L&Q will defend its independence as vital for continued investment
L&Q to appeal over public bodies ruling
Share
Mega-landlord London & Quadrant Group is to appeal to the House of Lords against a landmark ruling that housing associations are public bodies.
Last month the Court of Appeal upheld a controversial judgement which found that the association and others like it were public bodies under the Human Rights Act.
Associations fear the ruling could threaten their ability to borrow money outside the government’s balance sheet, hobbling development programmes.
L&Q chief executive David Montague said its board felt there was ‘no choice’ but to appeal. ‘We firmly believe that the independence of housing associations is vital to our continuing investment in housing, and that the law in this area needs to be clarified,’ he explained.
Other landlords in the G15 group of London’s largest associations were last week considering pooling funds to support L&Q’s appeal if required.
Mr Montague said it was ‘too early’ to say whether L&Q would take up an offer of support and would not reveal the expected cost of the appeal.
There is no G15 cabal behind this decision, it was made by L&Q.’
The case centres on Susan Weaver, who fought to bring L&Q to judicial review claiming her human rights had been breached by a decision to evict her. Her claim was dismissed but the High Court ruled that L&Q was a public body under the Human Rights Act, and eviction was a public act.
It is unclear when the appeal will take place.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (29)
michaelbarratt council tenant | 29/06/2009 12:04 pm
ODPM/DCLG, housing associations and local authorities seeking to transfer their housing stock in company with misleadingly called independent tenants' advisors like TPAS have for years claimed that transfer of local authority housing to a housing association was NOT PRIVATISATION. Now L&Q intend to spend their tenants' rents to prove they are not in the public sector - so have former council tenants been mislead - have those tenants been conned into exchanging their secure tenancies for inferior rights.
L&Q are well known to us in Crawley for their public spirit as illustrated in this extract from from an Article in the Crawley News dated: 26th Oct 2005.
“Up to 36 elderly residents are being turfed out of their homes after a sheltered housing company said it could no longer afford the upkeep. Residents at London & Quadrant owned Spring Plat Court in Pound Hill received a letter on Friday stating that, due to escalating costs, the residents would have to find somewhere else to live. A spokesman for the company said that Spring Plat Court would be closing towards the end of March 2006 and they would be working with the council and other organisations to help re-home residents”.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen West | 30/06/2009 10:19 am
How very interesting to comment on Michael Barratts response as both London and Quadrant and Orbit in Bexley both did similar things after they were handed the entire Housing Stock by Bexley Council for a song back in 1998 soon after either entirely or in some cases partially closing down former Bexley council owned sheltered housing schemes. All Stock Transfers ever achieve is this, the complete privatisation of Local Authority owned Social Housing as Housing Associations and RSL's are primarily businesses. If this High Court of Appeal ruling is overturned by the HOL then Housing Associations and RSL's should be made to hand back Transferred Housing Stock to the local authorities to carry the can as before who off loaded them in the first place depriving residents, of being able to kick their Councillors out if they are dissatisfied with them. Lucrative tax breaks and public tax payers monies to build more homes and that the majority of their tenants have most if not all of their rents subsidised by Housing rent and council tax benefits all paid for by the UK tax payer then the Government should no longer be throwing tax payers monies hand over fist at these so called Housing Associations and RSL's. Lets call them what they really are and what if successful by this appeal should be known as, and that is, Corporate Private Property Owning Companies (CPPOC's) that do have to make profits to pay high salaries, health care and generous pension schemes for its senior executives and other employees.
Stephen West
Committee Member
Orbit Bexley Housing Association Independent Leaseholders Group
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
vernony | 30/06/2009 3:24 pm
Hello Michael Barratt
Yes indeed the tenants were very much misled. They were not told that Transfer mean't loss of some of their human rights. The DCLG must have been aware of this but kept silent. When a public body such as the DCLG keeps quiet about loss of human rights it has very serious implications So I am just waiting for somebody to bring an action, claiming that by not telling the tenants being canvassed for LSVT it would be at the expense of some human rights if they voted yes, that action was a denial of human rights and as this undoubtedly affected the voting, then the whole transfer procedure is in doubt . Moreover residents should claim damages for the loss of rights too !
Dealing with London and Quadrant . I note not a word said about their tenants, their case only seems to be 'It would be bad for business' . I don't believe that is a very strong argument. There is nothing which stipulates that they must expand and to do so borrow money. Its a choice if they wish to expand, equally well they, or other RPs may choose not to expand. The inability to borrow money on the cheap is not a reason why they should not be judged as
subject to Public Law. In any case it is indefinite even they only say that they may not be able to borrow . One of thought too, as a public body they could borrow money on very advantageous terms from the Government
Sincerely
Vernon J Yarker
Chairman
www.shelteredhousinguk.com
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 30/06/2009 4:19 pm
Any past or future transfer, cannot involve a loss of human rights for tenants, whether consulted or not. These rights are not subject to negotiations or financial/business considerations or any kind, but are an inviolable component of the individual involved. It would have been different if, just for the sake of an example, because of the transfer to a HA from a council the tenants would have become owners, because as owners they would have become separated from the HA. But as because of the transfer tenants have remained tenants so must have their human rights... The same as if they were secure tenants they would have retained their secure tenancy instead of a new standard tenancy... All this provokes the question if tenants transfered from councils to London and Quadrant should retain their human rights how does London and Quadrant justify keeping their pre-existent tenants without those rights?... Can London and Quadrant have their tenants divided in those with and those without these rights?...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 30/06/2009 4:32 pm
Not doubting at all that tenants were 'misled' or the full implications of stock transfer were not explained to them. Yet any RSL deemed to be a public body will face significant additional costs of JR claims that inevitably will have to be reflected in rents. That is why this ruling is bad for business.
There are significant difficulties on public bodies raising finance - lets not forget that Liverpool City Councillors, who built more new council houses than the rest of the UK put together - were surcharged and banned from holding office because they did borrow money. It has been the inability and restrictions on councils to raise finance that has led to the massive stock transfer. So the ability to raise finance is a real issue for RSLs if this ruling is not challenged.
Unfortunately, transfer was the only option to be able to use the collateral of the housing stock to raise finances and as it fundamentally discriminated against council housing departments and their tenants - were tenants human rights and expectations to have better quality and more housing denied by this? Quite ironic that a decision of central govt - a clear de facto public body -denied the human rights of tenants and was left unpunished then isnt it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 30/06/2009 5:09 pm
Joe Halewood | Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:32 GMT... "That is why this ruling is bad for business.".... That's exactly what it was said when slavery was abolished...
The slave owning class, ironically, went on to prosper by exploiting the ex-slaves as poorly paid workers... But at least they were no slaves anymore.... It is the business that has to change, not human rights be denied. Hard to explain why in this day and age a large section of educated people can't grasp such basic principles...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 30/06/2009 6:55 pm
Kass - what many cant grasp is that if the costs of running subsidised social housing increase - and making RSLs public bodies does that - then the only way those costs can be reclaimed is either rent increases or less services.
To compare this situation to slavery is farcical.
I assume you are not happy that council tenants have much less human rights than current RSL tenants then? Because that is the situation, and one caused by councils, that is public bodies, not being able to raise finance to properly manage their housing stock.
I fully agree with you that human rights are inviolable. Yet the current situation sees council tenants denied the basic human right of a decent home and right o shelter of a comparable quality to RSL tenants. I restate the fact that human rights are lessened for council tenants compared to RSL tenants is an outrage. A far more just ruling would be to see RSLs made to comply with FOI and councils being allowed to raise finance with the same ease RSLs can. That would benefit all tenants and take away the discrimination and much reduced human rights council tenants face. It would also allow RSL tenants FOI requests and hence improve their rights.
Human rights are inviolable - so why shoulds council tenants have reduced ones vis-a-vis RSL tenants. That is a much bigger issue for tenants..... and landlords
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Norman Adams | 01/07/2009 0:02 am
This question of the ‘Human Rights Act’ any ex-council tenants who were in my opinion told (if they asked) that there rights would be protected, ANY that are now finding that the Information given by there so called Independent Advisers was wide of the mark, should start to campaign to get your rights back.
I asked in 2004
-----Original Message-----
From: norman.adams@ntlworld.co.uk [mailto:norman.adams@ntlworld.co.uk]
Sent: 17 October 2004 11:24
To: info@bchs.org.uk
Subject: Northampton/RSLs & HRA
I ask this question,and as part of your role is to make sure I get an answer would ask for timely reply.
Q1: Do I keep my rights that I now have as a council tenant under the 'Human Rights Act' if it was decided to transfer to a RSL?.
Q2: Do I keep my rights ( HRA ) If we decided on an ALMO ?
Yours Norman Adams Northampton
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 01/07/2009 11:59 am
Joe Halewood | Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:55 GMT.... Human rights are inviolable - so why shoulds council tenants have reduced ones vis-a-vis RSL tenants. That is a much bigger issue for tenants..... and landlords"............
All social tenants should have EQUAL rights of any kind - including human rights.
I have not met a single RSL tenant demanding to have more equal rights than a council tenant and viceversa... And I suspect neighter have you. Therefore this is not an issue amongst tenants. But it is an issue that social landlords - and governement have got to solve... But instead of doing this London and Quadrant appeal not to be a public body is only making the situation worse - creating widespread insecurity amongst social tenants of all kind.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 02/07/2009 10:02 am
I have never come across this being an issue for tenants? Well, as this thread shows tenants of RSLs are aggrieved that they dont have access to FOI and this is a lesser right.
Isnt that the problem though? My earlier point was that a tenant of a council has less chance of a decent home and a lower realisation of service compared to a RSL tenant as the RSL has better and less constrained access to finance than a council landlord has.
What this ruling does is reduce the right - basic human rights - of RSL tenants down to the lower level of council tenants to receive a decent level of service as their RSL landlords will be constrained from raising finance to pay for home improvements and more homes.
As I has written earlier, tenants of councils and DCH and other lobbies rightly bemoaned the fact that stock transfer took place largely because it meant new bathrooms, kitchens, DG and other refurbishments was ONLY allowable financially if transfer took place. What remaining councils tenants have not done (to my knowledge) is seek a JR or other legal action based on the fact the still current system meant council tenants were largely denied what RSL / Transfer tenants were receiving because of the system - created by public bodies.
So, if this can be argued as a denial of human rights that other social tenants (of RSLs) enjoy, and that is the reality, then why has no action been taken on this premise?
So while we agree Kass that this is the reality and also that human rights are inviolable, I disagree that this is not a matter for tenants, and would argue the complete opposite.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment