Sense and Sensibility
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509069&in_page_id=1770
Pensioner arrested and locked in cell for shouting at yobs who threw stones at ducks
By
JAYA NARAIN 18th January 2008
A
pensioner who ordered a gang of youths to stop throwing
bricks at ducks on a canal was arrested and thrown into a
cell by police.
When
police officers knocked on his door Bill Marshall, 73, was
expecting them to investigate his complaints about the
unruly gang. Instead the stunned great-grandfather was
hauled off to a police cell accused of attacking the youths
on the canal bank.
Yesterday
the retired miner - who has a heart condition and diabetes
- spoke of his shock and humiliation over the arrest. He
said : "I was shocked when a police officer turned up
on my doorstep. I had made a number of complaints about
anti-social behaviour from these yobs so I expected it was
a response to that.
"I was quite happy to invite
him in but then he said I was being arrested and taken to
the station accused of assault. I thought it was a joke at
first but then I realised he was perfectly serious.
"The
officer ordered me to take the laces out my shoes as I was
being arrested for common assault. I didn't know what to
think."
Mr Marshall was driven to the police
station and put into a cell before having to wait two hours
for a duty solicitor.
He was interviewed by officers
over the alleged assault before finally being released
pending further inquiries. But weeks after the incident
police have now formally dropped any charges against the
pensioner and apologised.
Mr Marshall's ordeal began
shortly before Christmas when he spotted the group of
teenage boys throwing bricks at ducks as he walked along
the banks of the Chesterfield Canal. He shouted at them to
stop but received a barrage of abuse from the aggressive
gang who continued to throw stones.
Mr Marshall of
Shireoaks, near Worksop, Notts admitted shouting back at
the group in anger but said he was nowhere near them and
did not touch them. However one youth reported the incident
to police claiming the pensioner had struck him during the
altercation.
He said: "One of the yobs said I
had hit him and so they took his word against mine. I might
have lost my temper and shouted at them but I did not hit
anybody.
"I am a 73-year-old pensioner and they
were a gang of youths. I wasn't going to try and take them
on at my age."
"It took 73 years for an
idiot to put me in jail. All I did was try to stop these
louts throwing rocks at the ducks on the canal.
"I
felt degraded spending time in that cell. I can't believe I
ended up in jail at my age. I've never seen the inside of a
cell before and I don't want to see it again.
The police
seemed to automatically assumed I was guilty instead of
talking to me first."
Mr Marshall said the same
gang had targetted him and his wife, Margaret, 72, at their
home in recent months.
His case was taken up by
local councillor, Ivor Jones, who thought Mr Marshall had
been unfairly treated by police. Now police have apologised
to the pensioner but defended their actions claiming the
officer did what he thought was right.
Chief
Inspector Glenn Harper of Nottinghamshire Police said: "He
was, however, young in service and with full sight of the
circumstances, the officer can now appreciate the full
consequences of the action taken, and therefore why I felt
the need to intervene."
He said: "I
apologise to Mr Marshall for the distress this experience
has caused him and his family and I will ensure the
necessary training needs are addressed."
Mr Harper
confirmed that an inspector had since visited Mr Marshall
at home to explain the case would not proceed to court. The
boy who had accused the pensioner of common assault was
also told the charge against Mr Marshall had been dropped.
_____________________________________
Member
of public comes across known thugs engaging in
anti-social/criminal behaviour.
Member of public intervenes to try and stop the behaviour.
Member of public is abused by said yobs.
Yobs make false allegations against member of public to police.
Member of public is arrested.
Member of public has previously made complaints to police about said thugs anti-social behaviour - said thugs not arrested.
The above article is sadly becoming all to common in the society we now live in, and ties in with how in camden certain police officers abuse their positions and collude with well known thugs and criminals.
These well known villains quite regularly engage in anti-social/ criminal behaviour and the police in camden do nothing. Yet when a member of the public stands up to these thugs and challenges their behaviour you are abused by them, and like in the above article, these deviants go running to the police with bulshte allegations about you. Then you are in for more abuse by certain bent coppers who will either arrest you, come to your home and intimidate you, or send out emails that attempt to intimidate you.........
........... on a lighter note and one that says much about how ridiculous the establishment has become: a email was sent to the met police, was screened and sent back to sender - because it had an offending word within the text of the email - the word being 'bollocks'...... I still laugh at that one....
I used to love watching the Sweeeny with the ruffty tuffty coppers Regan and Carter. 'You're nicked! - 'you're going downnnnnnnn' .. coppers chasing villains, catching villains and 'ruffing' them up a bit....
Decent Homes Standards Costings under Scrutiny
Inside
Housing
14th Jan 08
Local authorities’ stock transfer publicity to be investigated
Councils' claims about the cost of bringing their properties up to the decent homes standard are to come under greater scrutiny by the local government watchdog. The move is spelled out in a letter sent by the Audit Commission to a tenant campaigner, Michael Barratt. He claimed that Crawley Council had exaggerated the cost of refurbishing its homes when proposing to transfer its stock to a housing association.
The authority was rapped by the Advertising Standards Authority in July for making misleading claims in its stock transfer publicity about the decent homes price tag.
The council later acknowledged it could meet the minimum standards for nearly £58 million, less than the £60.5 million named in its publicity, had government criteria been strictly applied. It claimed that its materials and methods had been no different to those used in hundreds of other ballots.
Since then, Mr Barratt has been pushing for better scrutiny of the financial information used by councils in drawing up stock transfer proposals for tenants.
The commission's managing director for audit, Martin Evans, initially said that its auditors were not responsible for scrutinising financial information provided to tenants as part of a stock transfer ballot process.
But in a U-turn this month, Mr Evans told Mr Barratt in a letter that his auditors needed further guidance on scrutinising the finances of councils considering stock transfers. 'Further to our correspondence and discussions, I have concluded that we do need to give further guidance to our appointed auditors in relation to possible stock transfers,' the letter states. 'Auditors…have a role in satisfying themselves that the council has appropriate (robust, reliable and relevant) information on which to arrive at its decisions in relation to any potential stock transfer and that it has considered all the implications of any such transfer, in particular for its own financial standing.'
Mr Evans added that the commission's auditors should review the ballot publicity sent to tenants, to ensure that the figures provided matched those used by the council.
Mr Barratt said he welcomed the commission's change of heart. 'Perhaps this initiative will, in future, discourage past abuses of the manipulation of financial information merely to encourage a yes vote in the stock options process.'
The Communities and Local Government department told Inside Housing last year that decent homes guidance gave 'flexibility to local authorities to set their own standards for the stock transfer offer to tenants' (7 September ).
But in an email to Mr Barratt a CLG official said it expected local authorities and consultants to adopt a 'strict reading' of its guidance.
______________________________________
Talking of costings: camdens decent homes standards and estate regeneration - I'm quite baffled by the array of figures banded around by housing officers and the housing executive regarding how much this is going to cost over the coming years. Indeed how much it will cost in total, how much it has cost so far? from observation, when officers give these reports councillors, our elected representatives are too afraid to ask for proper breakdowns maybe because they might cause council officers distress and make them cry.
One can almost see the poles they have stuck up their clenched backsides twitching when a councillor dares question these reports. Red alert red alert councillor questioning our authority ...... have ambulance and psycho team on standby in case officer goes into spasms flops on the floor and starts mumbling incoherently.
I believe that the costings given are inflated. Too many crooks spoil the broth as I say. Latest figure (Jan 08) is an incredible £500m!!
Camden council does not make public detailed breakdowns of its finances and in housing for regeneration and improving housing standards there is a huge amount of money - £500m and more floating around ........... contractors, suppliers, housing officers, housing executive, planning officers, tenant reps and others ...... all that money and little in the way of accountability is just too tempting I reckon.
Not Managing the Risk of Fraud
The below excerpts are from a guidance/best practice document titled Managing the Risk of Fraud, which can be found on the ALARM website. ALARM is the national forum for risk management in the public sector.
Camden council has a representative on the board of directors and I find it worrying, but not surprising that ALARM appears to be yet another quango camden council utilises to put on a show of compliance to the law in combating or 'taking measures to combat' fraud. Given that camden council and its work force can't actually manage to follow policies and procedures and show no genuine signs of being able to, I found it quite comical. How long does camden council imagine it can get away with using props to gloss over poor performance and management?
Even more comical is one of the ALARM board of directors, camdens own head of internal audit and investigation tracy barnett, who I went to with evidence of fraud committed by a camden council funded voluntary group. I had obtained the accounts of this group and went over them and thought "hello, naughty council funded voluntary group you have been up to no good, I no i'll contact camdens internal auditor".
After conducting an 'investigation' (speaking with housing officers) Ms Barnett concluded that the accounts I had given her were 'in her view' not actually accounts (not accounts?).
I believe Ms Barnett deliberately ignored the evidence I gave her on advice from senior housing officers who have a vested interest in this association. Defining fraud is often a problem for camden council, but I have one definition (below) taken from Newham council's website.
"To have a clear understand of fraud a clear definition is needed.
Our Definition:
The deliberate changing of financial statements or other records by either a member of the public or someone who works for the council, done to hide theft or use of equipment, money or services for personal gain."
(LBNewham Council website)
And there was me thinking camden councils internal auditors were independent and not subject to undue influence.
MANAGING
THE RISK OF FRAUD: THE ALARM STANDARD FOR RISK
ADVISORS
THE NATIONAL FORUM FOR RISK
MANAGEMENT
IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
WHY A STANDARD FOR MANAGING THE RISK OF FRAUD?
The recent
National Fraud Review and the publication of the Fraud Act
2006 have served to focus attention on the major issues
that have developed over recent years with regard to
the
occurrence of fraud against the public sector.
There is no doubt that instances of fraud in the public sector show an ever increasing trend, particularly in key financial/operational areas such as procurement, insurance, housing benefits and partnership areas. In addition, information and personal data held within an organisation is an area that is now at increasing risk of abuse, particularly in relation to identity fraud. The fraud review highlights the fact that financial levels of fraud against the public sector have significantly increased and provides examples of key areas where fraud has occurred.
It stresses
that the accurate measurement of the financial impact of
fraud is a future priority. An overriding responsibility of
public sector organisations is the provision of effective
and efficient services to clients and stakeholders in a
manner that seeks to ensure the best possible
protection
of the public purse in its delivery arrangements.
The impact of
fraud on a public sector organisation can have consequences
that are serious and often far reaching. Fraud can directly
affect the ability of the public sector to serve the
most
vulnerable in society. Financial and reputational
loss are the obvious key risk areas but instances of fraud
can also bring a range of other serious consequences
including breakdown of trust, political fall-out, impact on
morale and the risk of potential litigation.
It is essential that public sector organisations place the management of risk of fraud at the very top of their corporate governance arrangements. Compliance with the principles set out in this paper will ensure that organisations are adopting ‘best practice’ in their approach to this matter.
In addition, there are a number of other key guidance documents that have been produced in this field, including the recent publication from the CIPFA Better Governance Forum. A number of documents for reference are listed in Appendix 1.
Public sector
organisations have responsibility for the provision and
control of a wide range of diverse services and the
methodology of managing the risk of fraud will need to be
tailored
to the specifics of an individual service.
Overarching
these specific services, however, is the need for
organisations to have in place sound corporate governance
arrangements that span and direct all areas of the
organisation’s
business and operational activity.
In order to manage the risk of fraud at an acceptable level, there are five key essentials of corporate governance that should be in place. These are illustrated in Diagram 1, below. These should not be seen as the only key governance requirements and organisations will need to consider local circumstances that affect their overall governance arrangements.
Diagram 1:
1. Embedded strategic approach to risk management
2. Culture of zero tolerance
3. Sound counter-fraud and corruption Framework
4. Strong systems of internal control
5. Close working arrangements with partners in relation to counter-fraud work.
____________________________________________
In camden councils case 'a deeply embedded culture of fraud at a level acceptable to the council' or 'the nuts and bolts of how the council operates' but lets put on a show we are actually taking fraud seriously and hope nobody notices the deceit.
Whistle Blowers Wanted
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jan/10/pressandpublishing.medialaw
Civil
servant who leaked rendition secrets goes free
Richard
Norton-Taylor
The
Guardian,
Thursday January 10 2008
Secrets
charges against a Foreign Office civil servant were
dramatically dropped at the Old Bailey yesterday after it
emerged that senior figures within his own department had
privately admitted no harm was done by his leaking a series
of Whitehall documents.
The
case against Derek Pasquill, who faced jail for passing
secret papers to journalists, collapsed as it was becoming
increasingly clear that it could have caused the government
severe political embarrassment.
The
leaked documents related to the US practice of secretly
transporting terror suspects to places where they risked
being tortured, and UK government policy towards Muslim
groups.
Pasquill, 48, an
official in the FCO's Engaging with the Islamic World
Group, was arrested two years ago, but only charged last
September with leaks to the Observer and New Statesman
magazine. He faced six counts under the Official Secrets
Act, accused of leaking documents about what Britain knew
of America's policy of extraordinary rendition and guidance
about which Muslim organisations ministers should
embrace.
Yesterday, Mark
Ellison, counsel for the government, told Judge Peter
Beaumont, the Recorder of London: "There is no longer
a realistic prospect of a conviction in this case." He
indicated that internal FCO papers revealed that senior
officials privately admitted that, far from harming British
interests, Pasquill's leaking of the documents had actually
helped to provoke a constructive debate.
The
prosecution would have had to prove that leaking the
documents had caused damage.
The
internal FCO papers that fatally undermined the case are
understood to have been written shortly after Pasquill's
arrest two years ago, but the police and prosecution
lawyers had not been aware of their existence until last
month and the defence was not aware of them until yesterday
morning.
Sources familiar
with the case said several ministers were aware that they
could be called by the defence. They included the former
communities secretary Ruth Kelly, her successor, Hazel
Blears, and David Miliband, the foreign secretary.
Julian
Knowles, defending, yesterday told the court that the
documents should have been released earlier, saving
Pasquill the stress and worry of a 20-month police special
branch investigation. The leaked documents dealt with
topics such as "hearts and minds of Muslims",
"engaging with Islamists", conversations between
the home secretary and the foreign secretary, "detainees",
and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Knowles said.
After
he was discharged, Pasquill told the Guardian he had
suffered a "very unpleasant ordeal", adding: "I
am relieved I have now been completely vindicated in my
actions exposing dangerous government policy and changing
its priorities."
Of
his decision to leak the papers, Pasquill, who remains
suspended on full pay, said: "I realised that is a
dangerous way to proceed, but this was an issue which was
obviously of public interest given the circumstances we are
in at the moment in the UK and the world."
Neil
O'May, Pasquill's solicitor, said: "The prosecution
was a scandal. It was a case where the government was
shooting the messenger. It is clear that the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office took the view that Derek Pasquill's
disclosures were not damaging to international relations.
Nevertheless, they let [him] suffer an investigation and
arrest, a charge and a full criminal prosecution for two
years before they disclosed their views."
Lady
Scotland, the attorney general, gave her assent to the
prosecution before Pasquill was charged, a spokesman said
last night. The Guardian has learned that one of the
prosecution's arguments was that the leaking of any
official documents damaged the UK's relations with the
US.
A Foreign Office
spokesman said leaking official documents was "absolutely
contrary" to good government. "As Mr Pasquill may
be subject to internal disciplinary procedures, any further
comment would be inappropriate."
The
editor of the New Statesman, John Kampfner, described the
prosecution as misguided and malicious, "particularly
given that a number of government ministers privately
acknowledged from the outset that the information provided
to us by Derek Pasquill had been in the public interest and
was responsible in large part for changing government
policy for the good in terms of extraordinary rendition and
policy towards radical Islam".
The
Observer described Pasquill as "an honourable civil
servant who stood up for the best liberal values of his
country".
James
Welch, legal director of the civil rights group Liberty,
said: "No more innocents should suffer before the
government honours its promise to review the Official
Secrets Act.
Backstory
The
paper trail
Martin Bright began receiving dozens of
leaked Foreign Office documents in late 2005, which he
described as a journalistic goldmine. A Foreign Office
civil servant, concerned that the government was engaging
with radical Islamic groups, passed him "dozens of
emails, position papers and policy discussions".
Derek
Pasquill sent the documents to Bright - a former Observer
journalist, now the New Statesman's political editor -
because he was concerned that the government, and notably
Jack Straw, the then foreign secretary, were concentrating
on contacts with the Muslim Council of Britain at the
expense of other organisations, a policy the government has
since changed.
He was
concerned about the FCO's policy of secretly engaging with
the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, an opposition movement.
Ministers admitted that the leaked documents helped them
raise issues of concern. One of the documents Pasquill
leaked revealed how little British officials knew of the US
"extraordinary rendition" programme. The
practice, said one official, "is almost certainly
illegal". Another asked: "How do we know whether
those our armed forces have helped to capture in Iraq or
Afghanistan have subsequently been sent to interrogation
centres? We have no mechanism for establishing this
..."
One document
revealed warnings by Sir Michael Jay, then the FCO's top
official, that the Iraq war was fuelling Muslim extremism
in Britain. British foreign policy, he warned, was a
"recurring theme" in the Muslim community,
"especially in the context of the Middle East peace
process and Iraq".
Jay
referred to the "potential underlying causes of
extremism than can affect the "Muslim community, such
as discrimination, disadvantage, and
exclusion".
___________________________________________________
End
Note:
NOTICE
I acknowledge that not all civil/public
servants and politicians are corrupt, many are but not all.
Criticisms I have made or make are directed at the rotten
ones who choose to abuse their positions of trust and
responsibility and to those who choose to cover up and turn
a blind eye to these abuses.
Camden
Council employees, ex-employees or 'those in the know' are
very welcome to contact me at commentabout@yahoo.co.uk
(in strict confidence of course) in the name of public
interest and debate, if they have concerns over illegal or
inappropriate conduct and dealings by other council
employees or council funded organisations and would like to
anonymously publish their story on this site.
Criteria for recognising tenants associations
CRITERIA FOR RECOGNISING TENANT'S AND RESIDENT'S ASSOCIATIONS
If a group wants to
make sure that its views are listened to by other
organisations, especially over a sustained period of time,
or wants to apply for funds to help achieve their aims,
they must expect to have to show that they are accountable,
democratic and as far as possible representing the views of
their members.
For tenants’ and residents’
groups in areas of housing mainly owned by either their
local council or a housing association this usually means
becoming a Recognised Tenants’ and Residents’
Association (RTRA).
Councils and housing
associations are expected, by the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister (ODPM) and the Housing Corporation
respectively, to provide opportunities for tenants’
and residents’ groups to participate in a wide range
of issues.
They are expected to provide resources
and support to enable groups to do so effectively. However,
they also need to make sure that these resources really are
helping to make participation work. So, a system is needed
that can show what the arrangements for support and
representation are between tenants’ and residents’
groups and the council or housing association.
The
system is called Criteria for Recognising Tenants’
and Residents’ Associations.
A
Recognised Tenants’ & Residents’
Association is:
Usually based on a specific residential area, e.g. an estate, but it could be a type of property, for example several blocks of flats owned by the same landlord but not necessarily adjacent to one another
Not excluding anyone who lives in the area
Able to show it has the support of the people it aims to represent
Striving to encourage as many people as possible, of all types and backgrounds to get involved
An organisation with an active Equal Opportunities policy
Organised around a constitution and a committee which is not only acceptable to its members but also to the council or housing association which “Recognises” it
Run by a committee elected each year at an Annual General Meeting
Able to show that it:
keeps its members regularly informed
listens to and acts on what they have to say
continues to do the job it set out to do
Able to show it is responsible in the way it is run, e.g. keeping regular account of any money it has
Actively representing the views of its members whenever and where ever it can.
Any group which can show that it
tries to do all of the above should be able to apply to
become a RTRA.
In
return, a Recognised Tenants’ & Residents'
Association should get:
A sum of money and possibly other benefits each year to help with its running costs
Regular opportunities to get involved in discussions with their landlord and possibly other organisations
Advice, information and training to help them run the group and to be effective in discussions with their landlord
Opportunities to network with other similar organisations locally and nationally.
How
the system of Recognition works
Each
year a Recognised Tenants’ and Residents’
Association will have to show how it is working. This is
usually either:
a) An annual written application to the
landlord; or
b) Continuous monitoring by the landlord
throughout the year; or
c) Monitoring through the local
tenants’ federation
Whatever method is used
the purpose is to check that the group is meeting all the
criteria needed in order to become a RTRA. The landlord or
tenants’ federation should also give advice and
assistance to the group throughout the year to ensure that
it meets the criteria.
The information will then be
checked to make sure the group meets the criteria and
should be done within an agreed and specified time limit.
For council tenants, this should be set down in the
Tenants’ Compact.
Housing associations should
also publish a standard for how long it will take to deal
with an application for recognition.
When the
criteria have been met then the group should be informed in
writing and they should also receive a grant to cover the
next 12 months.
The group then uses the grant for
the purposes specified. Usually this is to help with its
running costs over the year including:
- Keeping records
of its business
- Communicating with its members
-
Communicating with other organisations
- Finding other sources
of advice, information and support
Depending on the
arrangements, it might also be used for training and to
help with any of the other activities a group might choose
to run. It might also mean that the group has access to
other funds, for example, for estate improvements.
The
landlord should also demonstrate its support for RTRAs by:
-
Offering places on relevant estate and area committees
-
Working on shared concerns and projects
- Encouraging
and supporting groups to develop further
- Offering
opportunities for training and other support
- Providing
regular opportunities for exchanging information and
ideas
- Facilitating opportunities for mutual exchange
of information and support between all its RTRAs
After
about 10 months both the RTRA and the landlord should
prepare to go through the whole process again.
What
about new groups?
A
new group needs time to get sufficient support from the
people it aims to represent.
Then it has to get
itself organised with the right constitution and an elected
committee. So it may be some months before it can apply to
be recognised. In the meantime a new group can expect to
get advice and training from the landlord or tenants’
federation on what it needs to do so that it can make a
successful application. A new group may also be able to get
a small Start Up Grant from their landlord to help it along
until it is ready to apply to become a RTRA.
It is
important to note that there are no legally binding
standards that tenants and
residents have to meet.
However, the “National Framework for Tenant
Participation Compacts” by the ODPM has laid out a
set of standards for groups who want to have a major role
in formal consultation and decision making processes.
The
ODPM believes that tenants’ groups involved in
decision making should have the following:
A written constitution
Regular elections
Open financial records (with annual accounts if necessary)
Regular meetings, including a minuted, quorate annual general meeting
Membership clearly open to all tenants
A level of membership determined by the council and tenants
An equal opportunities policy that is complied with
Ways to make sure all tenants know about the group and are encouraged to become more active
Regular newsletters or other written communications with members
Means of showing how they have met their objectives and still have the skills to work effectively
For councils and their
tenants, these should be agreed locally through the
arrangements set out in their Tenants’
Compact.
GOOD
PRACTICE
Membership
of the Group: Boundaries
Membership
should include anyone resident within a given geographical
area and/or living in a type of accommodation and should be
defined in the constitution.
Levels
and types of membership
RTRAs
are recognised by landlords because they represent their
tenants and/or leaseholders, so it may also be important to
have minimum levels of representation which ensure that
their views are always represented by:
- being in the
majority on the committee
- excluding non-tenants from
representing the group in certain discussions with the
landlord e.g. on rent levels
The ODPM guidance
recommends that councils and groups agree a certain level
of membership. This will mean that the council and the
group will have to agree on the total number of households
available for membership and groups will have to show that
they have one or more of the following specified:
-
Number of paid up members
- Number of households signing
to say they support the group
- Number of people
attending each open meeting and possibly whether they are
different people.
Openness
and accountability
Any
group which always publishes its minutes, sends out regular
newsletters and
generally keeps its membership informed
about what it is doing and how, is much more likely to have
the support of its inactive members. Without this openness
a committee may be seen to be unrepresentative by both its
general membership as well as the landlord.
Financial
Competence
Criteria
should include:
Treasurer’s reports at every committee meeting. This helps to emphasise the whole group’s responsibility for any money it has and gives early warning of any potential problems
A minimum of two named signatories for cheques and that they must all come from different households
Having annual accounts which are checked or audited externally. How this is to be done should be specified and include advice and information on low cost or free auditing and accounting services Landlords should encourage and support groups in training for Treasurers and might also consider requiring this as part of the Recognition Criteria.
Monitoring Systems
Whatever
the system for recognition is, the organisation responsible
needs to devise a method for monitoring how it works, with
the groups involved. This could take one or more of the
following forms:
Annual written applications by the groups with supporting documents as proof
The observations and recommendations of people who have regular contact and dealings with a group
Health checks by support staff from the landlord or federation, working with groups to review their activities, achievements and targets over the previous year
Monitoring attendance by a group’s representatives at meetings and relevant events supported by the landlord or federation e.g. Area Forums,
Recommendation of the tenants' and residents’ federation
RECOGNISED TENANTS ASSOCIATIONS
To
become recognized a tenants group must be given a notice in
writing by the landlord to the secretary of the association
or by a certificate of a member of the local rent
assessment committee panel. A notice may be withdrawn by
the landlord by notice in writing not less than six months
before the date it is to be withdrawn. (Landlord and Tenant
Act 1985)
The criteria for recognition of an
association is that all tenants may be required under the
terms of his lease to contribute to the same costs by the
payment of a service charge. (Landlord and Tenant Act 1985)
A
Member must be contributing to the payment of a service
charge levied by a landlord and which the landlord can,
under the terms of similar leases/ tenancies, vary from
time to time to meet expenditure incurred or to be incurred
in the maintenance, repair or insurance of a block or
estate of dwellings in the landlord’s ownership.
Tenants paying fixed rents, which incorporate a
non-variable service charge, will not qualify for full
Membership and, although they can become Members, they will
have no voting rights.
Membership will not be open
to landlords personally or, in the case of company
landlords, their employees or directors. A management
company (including its directors, employees, Members or
shareholders) which has purchase the freehold on behalf of
the tenants (lessees) cannot be a Member(s) of a Tenant’s
Association, this is because on enfranchisement, the
company effectively becomes the landlord of the
building(s).
A
recognised
tenants/residents association is a legal term for an
association that has been recognised by the landlord or by
the rent assessment panel under S.29 of the Landlord and
Tenant Act 1985. In general recognition will be granted if
the association has a membership of 66% or more of lessees,
a proper constitution and elected officials. Recognition in
this way does give access to
greater rights to
information.