Neil Coyle's position on Heygate/Aylesbury?

Dear Gavin,

I am dismayed you feel like I am not putting my full energies into resolving your cases, particularly as one of them is not yet concluded and may achieve a positive outcome for you.

I am always happy to advocate on behalf of residents, as I have done already for 100s of residents individually or through residents associations already since I was elected last May.

Clearly, if I receive an answer from officers or other bodies which indicate council procedures and policies have been followed, and the findings at not to your satisfaction, there is not a huge amount more that I can do to further your case. To do so would be to encourage officers not to follow their own guidance. In your case, I believe that, in the end, policies has been satisfactorily carried out. I advise you that I would be happy to support you in communications with the housing ombudsman if you wished, but I don't believe you made representations.

Where I could go further is if I find a large number of residents making the same complaint, in which case I might consider that council policies are wrong, and I would advocate for change with cabinet members and at council assembly. In your first case, this has not happened.

Councillors must act within the policy and budgetary restraints agreed by council assembly and executed by officers. I found that in your case they did, and where they didn't, your complaint was partially upheld. I know you will find this response unsatisfactory. I am happy to discuss privately with you, as I believe everything I have to say here has been said.

With regard to your second case, I will send a follow up email today, but I know officers are working to find a resolution. I do not know yet whether or not we will be able to achieve what you want, but I will advocate wholeheartedly on your behalf.

I am sure Cllr Luthra has made similar efforts in your correspondence with him.

Best wishes

Karl

Dear Karl

With respect, I can't understand your dismay. There is nothing unexpected about my position and it has been clearly conveyed. Indeed, you acknowledged it in an e-mail to me dated 22 November (check your sent items).

The fact that you make reference to two cases shows what little handle you have on things. For your reference, it was not necessary for me to make complaint to the Housing Ombudsman as Southwark did capitulate and, despite not replacing the kitchen or bathroom, did make a payment of compensation for the TMO's maladministration and handling of matters. As such, it is not correct to say there are two cases.

As regards problems with the TMO - your reference to large numbers of residents making the same complaint - I did share with you correspondence from neighbours on the estate complaining at the way the TMO was being run. You didn't look into that.

For the record, in my case you did not advocate on my behalf, you didn't even bother to read the correspondence I sent, merely saying that you would do so the following week - you said that on at least couple occasions and never made good. Be that as it may.

The second matter, which is indeed a live one, is another matter in which you and your colleague, Cllr Luthra, have taken no action. Essentially, the roadway outside our house is severely potholed and in a very dangerous condition. Southwark's highways department initially claimed that the roadway was not "adopted" and therefore not maintainable at public expense. They tried to defer to the housing department, claiming it was that department's responsibility. To counter that, I sent the highways department a copy of the statutory advertisement from 1975, before the road was built, clearly demonstrating that it was to be maintained at public expense (and thus by the highways department). Indeed, half of the roadway was refurbished in January 2015, but leaving behind the worst defects in the unrefurbished section. I contacted you and your ward colleagues about this and you have done nothing. Further, I saw you busily canvassing on behalf of Cllr Coyle a few weeks back and attempted to show you the road - your response was one of disinterest. It was on that basis that I asked your colleague to take back the rubbish you had posted through my letterbox.

Your comment, "do not know yet whether or not we will be able to achieve what you want, but I will advocate wholeheartedly on your behalf", is disingenuous. It is not a case of you doing anything.

With the greatest of respect, Karl, any response I have had from you has only been as a result of this great forum. You have done absolutely nothing for my family, despite pleading with you on a couple of occasions. You just want to be seen to be publicly making the right noises. This is borne out by the fact that you have responded to my points at 6.52 am but as at the time of this message you have not had the decency to send the e-mail you make reference to, nor to contact me direct other than via the forum.

So for the record, there is one case, not two, and the first was resolved entirely without your assistance, as I informed you in November last year.

Karl Eastham wrote:

I am always happy to advocate on behalf of residents, as I have done already for 100s of residents individually or through residents associations already since I was elected last May.

Really? I'd love to hear from just one of them. Perhaps someone on this forum will set out for us how you have advocated on their behalf. I don't believe it!

I wonder how Southwark Labour Council will explain this away.
Southwark, to its shame, come out top of the list.

Neil Coyle, Peter John?
Please explain to the residents of Southwark what is going on?
Thank you

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/over-50000-families-shipped-out-of-london-in-the-past-three-years-due-to-welfare-cuts-and-soaring-rents-10213854.html

We've had a massive increase in the demand for temporary accommodation in the borough - due to the impact of welfare changes introduced by the government - and are consequently having to place families in nightly-rate accommodation (aka Bed and Breakfast). There is not much of this in the borough so consequently we have to place people out of Southwark, but principally in neighbouring boroughs.

So I am not sure that it is a cause of shame for Southwark. We are fulfilling our statutory duty to families in the nearest available accommodation.

The recent Supreme Court case Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22 considered this very issue and gave some helpful guidance to local authorities. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the local authority had not discharged its statutory duty by offering accommodation in Bletchley and allowed the appellant's appeal.

Andrew, via the circuitous route, Neil Coyle's position on the Heygate and Aylesbury Estates can be stated as follows (courtesy of the Southwark News):

Southwark News wrote:

He refuses to accept responsibility for the fate of Heygate Estate residents struggling to find affordable homes in their neighbourhood – “that’s a council issue – we’re going into a general election” – and is equally reluctant to acknowledge Labour’s role in the recent ‘shared’ garden saga at One Tower Bridge, pointing out that many Lib-Dem councillors also voted in favour at the planning committee meeting.

As an aside, would I be right in saying that is the current ward councillor for displaced Heygate residents?

not only is he the councillor in the ward, gavin, he got himself a home in one of the early new developments, on crampton street.

pros wrote:

not only is he the councillor in the ward, gavin, he got himself a home in one of the early new developments, on crampton street.

At least he has show his long-term commitment to the community.

Peter Davis wrote:

At least he has show his long-term commitment to the community.

How do you arrive at that? "He refuses to accept responsibility for the fate of Heygate Estate residents struggling to find affordable homes in their neighbourhood". Are those Heygate residents not worthy of being considered part of the community?

Gavin Smith wrote:

Peter Davis wrote:

At least he has show his long-term commitment to the community.

How do you arrive at that? "He refuses to accept responsibility for the fate of Heygate Estate residents struggling to find affordable homes in their neighbourhood". Are those Heygate residents not worthy of being considered part of the community?

Let's not pretend that the situation on the Heygate would have been much different under a Lib-Dem & Conservative coalition. It was the prevarication of the the then ruling Con-Dem administration reaching a deal that contributed much to the mess at the Heygate.