Housing association probes Baroness Uddin’s second home status
Labour peer faces eviction
Share
A Labour peer is being investigated and could face eviction after naming her housing association property as her second home.
Baroness Uddin, a tenant of Spitalfields Housing Association in east London, claimed in her House of Lords expenses for 2007/08 that her main residence was a flat in Kent.
She claimed £29,675 a year for overnight subsistence - the allowance for residency at a second home in London - in the same year.
But legally a tenant with an assured or secure tenancy must live in the social home as their ‘only or principal home’, meaning she could have breached her tenancy. Baroness Uddin is understood to share a joint tenancy on the home with her husband.
Although last year’s claim was the first in which she named the location of her main residence, Baroness Uddin has been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 each year for overnight subsistence since 2001.
Asked whether Baroness Uddin faced eviction Omar Mapara, chief executive of Spitalfields Housing Association, said the association ‘is investigating this matter which it takes very seriously’.
‘We have written to her requesting that she confirms that she and her husband continue to occupy our property as their only or principal home and we await a response,’ he added.
Avril Smith, senior lawyer at Lawrence Graham, said: ‘If she maintains that the Maidstone property is her principal residence, she could fall into difficulty with her tenancy.’
Ms Smith confirmed the ultimate sanction available for the breach of a tenancy agreement could be the loss of the tenancy.
If the tenancy is joint with her husband, she could claim it was his main residence only, which could comply with the rules, Ms Smith added.
The baroness became the first Muslim woman life peer in 1998. She is named as a company director of business and management consultancy Manzil Associates.
Baroness Uddin said she welcomed the review of her expenses that will be carried out by the clerk of Parliament. She said she had not broken the rules of the House of Lords and would not comment further until the review was finished.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (14)
EastEnder | Fri, 8 May 2009 05:50 GMT
Your headline does not match the contents. From what you quote of the statement by the Spitalfields Housing Association it is not clear what codes of conduct that organisation itself has in place. Also, you do not suggest anything about the Spitalfields Housing Association itself. Did they in any way aid the behaviour by the particular individual? What is the record of the Housing Association in these matters. Has the media bothered to report on this and other so-called social landlords? What has been their role? And how if any are the management personnel of the Spitalfields Housing Association related to the Baroness of Bethnal Green politically?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alexander Johnston | Fri, 8 May 2009 08:25 GMT
THE DCLG, TSA, HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN, AUDIT COMMISSION, LOCAL AUTHORITIES, RSL'S, JUDGE RUTHERFORD, WILL ROLT SOLICITORS, JAN LUBA QC ARE FULLY AWARE OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO ISSUE NOTICES OF ASSIGNMENT OF THE OLD LANDLORDS INTERESTS POST LSVT.
While New Labour has spent the last 10 years trampling over the rights of secure council tenants post LSVT ie: new RSL's nust in law take subject to those secure tenancies under s.3 L&T Act 1985 or s.8 L&T (Covenants) Act 1995 legislation which you can find on the www (failure to comply being a crimminal offence with the prosecuting authority being the very local authority selling of its housing stock) and not be threatening and bullying tenants into signing new assured tenancies ie: "it is essential that you sign and return immediately"etc., and mortgaging our homes up to the hilt eg: Somer Housing tenants have in the past 10 years paid £60m in interest charges on the original £79m loan raised to purchase 10,000 council houses at £8000 each, a receipt to B&NES council which the Audit Commission subsequently ruled was unlawful, as well as £20m in VAT charges which would not have applied if the houses had remained with the Council. As things now stand Somer tenants will from 2010 be paying 55% of their rent to the bankers over the next 20 years in interest charges and debt repayments. What a scam!!!
And what have members of Parliament been doing in this same period other than lining their own pockets with second home allownces, milking the system for all its worth at our expense.
Its time that tenants started getting very angry at being the victims of this governments fraudulent and corrupt LSVT policy. Its time for a much more militant response from tenants to this very clear injustice.
Regards,
Alexander Johnston
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
yvonne wood | Fri, 8 May 2009 10:40 GMT
The Baroness should relinquish her HA tenancy with Spitalfields if, as she claims, the Maidstone property is her main/principle home on which has been claiming a state allowance paid for by the tax payer; its simply wrong to continue to occupy the HA property particularly as its within an area of acute housing shortage/overcrowding.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
paul brady | Fri, 8 May 2009 15:28 GMT
This situation with the baroness is a further example of our whole housing allocation system remaining in the dark ages.
As a former homeless persons officer I have had the unenviable task of trying to assist homelless families at the height of recessions 1970s and late 80s early 90s and to see families lose their homes and young children uprooted and made to feel like outcasts in bed and breakfast and oftimes inferior temporary housing makes what she and others are doing in exploiting the social housing system deplorable.
If this lady is as well heeled as I suspect she may well be then why and on what social grounds did she get allocated a tenancy in the first instance.
In my past career experience determining housing need also included the salary and disposable income of applicants social housing is for those who are
unable to gain suitable accomadation through their own means is it right for
say a combined income family on £60k to much more as is often the case to be afforded assisted accomadation and that is exactly what I believe our social housing proviso is all about.
I myself through choice live in council accomadation i have also again through
choice refused to excercise my RTB
as I believe that anyone in need of housing should be given as much chance as is possible and our depleting housing stock makes it more and more difficult especially for our younger generation to get assistance.
Baroness Uddin I believe very quickly installed furniture and other evidence
of living at the Maidstone property soon after the news broke well can i remind
her Housing association that Electoral Rolls Utility Bills evidence from neighbours is all submissable when asking a judge to determine occupation
so hopefully this will wnd with a very much needed social housing property coming back into stock of this housing association and then allocated to a deserving person
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim Paton | Fri, 8 May 2009 17:39 GMT
Neighbours say the Maidstone house has been empty for years. So it doesn't look like she's in breach of the tenant condition in Housing Act '88 in respect of the London flat. Of course, that's not consistent with what she's been telling the House of Lords authorities. It's in that quarter she has some explaining to do, not the HA.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Danesh Ahmed | Sat, 9 May 2009 20:48 GMT
It is strange, unbelievable and sad that senior politicians and people whom we have trusted and put in those places are cleverly robbing us (the tax-payers) left right and centre. It is really funny they all seem to be saying they have done nothing wrong or illegal. It is disgusting and am ashamed of them all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Homeless in Tower Hamlets | Sat, 9 May 2009 21:04 GMT
Jim Paton is wrong. It is not clear what facts Jim Paton is relying on. The facts are that the Spitalfields Housing Association is in the control of the very same interests that are also in power on Tower Hamlets Council. If you look at the facts impartially, you will find that the Daily Telegraph blogger has got it about right in that headline. Quangocrat. The serious housing problems in Tower Hamlets and Newham and Hackney and Southwark are all down to the same cause. The quangocrats have got in there before anyone else, taking up the best homes, leaving plain ordinary folk out in the cold. We are all going to have to know our facts.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris Carr | Mon, 11 May 2009 09:43 GMT
Why is a Peer of the Realm even entitled to social housing? Her pay is more than sufficient for her to buy or rent, as she does in Maidstone.
Not to mention the more than generous expenses package which would service a mortgage.
She should be given the choice, either her tenancy is terminated immediately, or she repays all of the money she has claimed in expenses.
Sadly she, like too many in Parliament, are having their cake AND eating it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
M.O.Gani | Tue, 12 May 2009 14:52 GMT
I am a founder member of Spitalfields HA (formerly known as Spitalfields Housing Co-operative Ltd). Baroness Uddin ( Ms P.M.Uddin) became a member of the Co-opetaive in mid-80's and due to her special housing needs (family with a disabled son living in severely overcrowded housing conditions) her family was allocated a specially adapted house in Wapping? As a former Chair and Board member, I was also aware that Baroness Uddin applied to buy the property in 2004/05 as her non-dependent children who were grown up and lived in the Eastend throughout their teens . However this did not happen. I reckon her disabled son and other non-dependent members of the household have continued living in the same property and I do not find any reasons to deprive the family of their much loved home. Baroness Uddin's folly should not be the reason to penalise her family and I hope that her family shold not be made victims. The joint tenancy must hold at least for her partner and other members of the family be not made homeless.
M.O.Gani, Bangla Town, Brick Lane
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mmb21 | Wed, 13 May 2009 23:37 GMT
Mr Gani , please please, the public is sick and tired of the expenses scandal. I am a Local Authority Housing Policy Officer, how can we meet housing needs when politcians unsurp the Housing Allocatiosn system. If she is such a sucessful professional, it does not bode well for the need to rely on Social Housing. It is scandalous that she is explicitly in breach of her tenancy conditions. Maybe we should get a job as a politician to exploit the system. Let me say something the Labour party is dead and buried come the general election. The same goes for the Tories. All the main parties have pandered to the publics frustration and a danger of voting minority extermists party.
Finally theer is acase fro fraud against Baronness Uddin
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment