Posted in: Duty of care question
Kass - please don't tar every housing organisation with the same brush. They are not all the same yet you persist in making bold statements while you know nothing about the organisation in question."
How much do you know more than me of the organisation in question? What makes you believe it might not be even worse than all others?
Would a good organisation drive their residents asking for desperate help on a website?
Posted in: Duty of care question
I agree, social landlords do not listen to MPs. also be careful that councillors, when all it's said and done, are after votes. And if you are against many they might be reluctant to do anything for fear of losing their votes. But I do hope your councillor is an excelption and will fight for your rights.
If they cannot do anything to help you, You should make it clear to your lanlord that the antisocial family have de fact turned the area in their private kingdom they should not have housed you in such a situtation. I would advice you ask for a transfer and for you to be given and transfer expense/distress allocation.
You are using the right behaviour, just do not give up until you get what you are entitled for however long it takes. Remember while the thugs are the one carrying the attacks the real responsble for you situtation are your landlord and the police and the local authority for not protecting you, so you should complain against them all for not protecting you, because I can tell you your situtation if you stay there might go on for as long as you live.
Also go to your doctor and make sure they take account of how it is afecting your health.
Posted in: Hypocrisy
If you are a social resident please vote against any merger or transfer!
they are all about taking away from residents (rights and security).
There might be some rare exmaple of some good merger/transfer, but REMEMBER you got to look at the bigger picture for the benefit of ALL social residents and not just yours and those of your particular organisation.
If you are a social resident it is ONLY when you protect ALL social residents wherever they might be that you are protecting yourself.
Everything else is lies and lies and even more lies you are given.
Posted in: Duty of care question
This post has been removed.
Posted in: RESIDENT ONLY MEETING
thanks for your tips, which are quite useful... And can turn up vital in an emergency... However, this is not about a single ad hoc meeting. Because to discuss serious issues and to give a clear mandate (a mandate which can be proved leagally valid in a court of law) to the residents representatives you have to inform or give a chance to inform ALL tenants or at least the greatest majority of them and also give them a reasonable chance to vote on them.
Now to do this it is necessary to get material to all these tenants directly to their addresses, as you would for a political election when they send you your voting card.
Now, this is not about a landlord involving some thenants more than another landlord, This is about the need of a system countrywide so tenants coan organise themselv es and have their independent meetings as often as they wish. Your tips, as I said are very good for some emergency, but they have no guarantee of reaching all or most of the residents. Also if it is as difficult as it is now for residents not being able to organise themselves for not beeing able to contact other residents not many will want to work so damned hard in discussing issues relating their homes.
So, it's important a countrywide system is designed or put in place for tenants groups to be able to co0ntact directly all other residents of the same organisation whether they live near or far away.
By not putting in place a system of contact the govenrments of the past have in effect stopped all possibility of residents of democratically electing their representatives and getting involved in the running of their homes. Any current ilvolment is being made under the watchufl eye of the landlord, like a dog watching sheep.
I have found or missed to find any information on how a resident can become a shareholders in your organisation, WEstlea Housing.
However while not knowing the ins and out of your organisation, I must congratulate it for at least making an effort.
The fact that all your residents are being given a chance to vote in electing who their representative are - if you can confirm this is actually the case - it's a great step forward. As it is having open forums with all residents invited.
However I am not sure how much a resident who would like to be elected against the wishes of your board or ceo is allowed to campaign for his/her election. For example would s/he have access to all other residents addresses so that s/he could forward to them what s/he stands for and canvas support?
In 25 years of being a London and Quadrant tenant I have never been invited or given the chance to vote for any residents representatives, so your organisation in this respect seems to be light years ahead of London and Quadrant and I am not surprised your fellow residents love to get involved in it.
so, if I understand you well, in you HA you got tenants who are shareholders. And you also got all tenants electing democratilly their own representatives.
It sounds not a bit dissimlar from what I have proposing to avoid having tenants on boards as nodding horses and snoring dogs.
Could you explain how your HA tenants could become shareholders?
What was the process it was used to have a system where all tenants are givine the chance to vote for their panel or board representatives??
Can you also explain in what way your HA is different from others, let's say, like Londond and Quadrant?
Maybe we can all learn from your experience.
if you have stayed all the time with the same landlord, you tenancy should be equivalent to the original one. So if you were a secure tenant when you started you should be a secure tenant now.
If you are not a secure tenant anymore you should ask your landlord for reasons why you are not, and proceed from there is you are not happy with their answer.
I only know that if you change landlord you will lose your secure tenancy (both as a single tenant or block)... You will only keep your secure tenancy if you transfer to another property within the same landlord...
But give time to the expert to come and clarify!... sometimes one has to wait a bit for an answer here.
I asked around about that and I have been told that if you change landlord you will have to sign a new tenancy agreement and that's the start of your tenancy with them and therfore you will not be a secure tenant any more but an assured tenant.
It seems it is the same for block transfer. By voting to betransferred secure tenants lose their secure tenancy and get an assured tenancy.
Therefore if you are a secure tenant you should never vote for block transfer. If you are an assured tenant by voting for block transfer you cause your fellow secure tenants to lose their secure tenancy.
I am certainly curious to hear some expert confirm all this.