, neither has a councillor who has tried. David Stevens has also being denied sight of documents relating to the case that in the view of the assistant Borough Solicitor he does not need to see.
The level of hypocrisy and double standards operating in the Borough beggars belief. According to the Farnborough Mail, after claiming that the 'Council has tried everything to bring the property back into use and the only option left is to seek a compulsory purchase order', a claim David Steven strongly refutes, '[Alison Whiteley] added that a high level of housing was required in the borough and the council had to make use of all available sites.'
There is a large amount of empty property within the Borough, but no attempt is being made to bring it back into use, even though there is long waiting list for housing. The worst example of property lying empty is in Farnborough town centre, not a stone's throw way from Whiteley's office.
In 2004, attention was drawn to Whiteley of the empty property in the town centre. Whiteley was asked the number of empty properties and what she intended to do to bring the properties back into use. She blatantly lied and claimed there was no empty property. She was asked to try again. She came back with a figure of half a dozen. Asked to try again, she came back with a number running into double figures, but claimed it would be too costly for the Council to bring the property back into use, and in any case it would not be an appropriate use of public funding as the area was earmarked for redevelopment.
In 2000, internal e-mails within the housing department show officials were aware and concerned at the large number of empty flats above the shops in the town centre and that pressure should be brought to bear on property developer KPI to bring them back into use. Why was no action taken? Why, four years later, did Whiteley try to claim there was no empty property, then fabricate excuses for inaction?
More than eight years ago, the town centre was bought by KPI (a Kuwaiti-financed front-company of property developer St Modwen, a company with a track record of destroying town centres). KPI has driven out retailers and residential tenants, the town centre now lies semi-derelict and has been in this state for some years. KPI has planning consent to redevelop the area, demolition to build an unwanted superstore, and demolition of a housing estate of social housing for the car park for the superstore. When Whiteley made her statement in 2004, KPI did not have planning consent, thus she prejudiced the planning decision. Flats above the shops are sitting empty, maisonettes are sitting empty at Firgrove Court. Pavilion, a local housing association, has destroyed kitchens, bathrooms and boilers to render the maisonettes uninhabitable. The Council does not own any of this property, where therefore is the cost to the public purse?
Although void of tenants, the empty maisonettes at Firgrove Court are being put to some use by Pavilion. Pavilion is using these empty properties to store possessions from other empty properties where the tenants have either been evicted or done a runner, thus creating a fire risk for the tenants in the remaining occupied maisonettes. To increase the risk, fire doors across communal exits have been locked shut.
We know from internal e-mails, that Whitely and her housing department have been aware since April 2000 of empty property in Farnborough town centre. It is now November 2006, and still no action has been taken to bring this empty property back into use.
Not only are the council aware of the empty properties at Firgrove Court and turning a blind eye, but actually condone what is going on. In a reply to queries on empty property in the town centre and at Firgrove Court, housing official Jane Abraham (the same official trying to seize the bungalow from David Stevens), not only admitted that she knew that Pavilion was ripping out kitchens, bathrooms and boilers, but supported what Pavilion were doing in making their empty properties uninhabitable as it made the few remaining tenants feel more secure!
The role of Jane Abraham within Rushmoor housing department is to identify empty housing and bring it back into use!
Had there ever existed a genuine desire by Whiteley and her team to bring the bungalow back into habitable use, they would have approached the owner David Stevens, asked for a guided tour, to enable him to show them the work carried out, his future plans, and to provide them with the opportunity to outline possibilities. No such approach was ever made.
On the other hand, David Stevens wrote to Rushmoor Head of Housing Alison Whiteley inviting her to come on a site visit to see for herself the work in progress. Not only did she never take up his offer, she lacked the common courtesy to reply.
Mid-November 2006, the assistant Borough Solicitor in brief conversation with David Stevens, claimed Rushmoor had done much to help him to bring the property back into use. Challenged to provide examples of what they had done, all she could respond with was that they had given him a leaflet Let it, Don't Waste It. She also suggested he not contest the CPO and sell his property to developers!
The irony is that before any talks or discussions had taken place with the owner of the property, Alison Whiteley was trying to offer it Pavilion, a local housing association, the same housing association that not only has kept properties empty for several years at Firgrove Court, but has gone in and ripped out the kitchens, bathrooms and boilers to make the properties uninhabitable.
A couple of years ago, Pavilion received a damning report from the Audit Commission, which resulted in their Chief Executive at the time being forced out. Not wishing to alienate her friends at Pavilion upon whom she is dependent for political favours, Alison Whitely was claiming there was nothing wrong.
With the help of Alison Whiteley, Pavilion was subsequently taken over by Eastleigh-based Atlantic to form First Wessex.
Against the wishes of tenants, but with the help and support of Alison Whiteley, First Wessex is now trying to take over Portsmouth Housing Association.
If the superstore is ever built in Farnborough town centre, there will flats above the superstore. The development will not meet Council policy on the percentage of social housing, and that is not counting the loss of social housing at Firgrove Court. As a consultee, Alison Whiteley raised no objection, indeed according to the official record, she made no comment at all, ie the head of housing raised no objection that Council policy on social housing was not being met!
Residential tenants above the derelict shops were driven out by bully-boy tactics and intimidation. One lady arrived home to find chicken wire preventing access to her home. KPI claimed they had made a mistake and did not know the flat was occupied! She, after a year of hassle and stress, was eventually rehoused, it is not known what has happened to the other tenants. Head of Housing Alison Whiteley was aware of what was going on, but made no attempt to help or intervene.
The remaining occupants of Firgrove Court, the estate of 28 maisonettes, are being driven out by disrepair. The handful of owner occupiers who had exercised their right to buy, were threatened with CPOs to drive them out. Persons who intervened on behalf of the tenants were told by the Council to mind their own business!
Retailers have also been threatened with CPOs to drive them out.
CPOs are very useful for aiding ones property developer friends. It is of course a mere coincidence that the leader of the Council has regular secret meetings with KPI who have done such a good job of trashing Farnborough town centre.
More than two years on from when Whiteley was first asked the question, the properties in the town centre are still sitting empty. There are now more lying empty.
Currently there are around 40-50 flats lying empty in Farnborough town centre, a dozen maisonettes at Firgrove Court.
Meetings have been organised by Whiteley and her housing department to help landlords understand the Housing Act 2004. No meetings have been organised for tenants. A blind eye is turned to the activities of known local Rachman landlords. The Council refuses to take enforcement action against bad landlords to force repair when their properties are in serious disrepair.
Homeless are turned away by the housing department, with no offer of help. They are treated like dirt.
One of the worst recent cases was a pregnant girl living in a car. Her car has since been repossessed.
It is not just the homeless, tenants fare little better, especially those with serious disrepair.
A disabled, vulnerable adult is facing a second winter with a home in very serious disrepair, including lack of hot water and heating, water pouring down the walls when it rains. Housing officials, including Alison Whiteley, have repeatedly lied about his case. The lies have become so convoluted, that they now contradict themselves and each other every time they comment on the case. One small illustration, a housing official claimed there was no problems with the gutters, he made his unannounced inspection on a dry sunny day when there had been no rain for weeks. Since then, the official has been forced to admit there is a problem, but refused to take action unless there was evidence of damp. The walls are saturated with water and covered in green mould! The Council has powers to enforce repairs, which it refuses to use, on the other hand, officials have been happy to conspire with the landlord to evict the tenant. When the tenant was being harassed by the landlord to force him to leave the property and he sought help from the Council, the Council responded by advising the landlord how to evict the tenant legally and from where further information could be obtained.
When the tenant refused to play ball and protested his treatment, he was threatened with an ABC (the precursor to an ASBO) and refused a place on the Housing List. Meanwhile, the tenant suffers deteriorating health, has at least twice been driven to suicide.
A schizophrenic was dumped in a flat in Aldershot without any support from the agencies charged with his mental and social welfare, what is jokingly called 'Care in the Community'. The flat has now lain empty for well over a year, no attempt has been made to clean the flat of the human excrement that carpets the flat. The flat belongs to Pavilion. According to statements made by Pavilion at public meetings in Aldershot, the person responsible for dumping the schizophrenic in the flat with no support package was Alison Whiteley.
Pavilion, with the help of Alison Whiteley, sought to dispose of a property in Aldershot that had been empty for three years. It was in such a derelict state of repair, that Pavilion decided it was not cost effective to carry our repairs. In their damning report on Pavilion, the Audit Commission criticised Pavilion for the number of empty properties, the state of these empty property, the length of time they were void of tenants and the fact that Pavilion seemed to have little idea of how many empty properties they had or for how long they had remained empty.
Currently, one in five of Pavilion homes fail to meet the Decent Home Standard.
Pavilion is the same housing association to which Whiteley tried to offer the bungalow belonging to David Stevens.
David Stevens has suffered harassment by officials of the housing department, they have followed him home, have trespassed at his bungalow to take photos.
David Stevens is of the view that Alison Whiteley is conducting a personal vendetta against him. If true, this will not be the first time that Whiteley has abused her position, used her office and public resources to conduct vendettas against individuals who have dared cross her path and challenged her incompetence.
Harassment, personal vendettas, of anyone who disagrees with Alison Whiteley, appears to be the norm.
Peter Sandy, a hard-working Rushmoor councillor and community activist, has suffered years of a personal vendetta being waged against him by Whiteley that predates him becoming a councillor. Her latest action, was to put Peter Sandy before the Standards Board for England for allegedly daring to criticise her on a local radio programme. She claims the allegations caused her severe distress, even though she never actually heard the programme!
Peter Sandy has experienced nothing but bloody-minded obstruction from Whiteley ever since he became a councillor. The most recent example being denied documents relating to the David Stevens CPO.
The conduct of Whiteley has at times to be seen as childish in the extreme.
Rushmoor recently co-hosted a housing conference to explain the Housing Act 2004 to landlords. The second conference they have hosted this year for landlords. No such conference has been held for tenants. Peter Sandy is the only councillor who takes a keen interest in housing, who is knowledgeable on the subject. Whiteley failed to inform him of the conference and he had to learn of it from a member of the public.
David Stevens has seen his health deteriorate as a result of the distress he is being caused by Alison Whiteley and her housing department. With every knock on his door or a delivery by the postman, he fears the worst, yet more bad news.
The Department for Communities and Local Government has estimated that there is around 680,000 homes sitting empty in England, of which half are long-term empty properties, ie have been empty for six months or more, and a significant number have been abandoned for years. Halifax estimate nearly 300,000 homes have been sitting empty for more than six months. Empty homes are a wasted resource, and everything possible should be done to bring them back into use. Local authorities possess the powers to bring these properties back into use, powers which should only be used sparingly and as a last resort. But as with any powers, there is always the possibility of the powers being misused and abused.
CPOs and EDMOs have their uses, to bring empty properties back into use, but as we have seen in the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor, these powers can all too easily be abused.
The impression being given in the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor is that personal vendettas are being waged, the Council pimping on behalf of property developers and housing associations.
David Stevens has appealed to the Secretary of State. A Public Inquiry is to take place 9 January 2007 at the Council Offices in Farnborough. The Local Authority Ombudsman may be asked to investigate the maladministration.
Note: A request has been made to the Planning Inspectorate for the inquiry to be adjourned due to the failure of Rushmoor to supply requested documents.
David Stevens has added his voice to that of a growing number of people who are calling for the resignation of Alison Whiteley and an independent investigation into the activities of her housing department.
Reference
Council moves to bring empty bungalow back into use, press release, Rushmoor Borough Council, 11 July 2006
Council backs plan for another Pavilion merger, Farnborough Mail, 12 September 2006
Empty Dwelling Management Orders: Guidance for residential property owners on new powers available to local councils, Department for Communities and Local Government, May 2006
Homes to stay empty until town centre redevelopment, Farnborough Mail, 5 December 2006
http://www.farnborough.co.uk/news/2005/2005925/homes_to_stay_empty_until_town_centre_redevelopment Mike Lane, The Regeneration Game, November 2006 {DVD}
Marcus Mabberley, Council seeks to force owner of derelict home to sell, Farnborough Mail, 18 July 2006
Nearly 300,000 Homes Empty for more than 6 months, press release, Halifax, 21 October 2006
Nooks and Corners, Private Eye, 13-26 October 2006
Keith Parkins, Farnborough town centre – compulsory purchase orders, Indymedia UK, 16 October 2003
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/10/279026.html Keith Parkins, Farnborough town centre judicial review, Indymedia UK, 18 February 2004
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285606.html Keith Parkins, Rushmoor councillors guilty!, Indymedia UK, 8 November 2005
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327535.html Keith Parkins, Tragedy of Firgrove Court, Indymedia UK, 30 January 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332594.html Keith Parkins, Public Inquiry into road closures in Farnborough town centre, Indymedia UK, 30 January 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332595.html Keith Parkins, Curitiba – Designing a sustainable city, April 2006
http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/curitiba.htm Keith Parkins, First Wessex plan takeover of Portsmouth housing, Indymedia UK, 12 September 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350606.html Keith Parkins, Liverpool resident halts Pathfinder programme, Indymedia UK, 27 September 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/351960.html Keith Parkins, M3 Landlord Link Forum, Indymedia UK, 16 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353666.html Keith Parkins, Pathfinder hits the buffer, Indymedia UK, 17 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353777.html Keith Parkins, Big business to decide future of town centre, Indymedia UK, 30 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/354742.html Keith Parkins, Peter Sandy cleared of police allegations, Indymedia UK, 27 November 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/357114.html Keith Parkins, Empty property in Farnborough town centre, Indymedia UK, 27 November 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/357115.html Keith Parkins, Dodgy land deals in Farnborough town centre?, Indymedia UK, 18 December 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358511.html Jen Rivett, One in five homes fail to meet standards, Farnborough News, 30 June 2006
Alison Whiteley, Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO): 12 Chingford Avenue, Farnborough, Rushmoor Borough Council, 11 July 2006
Alison Whiteley, No 16 Redan Road, Aldershot, Rushmoor Borough Council, 26 September 2006
websites
http://www.communities.gov.uk/ http://www.communities.gov.uk/emptyhomes http://www.emptyhomes.com/ http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/ http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/ http://www.thetruthinrushmoor.co.uk/ Council attempts to seize retirement home
The Rotten Borough of Rushmoor is trying to seize a bungalow in Farnborough from a local man that he has earmarked as his retirement home.
'I feel like a rabbit trapped in the headlights of an oncoming car.' -- David Stevens
'There are still nearly 300,000 private homes in England which have been vacant for more than six months. This is a number which clearly needs to be brought down, particularly in the context of the country's longer term housing needs. Restoring an empty home is likely to be expensive, potentially costing close to £30,000 by our estimates.' -- Tim Crawford, Group Economist at Halifax
'Rushmoor Council has tried everything to bring the property back into use and the only option left is to seek a Compulsory Purchase Order. With the high level of housing needed in Rushmoor, we have to do whatever we can to make use of all available homes.' -- Alison Whiteley, Head of Housing Services
'We do not give this man anything.' -- Rushmoor housing official
David Stevens is in poor-ish health with a heart problem. Looking ahead to the future, he plans to move into a derelict bungalow which he is attempting to renovate. At least that was his intention until Rushmoor decided to seize it, causing further stress for a man already suffering from a dickey heart.
David Stevens was given one day's notice that the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor was going to discuss at a Cabinet meeting the seizure of his bungalow.
Following a brief presentation by Rushmoor Head of Housing Alison Whiteley, a presentation that was barely audible to the Public Gallery (a request from the Public Gallery to speak up was ignored), the Cabinet rubber-stamped her recommendations. She claimed that all avenues had been explored, a claim that David Stevens strongly refutes. No questions were asked, a few seconds elapsed, and the Cabinet moved onto the next item on the agenda. Not a single person in the Cabinet had the integrity or gumption to question what was going on. David Stevens was so appalled, that he stood up to ask 'is that it', and for his pains was summarily ejected from the meeting.
David Stevens was then bundled into a side-room where there was an attempt to discuss the matter with him. A discussion in which David Stevens refused to participate.
The measure that the Cabinet agreed, was to serve a CPO (compulsory purchase order). This is an extreme measure, a CPO should be only served if there is a benefit to the local community and as a last resort after all other options have been explored and exhausted.
Once seized, the property is to be sold at auction. Only if there is any money left after Rushmoor has deducted all its costs, will David Stevens see a penny from what was to have been his retirement home.
At the time it was decided to serve the CPO, powers had come into effect in April 2006 under the Housing Act 2004, which allows a Council to take over the management of residential property and bring it back into use if it has remained empty for six months or more. This is done by means of an Empty Dwelling Management Order. The Council itself cannot serve a EDMO, it has to apply to an independent Residential Property Tribunal.
There are two types of Order – an interim EDMO and final EDMO. These allow a local authority to secure occupation and proper management of privately owned houses and flats that have been unoccupied for a specified period of time and where certain other conditions are met. The council must apply to an independent Residential Property Tribunal to authorise the interim order which precedes the final EDMO. The local authority may not sell the property but can carry out works to make the property fit to occupy and can also let the property. With an interim management order permission of the owner is required for letting, however when a final management order is made the council can let the property without the permission of the owner.
Why did Rushmoor not apply for an EDMO? At the time it was the most appropriate instrument to use. We can only guess it was because they would have had to have put their case before an independent Residential Property Tribunal, where it would have come under proper scrutiny.
Recently a housing official has admitted that they are reluctant to use an EDMO, even though it is the obvious instrument to use as it brings the property back into use, as they do not wish to bear the costs to bring the property back into use which they may not be able to recover from the rent they charge.
A CPO should only be served if there is a clear benefit to the wider community. In her report to the Cabinet, Alison Whiteley demonstrated no benefit to the local community to be achieved by serving a CPO. An EDMO would only temporarily deprive David Stevens of the use of his property, would bring the property back into use. A CPO does neither, it permanently deprives David Stevens of his property, with no guarantee that a change of ownership brings the property back into use. There would appear to be a hidden agenda. A suspicion reinforced by the Council spreading rumours that the property is rat infested.
When it was drawn recently to the attention of a housing official that a CPO was not the appropriate instrument to use as it did not guarantee that the property would be brought back into use, but merely changed the ownership, she agreed.
With a poor heart and deteriorating health, David Stevens wishes to move into a bungalow. The Cabinet was not told this. The Council claims the bungalow to be in a poor state of repair, so even if David Stevens wished to move into the bungalow tomorrow he could not do so as it is not in a fit state of repair. The Council also knows David Stevens intends to renovate the property. Nevertheless, they have decided to seize his future home.
This is how the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor treats its residents. No-one questioned what Whitely had to say. Although given only one day's notice, David Stevens nevertheless managed to be present at the meeting, he was not asked to speak or present his case or allowed to challenge the lies put before the Cabinet.
Apart from being denied his own property, in what amounts to little more than theft, there was a serious breach of the Human Rights Act on three counts: the right to property, the right to quite enjoyment of ones family home, the right to a fair hearing.
No discussion took place on Human Rights, nor were they mentioned in the report placed before the Cabinet. The failure to consider the Human Rights implication of the decision, was in itself a breach of the Human Rights Act.
Councils pay scant regard to Human Rights, as has been seen in Liverpool, where homes are being bulldozed under the Pathfinder programme by means of CPOs. When challenged in the High Court, Liverpool City Council lost.
Within days of David Stevens being threatened with the loss of his retirement home, he was approached by a property developer who offered him a paltry £70,000 (later upped to £80,00) paid in installments over the year, a fraction of what the site was worth. A coincidence?
It is known the council has been in discussion with property developers, but so far, the council has refused to release the correspondence.
An estate agent and property developer sits on the Cabinet. Should he have withdrawn when this item was discussed as he appeared to have a prejudicial interest (he withdrew when a following item was discussed)? He did not withdraw or declare a prejudicial interest. If it can be shown he had a prejudicial interest, which he failed to declare, it would invalidate any decision reached by the Cabinet. The matter has been referred to the Standard Board for England for investigation. If found guilty, he could be barred from serving as a councillor.
Last year three Rushmoor councillors were found guilty of having a prejudicial interest when the planning committee determined an application for redevelopment of Farnborough town centre.
A local estate agent has recently valued the property at £300,000, if sold with consent for redevelopment, the site would be worth more.
The property lies within a Conservation Area. At least it does at the moment. The Council is trying to shrink the area. Any future owner may have a development opportunity due to a relaxation of planning restraints, not available at present.
A property was recently served a CPO in Bagshot Lea (near Aldershot). The case was fought and won. It caused the elderly couple who owned the property a great deal of worry and distress. We have since learnt a local housing association was interested in the land for redevelopment!
Double standards are in operation here, and one could take the view that a personal vendetta is being waged and that David Stevens is being singled out and victimised.
In 2000, long before the Council had approached David Stevens, let alone had tried to determine his intentions or even knew who he was, the housing department were in talks with a local housing association to take-over the property.
Alison Whitley asked Pavilion, a local housing association, to help her out, as she was under 'political' pressure.
When these talks fell through, internal discussions took place with the planning department as to whether the 'site' had development potential.
The Council leafleted the area in an attempt to find the owner of the empty property, even though their own file shows they had this information through Council Tax records. Having publicised the fact the property was lying empty, it was subsequently broken into several times.
Housing officials threatened to put the property on an Empty Property List which would be placed in the public domain, a serious breach of personal privacy, and a further breach of the Human Rights Act.
A recent inquiry to the Council and they say the Empty Property List is not in the public domain, never has been, and they are seeking legal advice. Thus, the threat to David Stevens to publicise his empty property was nothing less than a crude attempt at intimidation.
But, even though the Council knew they were on dodgy legal grounds, following the Cabinet decision to serve a CPO, they released the address of the property to the local press, with sufficient information to enable the owner of the property to be identified.
In 2005, three CPOs were served on owners of vacant residential property. The cabinet met in closed session, no information was released to the press.
Property developers have been approached to see whether they are interested in acquiring the property.
Internal e-mails within the housing department show they were seeking properties on which CPOs could be served. The emphasis was on serving CPOs, not bringing the properties back into use.
The focus of the Council, of any council, should be on identifying and bringing back into use empty properties. The focus should not be on serving CPOs, even less on acquiring empty properties for housing associations and property developers.
David Stevens was targetted: The Environmental Health Department was asked to check out his property, but could find nothing amiss. Nor was the garden found to be in sufficiently bad state to serve him under legislation covering untidy gardens.
In 2004, a Rushmoor councillor e-mailed Alison Whiteley to ask that this property was taken off their 'hit list' and drew attention to the fact that work had taken place. The response was that they did not know work had taken place. This information, that a local councillor had informed Whiteley that work had taken place (of which she was unaware), was not communicated to the Cabinet.
Owners of empty properties can apply for grants of up to £10,000 to help bring the empty properties back into use. David Stevens has not been offered a penny. In 2005, David Steven tried to obtain a form to get a grant, but got nowhere, other than to hear the case officer shout to her colleague 'we do not give this man anything'. He came away empty handed, without even an application form.
At a meeting in May 2006, David Stevens, when he asked, was told that the Council had no intention of serving a CPO. At the same meeting David Stevens raised the use of an EDMO. Two months later, a CPO was served.
Ten days before the Cabinet met, a housing official e-mailed the Cabinet Member with responsibility for housing with a suggested attributable quote from him that would go in a press release.
David Stevens has decided to challenge the serving of the CPO.
As I write, mid-December 2006, David Stevens was still being denied by the Council documents that he needs to fight the case. This despite repeated requests. Nor has his lawyer been able to obtain all the document, neither has a councillor who has tried. David Stevens has also being denied sight of documents relating to the case that in the view of the assistant Borough Solicitor he does not need to see.
The level of hypocrisy and double standards operating in the Borough beggars belief. According to the Farnborough Mail, after claiming that the 'Council has tried everything to bring the property back into use and the only option left is to seek a compulsory purchase order', a claim David Steven strongly refutes, '[Alison Whiteley] added that a high level of housing was required in the borough and the council had to make use of all available sites.'
There is a large amount of empty property within the Borough, but no attempt is being made to bring it back into use, even though there is long waiting list for housing. The worst example of property lying empty is in Farnborough town centre, not a stone's throw way from Whiteley's office.
In 2004, attention was drawn to Whiteley of the empty property in the town centre. Whiteley was asked the number of empty properties and what she intended to do to bring the properties back into use. She blatantly lied and claimed there was no empty property. She was asked to try again. She came back with a figure of half a dozen. Asked to try again, she came back with a number running into double figures, but claimed it would be too costly for the Council to bring the property back into use, and in any case it would not be an appropriate use of public funding as the area was earmarked for redevelopment.
In 2000, internal e-mails within the housing department show officials were aware and concerned at the large number of empty flats above the shops in the town centre and that pressure should be brought to bear on property developer KPI to bring them back into use. Why was no action taken? Why, four years later, did Whiteley try to claim there was no empty property, then fabricate excuses for inaction?
More than eight years ago, the town centre was bought by KPI (a Kuwaiti-financed front-company of property developer St Modwen, a company with a track record of destroying town centres). KPI has driven out retailers and residential tenants, the town centre now lies semi-derelict and has been in this state for some years. KPI has planning consent to redevelop the area, demolition to build an unwanted superstore, and demolition of a housing estate of social housing for the car park for the superstore. When Whiteley made her statement in 2004, KPI did not have planning consent, thus she prejudiced the planning decision. Flats above the shops are sitting empty, maisonettes are sitting empty at Firgrove Court. Pavilion, a local housing association, has destroyed kitchens, bathrooms and boilers to render the maisonettes uninhabitable. The Council does not own any of this property, where therefore is the cost to the public purse?
Although void of tenants, the empty maisonettes at Firgrove Court are being put to some use by Pavilion. Pavilion is using these empty properties to store possessions from other empty properties where the tenants have either been evicted or done a runner, thus creating a fire risk for the tenants in the remaining occupied maisonettes. To increase the risk, fire doors across communal exits have been locked shut.
We know from internal e-mails, that Whitely and her housing department have been aware since April 2000 of empty property in Farnborough town centre. It is now November 2006, and still no action has been taken to bring this empty property back into use.
Not only are the council aware of the empty properties at Firgrove Court and turning a blind eye, but actually condone what is going on. In a reply to queries on empty property in the town centre and at Firgrove Court, housing official Jane Abraham (the same official trying to seize the bungalow from David Stevens), not only admitted that she knew that Pavilion was ripping out kitchens, bathrooms and boilers, but supported what Pavilion were doing in making their empty properties uninhabitable as it made the few remaining tenants feel more secure!
The role of Jane Abraham within Rushmoor housing department is to identify empty housing and bring it back into use!
Had there ever existed a genuine desire by Whiteley and her team to bring the bungalow back into habitable use, they would have approached the owner David Stevens, asked for a guided tour, to enable him to show them the work carried out, his future plans, and to provide them with the opportunity to outline possibilities. No such approach was ever made.
On the other hand, David Stevens wrote to Rushmoor Head of Housing Alison Whiteley inviting her to come on a site visit to see for herself the work in progress. Not only did she never take up his offer, she lacked the common courtesy to reply.
Mid-November 2006, the assistant Borough Solicitor in brief conversation with David Stevens, claimed Rushmoor had done much to help him to bring the property back into use. Challenged to provide examples of what they had done, all she could respond with was that they had given him a leaflet Let it, Don't Waste It. She also suggested he not contest the CPO and sell his property to developers!
The irony is that before any talks or discussions had taken place with the owner of the property, Alison Whiteley was trying to offer it Pavilion, a local housing association, the same housing association that not only has kept properties empty for several years at Firgrove Court, but has gone in and ripped out the kitchens, bathrooms and boilers to make the properties uninhabitable.
A couple of years ago, Pavilion received a damning report from the Audit Commission, which resulted in their Chief Executive at the time being forced out. Not wishing to alienate her friends at Pavilion upon whom she is dependent for political favours, Alison Whitely was claiming there was nothing wrong.
With the help of Alison Whiteley, Pavilion was subsequently taken over by Eastleigh-based Atlantic to form First Wessex.
Against the wishes of tenants, but with the help and support of Alison Whiteley, First Wessex is now trying to take over Portsmouth Housing Association.
If the superstore is ever built in Farnborough town centre, there will flats above the superstore. The development will not meet Council policy on the percentage of social housing, and that is not counting the loss of social housing at Firgrove Court. As a consultee, Alison Whiteley raised no objection, indeed according to the official record, she made no comment at all, ie the head of housing raised no objection that Council policy on social housing was not being met!
Residential tenants above the derelict shops were driven out by bully-boy tactics and intimidation. One lady arrived home to find chicken wire preventing access to her home. KPI claimed they had made a mistake and did not know the flat was occupied! She, after a year of hassle and stress, was eventually rehoused, it is not known what has happened to the other tenants. Head of Housing Alison Whiteley was aware of what was going on, but made no attempt to help or intervene.
The remaining occupants of Firgrove Court, the estate of 28 maisonettes, are being driven out by disrepair. The handful of owner occupiers who had exercised their right to buy, were threatened with CPOs to drive them out. Persons who intervened on behalf of the tenants were told by the Council to mind their own business!
Retailers have also been threatened with CPOs to drive them out.
CPOs are very useful for aiding ones property developer friends. It is of course a mere coincidence that the leader of the Council has regular secret meetings with KPI who have done such a good job of trashing Farnborough town centre.
More than two years on from when Whiteley was first asked the question, the properties in the town centre are still sitting empty. There are now more lying empty.
Currently there are around 40-50 flats lying empty in Farnborough town centre, a dozen maisonettes at Firgrove Court.
Meetings have been organised by Whiteley and her housing department to help landlords understand the Housing Act 2004. No meetings have been organised for tenants. A blind eye is turned to the activities of known local Rachman landlords. The Council refuses to take enforcement action against bad landlords to force repair when their properties are in serious disrepair.
Homeless are turned away by the housing department, with no offer of help. They are treated like dirt.
One of the worst recent cases was a pregnant girl living in a car. Her car has since been repossessed.
It is not just the homeless, tenants fare little better, especially those with serious disrepair.
A disabled, vulnerable adult is facing a second winter with a home in very serious disrepair, including lack of hot water and heating, water pouring down the walls when it rains. Housing officials, including Alison Whiteley, have repeatedly lied about his case. The lies have become so convoluted, that they now contradict themselves and each other every time they comment on the case. One small illustration, a housing official claimed there was no problems with the gutters, he made his unannounced inspection on a dry sunny day when there had been no rain for weeks. Since then, the official has been forced to admit there is a problem, but refused to take action unless there was evidence of damp. The walls are saturated with water and covered in green mould! The Council has powers to enforce repairs, which it refuses to use, on the other hand, officials have been happy to conspire with the landlord to evict the tenant. When the tenant was being harassed by the landlord to force him to leave the property and he sought help from the Council, the Council responded by advising the landlord how to evict the tenant legally and from where further information could be obtained.
When the tenant refused to play ball and protested his treatment, he was threatened with an ABC (the precursor to an ASBO) and refused a place on the Housing List. Meanwhile, the tenant suffers deteriorating health, has at least twice been driven to suicide.
A schizophrenic was dumped in a flat in Aldershot without any support from the agencies charged with his mental and social welfare, what is jokingly called 'Care in the Community'. The flat has now lain empty for well over a year, no attempt has been made to clean the flat of the human excrement that carpets the flat. The flat belongs to Pavilion. According to statements made by Pavilion at public meetings in Aldershot, the person responsible for dumping the schizophrenic in the flat with no support package was Alison Whiteley.
Pavilion, with the help of Alison Whiteley, sought to dispose of a property in Aldershot that had been empty for three years. It was in such a derelict state of repair, that Pavilion decided it was not cost effective to carry our repairs. In their damning report on Pavilion, the Audit Commission criticised Pavilion for the number of empty properties, the state of these empty property, the length of time they were void of tenants and the fact that Pavilion seemed to have little idea of how many empty properties they had or for how long they had remained empty.
Currently, one in five of Pavilion homes fail to meet the Decent Home Standard.
Pavilion is the same housing association to which Whiteley tried to offer the bungalow belonging to David Stevens.
David Stevens has suffered harassment by officials of the housing department, they have followed him home, have trespassed at his bungalow to take photos.
David Stevens is of the view that Alison Whiteley is conducting a personal vendetta against him. If true, this will not be the first time that Whiteley has abused her position, used her office and public resources to conduct vendettas against individuals who have dared cross her path and challenged her incompetence.
Harassment, personal vendettas, of anyone who disagrees with Alison Whiteley, appears to be the norm.
Peter Sandy, a hard-working Rushmoor councillor and community activist, has suffered years of a personal vendetta being waged against him by Whiteley that predates him becoming a councillor. Her latest action, was to put Peter Sandy before the Standards Board for England for allegedly daring to criticise her on a local radio programme. She claims the allegations caused her severe distress, even though she never actually heard the programme!
Peter Sandy has experienced nothing but bloody-minded obstruction from Whiteley ever since he became a councillor. The most recent example being denied documents relating to the David Stevens CPO.
The conduct of Whiteley has at times to be seen as childish in the extreme.
Rushmoor recently co-hosted a housing conference to explain the Housing Act 2004 to landlords. The second conference they have hosted this year for landlords. No such conference has been held for tenants. Peter Sandy is the only councillor who takes a keen interest in housing, who is knowledgeable on the subject. Whiteley failed to inform him of the conference and he had to learn of it from a member of the public.
David Stevens has seen his health deteriorate as a result of the distress he is being caused by Alison Whiteley and her housing department. With every knock on his door or a delivery by the postman, he fears the worst, yet more bad news.
The Department for Communities and Local Government has estimated that there is around 680,000 homes sitting empty in England, of which half are long-term empty properties, ie have been empty for six months or more, and a significant number have been abandoned for years. Halifax estimate nearly 300,000 homes have been sitting empty for more than six months. Empty homes are a wasted resource, and everything possible should be done to bring them back into use. Local authorities possess the powers to bring these properties back into use, powers which should only be used sparingly and as a last resort. But as with any powers, there is always the possibility of the powers being misused and abused.
CPOs and EDMOs have their uses, to bring empty properties back into use, but as we have seen in the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor, these powers can all too easily be abused.
The impression being given in the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor is that personal vendettas are being waged, the Council pimping on behalf of property developers and housing associations.
David Stevens has appealed to the Secretary of State. A Public Inquiry is to take place 9 January 2007 at the Council Offices in Farnborough. The Local Authority Ombudsman may be asked to investigate the maladministration.
Note: A request has been made to the Planning Inspectorate for the inquiry to be adjourned due to the failure of Rushmoor to supply requested documents.
David Stevens has added his voice to that of a growing number of people who are calling for the resignation of Alison Whiteley and an independent investigation into the activities of her housing department.
Reference
Council moves to bring empty bungalow back into use, press release, Rushmoor Borough Council, 11 July 2006
Council backs plan for another Pavilion merger, Farnborough Mail, 12 September 2006
Empty Dwelling Management Orders: Guidance for residential property owners on new powers available to local councils, Department for Communities and Local Government, May 2006
Homes to stay empty until town centre redevelopment, Farnborough Mail, 5 December 2006
http://www.farnborough.co.uk/news/2005/2005925/homes_to_stay_empty_until_town_centre_redevelopment Mike Lane, The Regeneration Game, November 2006 {DVD}
Marcus Mabberley, Council seeks to force owner of derelict home to sell, Farnborough Mail, 18 July 2006
Nearly 300,000 Homes Empty for more than 6 months, press release, Halifax, 21 October 2006
Nooks and Corners, Private Eye, 13-26 October 2006
Keith Parkins, Farnborough town centre – compulsory purchase orders, Indymedia UK, 16 October 2003
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/10/279026.html Keith Parkins, Farnborough town centre judicial review, Indymedia UK, 18 February 2004
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285606.html Keith Parkins, Rushmoor councillors guilty!, Indymedia UK, 8 November 2005
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327535.html Keith Parkins, Tragedy of Firgrove Court, Indymedia UK, 30 January 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332594.html Keith Parkins, Public Inquiry into road closures in Farnborough town centre, Indymedia UK, 30 January 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332595.html Keith Parkins, Curitiba – Designing a sustainable city, April 2006
http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/curitiba.htm Keith Parkins, First Wessex plan takeover of Portsmouth housing, Indymedia UK, 12 September 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350606.html Keith Parkins, Liverpool resident halts Pathfinder programme, Indymedia UK, 27 September 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/351960.html Keith Parkins, M3 Landlord Link Forum, Indymedia UK, 16 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353666.html Keith Parkins, Pathfinder hits the buffer, Indymedia UK, 17 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353777.html Keith Parkins, Big business to decide future of town centre, Indymedia UK, 30 October 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/354742.html Keith Parkins, Peter Sandy cleared of police allegations, Indymedia UK, 27 November 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/357114.html Keith Parkins, Empty property in Farnborough town centre, Indymedia UK, 27 November 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/357115.html Keith Parkins, Dodgy land deals in Farnborough town centre?, Indymedia UK, 18 December 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358511.html Jen Rivett, One in five homes fail to meet standards, Farnborough News, 30 June 2006
Alison Whiteley, Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO): 12 Chingford Avenue, Farnborough, Rushmoor Borough Council, 11 July 2006
Alison Whiteley, No 16 Redan Road, Aldershot, Rushmoor Borough Council, 26 September 2006
websites
http://www.communities.gov.uk/ http://www.communities.gov.uk/emptyhomes http://www.emptyhomes.com/ http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/ http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/ http://www.thetruthinrushmoor.co.uk/
Keith Parkins
Homepage:
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/
Comments
Display the following 5 comments