The £130,000-a-month flat in Vauxhall, the child hospitalised at Asif Aziz's restaurant, and the residents begging their local council to take back control of their chaotic housing estate.
Corrections to the email edition. Two mistakes for which I apologise and will be flagging in the next edition. I'm really sorry about that - we own up to our errors quickly at London Centric.
1) The email version of this edition had an item which confused Lewisham shopping centre with Catford shopping centre in Lewisham. That's pretty unforgivable and on me.
2) Apologies for the wrong photo at the end of the email edition — I thought it was a particularly arty and unusual shot of the Loughborough Estate I hadn't seen before that made the towers look very different. Turns out it was particularly arty and unusual shot... because it was a mislabelled agency photo of the old Aylesbury Estate.
Not for lack of trying with old Peter; the residents were trying to get shot of him as far back as 2019 when it was only £50k.* I suspect he's learned to be more careful in the years since, though he deserves summary thrashing at the very least for his lack of good taste.
*London Borough of Lambeth v Peter Shorinwa (2019) Inner London CC
Jim, I'm disgusted by the takeover of Loughborough Estate by this creepy grifter and his cronies. I regularly visited here up to 2015 working as an ambulance driver for the Blue Cross in Victoria. The estate was rundown and poorly serviced but at least it wasn't the fiefdom of grifters it has now clearly become. Very sad, Brixtonians deserve so much better, Lambeth Council needs to go into special measures in my opinion.
With undeniable certainty, Asif Aziz seems to have secured the title of the West End's most evil person—a shocking achievement considering the alleged depths of his competition.
The report on Loughborough social housing shows how many people who should be no where near social housing exist. Appalling and again, well done for laser like focus of a hellish situation. Who let this happen?
Handbags and cuff links indicate a 18C attitude to accepting gifts etc? Complete investigation of all stakeholders and how Lambeth awarded the contract required. Did they know a church involved?
I think one thing is how TMOs (Tenant Management Organisations) were devised in the first place, which I think was under Thatcher’s government and a way to essentially divest responsibility for social housing away from councils. They can work brilliantly but there’s a lack of checks and balances if unscrupulous people get in. I lived on Loughborough Estate for three years, and while my understanding is mostly hearsay, in the case of LEMB there seems to be no requirement for the members of the board to re-stand for election periodically, recall mechanisms have too high a threshold and the council seems to claim it’s legally prevented from intervening directly. And as a “private” organisation they don’t even have to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. There’s also an issue that tenants of private landlords (as I was) can’t become ‘shareholders’ so have no vote in decisions and can’t attend certain meetings, and the landlords who’ve moved away often check out because the issues don’t directly affect them. So you have a sizeable number of tenants supposedly living on a tenant-run estate who are shut out of the process.
Direct democracy on a housing estate will always be a challenge because you have a lot of marginalised people who won’t find it easy to engage in a bureaucratic system due to working hours, caring responsibilities, disabilities, language barriers and simple lack of confidence - it can be done with support, transparency and accountability but it takes a lot of work - the heroic people campaigning on the estate have taken years of organising to get to where they are now. LEMB and other rogue TMOs though take advantage of how hard it is for people to stay engaged.
Thankyou for superb summary from lived experience.
Even a church hall roof fund has to have trustees and proper democratic accountability, esp after another good example of often flawed governance in case of Kids Company- what is it with MC professionals being utterly taken for complete fools by charlatans? Eg Cameron and Alan Yentop.
Lack of accountability and basic democracy allows these things to happen. Give out cuff- links?
What is this, Warren Hastings and the East India Company circa 1780?
It is such a strange situation and one that people have been complaining/organising over for years yet somehow nothing substantive can be done. Hopefully this time will be different!
Ah, you must experience the dubious charms of Greenwich, my dear. Notoriously thin-skinned when questioned at the best of times, they recently brought a harassment suit against a disabled tenant for taking to social media over loss of water at the Ignatio Sanchez Road estate. Go back a bit, and a councillor's father threatened a local reporter looking into his daughter's housing arrangements - quite literally, the 'I know where you live line'.*
Greenwich remains a champion among bullying councils; aggressively disagreeable to hoi polloi such as myself, while a steadfast defender of the greater good when it can get coverage. You'll never see another council strut and grovel with the practiced ease of these corrupt lunatics.
Hiya - love your substack! Re: Lewisham - it’s Lewisham shopping centre that is being redeveloped with a 500 capacity venue - not Catford shopping centre (which is where Catford Mews cinema is located).
Good to see the immediate correction over the confusion between Lewisham shopping centre and Catford shopping centre. However, I do wish you also recognised that Lewisham council should not go without criticism over Catford Mews. For example, due to poor management of the shopping centre there was flooding, which affected tenants, including Catford Mews. And since the closure of the cinema the council has not managed to find a new tenant for the site - so come next week it will have been closed for a whole year. The council hasn't even managed to ensure the site was properly protected, with squatters moving in earlier this year and then having to be removed. Legal bills, courts fees etc cost Lewisham council taxpayers over £15k.
If all this week's stories had appeared in a drama about London I'd think it was entertaining but rather far fetched. Once again you're doing the work of letting sunlight in on important stories that more established media can't or won't cover. Proud to be a subscriber.
"...meaning the supply of properties on the market is being reduced, which is pushing up rent prices."
Do you have evidence of this? Are the properties now empty? Were they sold to owner occupiers? What is the overall effect on squeezing landlords on property availability? Are these landlords mainly individuals who became accidental landlords, or large corporate landlords re-signing their portfolios?
This matters because the rise of the landlord, particularly in London, has both cause in the selling council houses (which are let privately at many multiples of the social rent) and the effect of reducing the stock of houses available to buy by owner occupiers, who find themselves competing in the market with capital-rich professional landlords.
If only London's property market were dominated purely by simple supply and demand, rather than huge speculative capital flows and unlimited credit creation by banks!
Corrections to the email edition. Two mistakes for which I apologise and will be flagging in the next edition. I'm really sorry about that - we own up to our errors quickly at London Centric.
1) The email version of this edition had an item which confused Lewisham shopping centre with Catford shopping centre in Lewisham. That's pretty unforgivable and on me.
2) Apologies for the wrong photo at the end of the email edition — I thought it was a particularly arty and unusual shot of the Loughborough Estate I hadn't seen before that made the towers look very different. Turns out it was particularly arty and unusual shot... because it was a mislabelled agency photo of the old Aylesbury Estate.
Not for lack of trying with old Peter; the residents were trying to get shot of him as far back as 2019 when it was only £50k.* I suspect he's learned to be more careful in the years since, though he deserves summary thrashing at the very least for his lack of good taste.
*London Borough of Lambeth v Peter Shorinwa (2019) Inner London CC
Jim, I'm disgusted by the takeover of Loughborough Estate by this creepy grifter and his cronies. I regularly visited here up to 2015 working as an ambulance driver for the Blue Cross in Victoria. The estate was rundown and poorly serviced but at least it wasn't the fiefdom of grifters it has now clearly become. Very sad, Brixtonians deserve so much better, Lambeth Council needs to go into special measures in my opinion.
With undeniable certainty, Asif Aziz seems to have secured the title of the West End's most evil person—a shocking achievement considering the alleged depths of his competition.
Action packed edition.
The report on Loughborough social housing shows how many people who should be no where near social housing exist. Appalling and again, well done for laser like focus of a hellish situation. Who let this happen?
Handbags and cuff links indicate a 18C attitude to accepting gifts etc? Complete investigation of all stakeholders and how Lambeth awarded the contract required. Did they know a church involved?
I think one thing is how TMOs (Tenant Management Organisations) were devised in the first place, which I think was under Thatcher’s government and a way to essentially divest responsibility for social housing away from councils. They can work brilliantly but there’s a lack of checks and balances if unscrupulous people get in. I lived on Loughborough Estate for three years, and while my understanding is mostly hearsay, in the case of LEMB there seems to be no requirement for the members of the board to re-stand for election periodically, recall mechanisms have too high a threshold and the council seems to claim it’s legally prevented from intervening directly. And as a “private” organisation they don’t even have to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. There’s also an issue that tenants of private landlords (as I was) can’t become ‘shareholders’ so have no vote in decisions and can’t attend certain meetings, and the landlords who’ve moved away often check out because the issues don’t directly affect them. So you have a sizeable number of tenants supposedly living on a tenant-run estate who are shut out of the process.
Direct democracy on a housing estate will always be a challenge because you have a lot of marginalised people who won’t find it easy to engage in a bureaucratic system due to working hours, caring responsibilities, disabilities, language barriers and simple lack of confidence - it can be done with support, transparency and accountability but it takes a lot of work - the heroic people campaigning on the estate have taken years of organising to get to where they are now. LEMB and other rogue TMOs though take advantage of how hard it is for people to stay engaged.
Thankyou for superb summary from lived experience.
Even a church hall roof fund has to have trustees and proper democratic accountability, esp after another good example of often flawed governance in case of Kids Company- what is it with MC professionals being utterly taken for complete fools by charlatans? Eg Cameron and Alan Yentop.
Lack of accountability and basic democracy allows these things to happen. Give out cuff- links?
What is this, Warren Hastings and the East India Company circa 1780?
Good write up, thank you.
It is such a strange situation and one that people have been complaining/organising over for years yet somehow nothing substantive can be done. Hopefully this time will be different!
Ah, you must experience the dubious charms of Greenwich, my dear. Notoriously thin-skinned when questioned at the best of times, they recently brought a harassment suit against a disabled tenant for taking to social media over loss of water at the Ignatio Sanchez Road estate. Go back a bit, and a councillor's father threatened a local reporter looking into his daughter's housing arrangements - quite literally, the 'I know where you live line'.*
Greenwich remains a champion among bullying councils; aggressively disagreeable to hoi polloi such as myself, while a steadfast defender of the greater good when it can get coverage. You'll never see another council strut and grovel with the practiced ease of these corrupt lunatics.
*https://greenwichwire.co.uk/2018/06/22/greenwich-labour-councillor-owned-a-house-while-living-in-a-council-flat/
Edit: did I say corrupt lunatics? I meant to put in 'shower of b*st*rds'
Dire and just plain wrong.
Not surprised though, not at ALL!
Hiya - love your substack! Re: Lewisham - it’s Lewisham shopping centre that is being redeveloped with a 500 capacity venue - not Catford shopping centre (which is where Catford Mews cinema is located).
I'm glad I managed to send link of some of London Centric articles to my friend who favourably mentioned about Aziz's cheap windowless hotel plan.
Good to see the immediate correction over the confusion between Lewisham shopping centre and Catford shopping centre. However, I do wish you also recognised that Lewisham council should not go without criticism over Catford Mews. For example, due to poor management of the shopping centre there was flooding, which affected tenants, including Catford Mews. And since the closure of the cinema the council has not managed to find a new tenant for the site - so come next week it will have been closed for a whole year. The council hasn't even managed to ensure the site was properly protected, with squatters moving in earlier this year and then having to be removed. Legal bills, courts fees etc cost Lewisham council taxpayers over £15k.
Is it just me or do the bedrooms in that mega pad look rather small?
Again. Amazing journalism. But oh my gods, the corruption and sleaze in this city enrages me!
Thanks for exposing.
Solidarity with the Loughborough Estate residents - I look forward to the council being held to account.
If all this week's stories had appeared in a drama about London I'd think it was entertaining but rather far fetched. Once again you're doing the work of letting sunlight in on important stories that more established media can't or won't cover. Proud to be a subscriber.
Also - councils (the worst!)
https://open.substack.com/pub/lifeontheokr?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=6dxhi1
"...meaning the supply of properties on the market is being reduced, which is pushing up rent prices."
Do you have evidence of this? Are the properties now empty? Were they sold to owner occupiers? What is the overall effect on squeezing landlords on property availability? Are these landlords mainly individuals who became accidental landlords, or large corporate landlords re-signing their portfolios?
This matters because the rise of the landlord, particularly in London, has both cause in the selling council houses (which are let privately at many multiples of the social rent) and the effect of reducing the stock of houses available to buy by owner occupiers, who find themselves competing in the market with capital-rich professional landlords.
If only London's property market were dominated purely by simple supply and demand, rather than huge speculative capital flows and unlimited credit creation by banks!
Err: re-sizing their portfolios