As Mark Baynes of Love Wapping wrote in sadly his final article a few weeks ago, it takes a fair bit of time and energy to maintain a constant flow of blog posts.
The past five years of writing them have been fun and rewarding, and certainly worth the effort.
But taking a break after my last post in August was the natural and right thing to do. After all, it was summer and the new regime of Mayor John Biggs was still settling in. There wasn’t an awful lot going on and the feedback I was receiving from the town hall was that by and large it was becoming a bit normal.
I kept on watching, albeit from a little more afar than previously, but still the most interesting bits were being provided by Lutfur Rahman and his Tower Hamlets First brigade, now known as the Tower Hamlets Independent Group (abbreviated here on in as THING).
In the past few weeks, Lutfur has of course – and I’m going to assume most people know this (otherwise I really would have a lot of writing to do) – declared himself bankrupt. This development came about during his attempt to avoid paying £500,000 of legal costs arising from the Election Court hearing.
The drama of that case (and I’m yet to hear whether anyone has investigated messages apparently sent by at least one supporter on social media earlier this asking people whether they would be prepared to bank transfer money to a legal fighting fund in return for the same amount given in cash…) took another twist last week when Lutfur’s wife appeared in court.
Ayesha Farid claims she, and not her husband, is the major owner of a buy-to-let property the petitioners are trying to force a sale on. And during her evidence in court, she insisted she was an independent woman who paid her own bills and had her own income. In fact, she let it be known she was so distancing herself from Lutfur that she said he had brought “shame” on her family. He quotes were so dramatic that they provided The Wharf with this current front page:
The full story is here. The court is yet to make a decision on the matter.
In the meantime, Lutfur continues to work on the judicial review of the Election Court petition, case that could to trundle on for months and possibly years if appeals on human rights grounds reach Europe. (His team, by the way, are confident of overturning the spiritual influence verdict.)
So in reality, Lutfur is now pretty much a ghost of a politician and Ken Livingstone’s Project Lutfur has now shifted lock, stock and barrel to Project Corbyn.
And without discipline of the Kennite brigade at Mulberry Place, that crazy little thing called THING is starting to fall apart at the seams.
During the time away from this blog, I was understandably criticised for not paying the same attention to the Biggs administration as I had done with Lutfur’s. I get that, but as I’ve said this is a voluntary exercise and we all have to prioritise our time.
One who implored me most to start writing again was Cllr Shahed Ali. In particular, he was exercised by the issue of Rich Mix whose future had been under threat by court case over a £850k council loan under Lutfur, but then saved when John Biggs, via a mayoral edict, dropped the proceedings. The story was covered by the Standard here. Had this been a decision by Lutfur on something else, he argued, I and others would have been all over it.
In October, Shahed also sent me an article he’d written on social housing ratios. He asked me to publish and I agreed but in all honesty I never got round to it: I wasn’t quite sure how I wanted the blog to move forward.
The article was actually pretty good. It was on a subject that had always interested him; in fact, he was the only Tower Hamlets councillor to attend an event my current employers had arranged on that particular issue in the Palace of Westminster in July.
Throughout the decade I’ve known him social housing/planning and Palestine had been the causes he’d been most passionate about.
So it was with a certain sadness to learn of the latest episode in his career.
Last Wednesday, he attended Thames Magistrates’ Court charged by Tower Hamlets Council with two counts housing fraud under Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 (failure to disclose he had a portfolio of properties whilst maintaining a council tenancy in his name).
A council spokeswoman told me he pleaded not guilty to the charges and the case has been sent to Crown Court for a further preliminary hearing later this month.
Let me stress again: he has pleaded not guilty and the case is live and likely to go before a jury. I’m going to allow comments on this thread (because it’s been a long time ‘n all, but there can be nothing written about this case).
It’s also a bit ironic that it’s Shahed’s predicament that has partly prompted me to blog again: I think I’m right in saying that no other mainstream outlet has covered it yet.
On the politics of the Shahed case (and careful comments are allowed on this), I asked THING leader Oli Rahman for a statement. Was he suspended, for example. This is what Oli sent me:
I was recently made aware of allegations involving Cllr Shahed Ali. He has pleaded not guilty and has agreed to step down while the case is ongoing. The Independent Group takes all allegations of impropriety extremely seriously and will cooperate fully with any enquiries from Council or elsewhere if necessary.Independent Group expects all members of the council to hold the highest standard and regard for their office, their constituents and particularly we expect that from our own group.
So at the beginning of the week, THING had 15 councillors (remember Abjol Miah and Mufti Miah had quit the group earlier this year to sit as Independents). On Wednesday, after Shahed stepped down, they had 14 (although the council still lists Shahed as THING).
By Friday, they’d encountered more trouble. I’m told there have been some blazing rows in the Mulberry Place office of THING. I’m also told that Oli Rahman has been furious with his fellow former deputy mayor Ohid Ahmed.
After John Biggs was elected in June, Ohid apparently told colleagues he did not wish to sit on any committees. To his colleagues, that decision rendered him lazy, someone who did not wish to share the workload but still happy to accept his £10k a year count councillor allowance.
He was also, they tell me, viewed with some suspicion. Some thought him desperate to get back into the Labour party (they think he had a long meeting with Labour NEC exec member Christine Shawcroft who told him that was unlikely for the time being); others thought him desperate to run for mayor in 2018.
On December 9, the THING leadership (and that incredibly includes the twin Tweedle Dumbs of Tower Hamlets politics, Maium Miah and Mahbub Alam) sent the following email to all group members:
Independent Group Member
Independent Group
Mulberry Place
Tower Hamlets Town Hall9 December 2015
Dear Independent Group Member
Following the Group meeting on 8 December 2016, We have been asked by the Group to formally write to every single Member of the Group to outline some of the serious issues that were discussed.
The Group agreed in principle that all Group members must adhere to the following:
•All Members must attend their Council meetings, including Group meetings. Failure to attend three meetings will result in a warning and written explanation sought.
•The Group has agreed to open a Group bank – every member to contribute £20 per month, Councillors with additional allowance such as the Leader and O&S Lead will make additional contribution. £40 for the Leader and the O&S lead.
•The Group agreed to have the Constitution/Memorandum of Understanding, if you have any suggestion, please let our Political Adviser brother Ali – know by close of play, 20 December and copy me.
•No one should give media comments or interview about Group matters, without prior approval, except the Leader to ensure smooth running.
•The Group reserves the right to disciple any Member whose conduct brings the Group into disrepute or create disunity – avoiding collective responsibility – including the Leader or officer bearer of the Group.
•Key events and group engagements that all must attend are: 14 December at 6.30 pm (Independent Group workshop), 16 December at 6.30 pm in Watrelily (Unite against Islamophobia and Racism) and 14 January 2016 at 7 pm (People’s Budget meeting in Canary Wharf).
I look forward to professional cooperation and unity in order to move forward together.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Oliur Rahman, Leader-independent Group
Cllr Mahbub Alam, Group Publicity Officer
Cllr Maium Miah, Group Secretary
I’m told this email was aimed at Ohid. He had, I understand, recoiled at the idea of attending the Unite against Islamophobia and Racism rally at the Waterlily this coming Wednesday.
Not, of course, because Ohid doesn’t agree with such things (you’ll all remember he’s fond of using the terms), but because of who’s speaking.
Here’s the poster for it:
Although these are exactly the same people Ohid has appeared with many times in the past five years, his colleagues say he’s worried about upsetting the new political hero in his life: London mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan.
So THING had a row and Ohid apparently left the group’s WhatsApp channel. This, I’m told, is a cardinal sin. They were then all under the impression he was going to quit the group proper.
But in the end, someone else did. On Friday, Shafiqul Haque, another defector from Labour in 2010, officially left THING to become an Independent. Ohid’s colleagues whisper that Ohid has bottled it.
I asked Ohid for a statement or comment, but he declined to answer. Shafiq, however, did reply. Here’s what he said:
It was good to work with independent group some time. I am always an independent minded individual. If anything I can’t agree I always raised it even when I was part of the labour group for number of years. At the current situation I believe it would be better for me to be completely independent to work for best interest of my constituents and the residents of this borough.
By being independent I can pick and endorse the policy better for our residents from either of the political parties or group.
I can support my chosen candidates in local and national elections.
I will have the independence to make own judgement in term of the policy.
My priority would be as always was to work for the best interest of our residents.
Hope I could explain my reason to be completely independent.
I asked Shafiq if he would be supporting Sadiq next May and he said “fighting the Tories is very important and I’ll support whoever fight austerity and tackles the housing crisis and cost of living crisis”.
So THING is down to 14.
But of course, they’d all love to rejoin Labour, particularly under Jeremy Corbyn.
Ever-smiling Oli Rahman even managed to grab a selfie with Corbyn at the Finsbury Park mosque protest nine days ago.
But say what you like about Corbyn, isn’t he brilliant at answering questions by use of road signs…
Happy Christmas, everyone.
Trial by Jeory 
Merry Christmas to you too, and how good it is to see you back 🙂
I hope that the individuals that brought the case against Lutfur, which none of the authoritative bodies had the guts to do, will get their money back. If anything, they should be given a knighthood and “legal aid” to cover them for all their troubles.
And with Red Ken, why does Corbyn even bother?
At least, as the rest of your story shows, it is always the rats that leaves a sinking ship first, so it could be be a question of time after Ken used his bus-pass, that the elected council group of Lutfur supporters would start imploding…
I’m very much with madsvid on this one. There is absolutely no way that the people who funded the case against Rahman should be left out of pocket.
In fact I’m minded to say that if ever a politician is removed from public office via Court Action (i.e. case proven), the members of the public who brought the petition should ALWAYS have their reasonable legal costs reimbursed if the the guilty fails to pay up – and goes for bankruptcy as a way out.
That’s essentially because the regulators – who work on behalf of the public – have failed in their job to uncover wrongdoing.
Whether the public purse or the regulators should reimburse the petitioners in these circumstances is a moot point. I can’t help feeling that the regulators might get rather better at doing their job if they had to pay up!
BTW for those that have not yet viewed it this is the webpage for public statement of record of the Bankruptcy Order in respect of Lutfur Rahman
https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/eiir/IIRCaseIndivDetail.asp?CaseId=701744311&IndivNo=703868569&Court=HIGH&OfficeID=600000079&CaseType=B
and this is the Government’s Advice Page about declaring yourself bankrupt
https://www.gov.uk/bankruptcy/declare-bankruptcy
The latter indicates what happens when somebody is declared bankrupt re their assets (which are sold) and income (which is diverted to pay off debts) and restrictions on what you can do if declared a bankrupt.
I wonder if the ex-Mayor can stick to the rules of Bankruptcy for the next year……
and/or whether he will be found to have misrepresented the facts to the Bankruptcy Court. There certainly seems to be a big question mark over who owns what.
Thank you to You couldn’t make it up!
The one line to look out for in your weblink to Lutfur’s bankruptcy is:
“Currently Bankrupt : Automatic Discharge will be 18 November 2016”
If the petitioners can prove in court that he made himself bankrupt in order to avoid the court order for payment,
And/or if the Police, when they pull their finger out, makes the case that there has been criminal activities, then the court appointed administrator could be obliged to keep Lutfur bankrupt for longer, to ensure that any money earned can be used to pay back – in effect, Lutfur should not be discharged after just one year.
We, the public, may have through direct petitioning to help the administrator to keep the case open and Lutfur bankrupt until the expenses are paid back.
Having said that, I’m not sure that Lutfur will ever be able to practice as a lawyer again – so his earnings potential might have gone. And if he was a director of a company, and was found to be dishonest, the Department of Business can strike him off from the Company register for up to 16 years…
I was also very surprised at the notion that he could pay off his debts in a year and be discharged.
Hence my two questions further down! 🙂
You couldn’t wrote:-
Do such actually exist ? If so, where does one find them ?
Any person misleading the court, especially on paper submissions or on oral evidence, would be potentially guilty of perjury ! Those found guilty usually become long-staying guests at one of her Britannic Majesty’s establishments.
Curious Cat
I’m not speculating about the nature of the punishment – I pointed that out on a related post a while back.
The specific issue which seemed to me to be of current relevance is whether or not the ex-Mayor has both
1) stuck to the rules in making his application for bankruptcy (ie filled in the forms correctly and identified all his assets); and/or
2) complies with all the rules going forward for the next year – or so.
Right now the critical issue is to wait and see (and/or investigate) if a reason to penalise is actually identified.
The thing with people who have a track record of saying one thing while doing another is that you tend to believe this is almost inevitable going forward.
On the topic of regulators – I don’t quite see why you query regulation in relation to either local elections or the conduct of local authorities. Of course it exists!
The question of whether the regulatory framework is what it needs to be and/or whether the current regulators do an effective job is quite another matter.
I would however comment that one “big five” accountancy firm (Arthur Andersen) went spectacularly bust over the Enron debacle although that did involve criminal charges relating to their audit practice.
So it’s not as if there isn’t some form of payback in the private sector. The question is why is such payback not present or not working as well in the public sector. Light touch regulation might be one reason….
Personally if I’d have been in Pickles office one of the things I would have very definitely wanted to know is how come so much was missed by those who should have picked it up. It wasn’t as if there were no complaints! For all we know there may well have been some form of internal investigation of what went wrong – in which case why hasn’t that seen the light of day – “in the public interest”?
What we need to have in place both now and in the future is an effective regulatory framework which would prevent the things that happened in Tower Hamlets happening again in other places.
Ted’s Christmas present to all of us is very welcome.
Wishing everyone, especially our silent readers – of which there are many, a very happy and enjoyable Christmas and a better, more successful and prosperous (if possible) New Year.
Do ask yourselves if the emotionally disturbing scene of people sleeping on our streets in the cold, the rain and, when it comes, the snow is something our allegedly very rich country should be ashamed of. They are Human Beings too.
Ted’s caution about not writing anything about people who have been charged with a criminal offence is based on the English legal interpretation of the Council of Europe’s (no, its much bigger than the EU) Human Right’s concept of a free and fair trial. The result of the trial should be determined solely on the evidence presented at the trial and not on anything the person may or may not have done elsewhere which is totally unrelated to the matter being tried. Some lawyers will argue it predates the immediately post World War 2 ECHR but the essential point is someone should be found guilty only on the evidence presented at the trial – not on anything else.
Possible prison awaits anyone who puts into the public domain, regardless whether or not it is 100% true and 100% accurate, anything which could influence a member of the jury. Strangely judges are deemed “uninfluencable”. The Don’t Publish anything period commences when a person is charged. One can publish that someone has been charged and describe the charges but that is all.
More details in “McNae’s: Essential Law for Journalists” edition 22, 2012, section 18 Contempt of court”.
Curious Cat.
P.S. Welcome back refreshed Ted.
This is like the long wait between seasons of The Walking Dead to find out who’s been munched, who’s managed to cling on to “the group” and who’s been cleaved from it and left to die in the wilderness.
I did not know about Lutfur and Mrs Lutfur. I don’t believe a word of what she says… money comes before truth. Pay up or go to jail Rahman.
A very warm welcome back – hope you enjoyed your break
I am of the opinion that truth is a strange bedfellow to most of the THING, as it is to Lutfur, and also Mrs Lutfur it now appears….
As regards the social housing quotas issue, hearty congratulations for the work that you are involved in as part of your day job – the phrase “commmercial in confidence” needs to be banned from any contract involving public money – too many sins have been hidden under it’s cover
Hope you have a cool Yule
Bod wrote:-
Absolutely.
Great to see another blog post Ted. Thank you.
It’s interesting to see that THING are falling apart at the seams. It doesn’t sound like anything much new is happening, but it’s all a bit less colourful because they don’t have a mayor and they don’t have many resources to play with. It always was a bit like watching a car-crash in slow motion, only now it’s more like a bicycle-crash (or possibly a child’s tricycle-crash, given the mentalities involved.)
Very interesting to see the developments from the wife of The Despicable Rahman. As GM said, I don’t believe it either. That man is so desperate for money and power he was willing to sacrifice several hundred thousand local residents, justice and the truth for it. Would you put it beyond him to sacrifice his family as well? No, neither would I.
Oh, and as for those statements from THING – the wording is quite hilarious! May I refer people to my comment on here back in July:
Checklist for communications from THF/Respect/Lutfurite (delete as appropriate, given the naming convention of the day) people:
– Fomenting division and hate. Tick.
– Poor English. Tick.
– Overly flowery language. Tick.
– Appearing to claim some religious moral high ground. Tick.
– Passive-aggressive undertones. Tick.
– Vast chip on shoulder evident. Tick.
Tim.
So – for your next post Ted! 😉
Might we have an update on the matter of the referral of the ex-Mayor by the Judge to the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority and/or Law Society.
What’s happened on that score?
Have asked the Law Society.
And another matter…..
I wonder if the ex-Mayor declaring himself bankrupt was designed to:
1) avoid paying the petitioners’ legal costs which he is liable for?
2) get legal aid to pursue a Judicial Review of the original judgement against him?
If the rationale included the latter, is this a good use of public money?
Is it a matter of public record if somebody has applied for and got legal aid?
Over to you Ted! 🙂
Good to have you back Ted.
This is a sorry state of affairs for the 4 brave individuals who risked everything when the Council, Councillors, Central Government and the Police stood by and did nothing.
It’s shocking the Rahman who now says he’s bankrupt to avoid his responsibilities, is allowed to pursue JD of the original verdict, which at best won’t change anything. He will still be a lying and corrupt failed politician.
Merry Christmas.
Jay Kay wrote:-
The Tower Hamlets election petition commissioner’s comments on the Birmingham postal voting fraud up-to-now have been ignored by the failing English establishment …
http://law.slough.info/law44/law44p072.php
(716) Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising. To assert that “The systems already in place to deal with the allegations of electoral fraud are clearly working” indicates a state not simply of complacency but of denial.
(717) The systems to deal with fraud are not working well. They are not working badly. The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated.
Written in March 2005 – yes, 10 years earlier.
If it wasn’t for the commendable efforts of the Tower Hamlets Four, his excellency King Rahman would still be reigning over the Lutfur Borough of London.
Curious Cat.
Has Lutfur been struck off? No mention so far. Good to see you back.dadd
Did The Wharf misreport, or did Mrs Rahman (Ayesha Farid) admit in court, under oath, to purchasing a Shared Ownership property as an investment?
Shared Ownership properties cannot be bought as investments and there are restrictions on subletting. This type of taxpayer subsidised housing is simply not available to a property owner interested in investing in expanding their buy-to -let portfolio, however if his or her spouse were to conveniently separate, he or she could obtain access- perhaps- I don’t know how strict the SO rules are.
SO properties in Tower Hamlets are allocated to people on LBTH housing waiting list. For many years there were no restrictions on property owners (even those owning multiple properties) preventing them from joining the waiting list (and renting council properties). I believe this loophole was closed a few years ago (and that’s why Shahed Ali is in trouble) but SO properties always had such restrictions, so it would be interesting to piece together the whole story of Mr and Mrs Rahman obtaining SO property.
There is no info re: sanctions against Lutfur on SRA or Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal websites. Perhaps this has been put on hold pending JR?
Legal Aid is only available to people on benefits. I don’t think you can get benefits if you have income from property rental going into your (or your spouse’s) account. However, it the couple were to split up- again…….
The Luftur/THING saga just keeps on giving: in terms of twists and turns it matches all the best Scandi drama (minus the dead bodies and substituting the Northern darkness with comedy).
It’s only a matter of time someone spots its dramatic potential- if anyone is up for collaboration on turning it into a TV series drop me a line 🙂
Well spotted Monja! Let’s hope the lawyers are reading this blog again!
I predict that the next bit of news in the complicated and tangled financial and legal relationship between the ex-Mayor and his wife is the announcement of a divorce….
The Wharf did report it was bought under shared ownership. If Ms Farid and/or Lutfur had progressed to owning 100% of the ownership of the property then sub-letting would be possible, but shared ownership is only available for first time buyers.
Well, Mr & Mrs Ex-mayor were buying the property for the “first time” 🙂
The issue of ownership of the property is easily established from Land Registry records. It’s hard to see why there is such dispute about it.
In his declaration to the register of interests, Lutfur claimed to own 3 properties. Was this untrue or were they subsequently disposed of as a matter of convienience?
Incidentally, what’s happened to the £749,500 fighting fund made by 53 donors to which Ayesha Farid contributed £270?
Welcome back Ted, it’s good to have some commentary on the local scene. Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah too.
Lutfur has gone, can’t we just forget about him? Residents still have day-to-day problems that could benefit from the microscopic level of scrutiny that this and other blogs levelled at Mr R- but aren’t aiming at our supposed Saviour – Mr John Biggs.
Tower Hamlets Homes has not improved since Lutfur’s departure, it’s got worse – just ask any employee to comment off the record. For example, housing officers are being taken away from certain neighbourhoods and ‘re-centralised’, destroying all the good work in de-centralisation done by Liberals years ago. Worse, housing officers are no longer able to have a Mears (repair contractor) staff member accompany them on the monthly estate inspection, so leaseholder bills are set to rise as faulty or non-existent repair jobs are not picked up and dealt with.
Over 20,000 LBTH families live in THH properties, so Mr Biggs should devote at least a part of his time to ensuring the organisation is run effectively and efficiently – by now we should have seen evidence of Mr Biggs’ involvement, but instead THH continues to be managed in a hopeless and dysfunctional way – a result of the previous CEO having presided over the departure of many experienced ex-council technical and managerial staff.
I’m tired of hearing John Biggs ‘urge’ us residents to do this, do that – can I ‘urge’ him to remember that getting rid of Lutfur was a part of his remit, but not the full extent!
It’s not that simple. Lutfur was the sole shareholder of THH and his Councillors held the majority of voting rights on the Board that was acting unconstitutionally and is a controlled company of LBTH. THH was only ever set up for financial reasons to gain the decent homes money. It was not about residents. Now the DH programme is ending, there is no reason for the the expensive and under-performing THH to continue to exist.
Sorry Jay Kay, it’s even simpler – as Monja succinctly points out.
One of the problems I have with some of the commenters on this blog (and thank heavens it exists, because otherwise there would be NO fairly democratic discussion forum for TH) is that they are obsessed with the game of local politics, rather than with the actual deleterious effects of poorly performing local politicians.
The reason why THH was set up is beside the point – for all I care it could have been set up by Enid Blyton, with Noddy as Company Secretary… what IS important is its effect on the quality of life of 20,000+ TH tenants and leaseholders.
You seem to agree that it is an expensive and under-performing organisation – yet fail to provide evidence that Mr Biggs is any better at improving it than Mr L. Rahman.
I’ve had off the record talks with decent THH frontline staff (many of which do sterling jobs in spite of interference by senior managers who have little experience of housing).
I was aghast to find that few of them have even seen Mr Biggs since the election, never mind heard of any positive changes implemented by him and his party colleagues.
Given the fact that THH is the largest social landlord in TH, and is a useful indicator of the ability of LBTH to manage its affairs (it may be ‘theoretically’ independent, but of course that is poppycock) I would expect any Mayor with a grain of management intelligence to at least send a round-robin around THH staff saying that they appreciated their work, outlining key improvements needed and warning of the need for change. Mr Biggs has done none of this.
East End politics is far more complicated than a simple good vs. evil story, with Lutfur Rahman cast as the pantomime villain. Over the years I’ve seen many far less flamboyant politicians destroy the area in a far less controversial way, behind the scenes and out of the news.
Mediocrity and personal political ambition often result in the most damaging political side effects – I hope that Mr Biggs elevates his performance about this, but so far I have yet to see any signs of this. I am not a diehard Liberal, but certainly the last 6 months have seen about 1% of the positive changes which the Liberals achieved in their first 6 months all those years ago.
And note that their eventual victory was achieved in the face of an equally self-satisfied and complacent Labour administration.
poorly performing local politicians is caused by people lacking ability or by those with ability lacking genuine commitment to, and interest in, the local community. Inevitably one has to wonder why LBTH’s political masters put these sub-standard councillors on the ballot forms.
THH sounds like an ALMO (Arms Length Management Organisation).
Don’t forget Labour fans, it was your hero Tony Blair who created the Decent Homes for the Future scheme circa 2004 ? Don’t forget too that Tony Blair wanted local authorities to divest themselves of all their council housing (something many Tory councils did with glee) . Blair’s government used the Decent Homes programme to pressurise councils to privatise or transfer council homes to expensive Housing Associations officially funded by the government and technically known as Private Providers of Social Housing, formerly known as RSLs (Registered Social Landlords).
LBTH has the legal power to close down THH and to transfer all the housing staff and housing stock back to direct control and management of the council. I am sure Biggs & Co. are fully aware of this.
Curious Cat.
“poorly performing local politicians is caused by people lacking ability or by those with ability lacking genuine commitment to, and interest in, the local community”
Actually I’d say that PPLPs are caused by borough residents complaining about issues in social media and down the pub, but not physically doing anything to improve things – e.g. by standing as Councillors themselves.
“Labour fans” – after years of disappointment, I’m not a fan of any political party – they all have far too many useless representatives in them, and far too few good ones.
Again, the question as to why Mr Biggs promised to bring so many improvements to the borough yet has apparently failed to make any improvements to a housing organisation which affects the lives of 20,000+ residents goes unanswered.
Perhaps someone here will give substantive information about this specific question, rather than split political hairs which the vast majority of us are uninterested in.
I agree with Jako. THH continue as if Lutfur was still there, making sure that any wrongdoing by its officers, no matter how huge, goes unpunished in return for ‘favours’ such as redirecting Housing Revenue Account funds towards those estates most likely to vote for him. Let’s not forget: Lutfur only gave orders, the officers who complied (or rather obliged) had the full knowledge that what they were doing was immoral and illegal. And these council (and housing association) homes did not get allocated to his supporters by Lutfur himself. Someone employed by the Council, paid from our taxes to act with integrity and honesty to allocate the most precious resource of social housing to those most in need, and who broke the law to allocate it to Lutfur’s supporters instead, is still in their job, as if nothing happened.
The corruption in LBTH predates the disgraced Mayor, and it is obvious that the type of public servant our borough seemed to attract was a perfect fit for the corrupt-minded Rahman: both thrived in each other’s company. Lutfur might be gone but his council officer cronies are still there. Sadly the fight for a better Tower Hamlets is a very long way from being over.
Jako – You misunderstand. I am not defending THH whatever Biggs might say. The reason why THH was set up is important because that’s the reason why it doesn’t care about residents and it why it won’t disappear until after the DH programme. THH has been in business for about 8 years. If it doesn’t know how improve by now it never will. THH is poorly managed and doesn’t care about residents who pay their salaries. Biggs has the power to get rid of it and last year as part of his manifesto but has now changed his mind. Staff speaking off the record won’t help and neither will the new CEO.
“The reason why THH was set up is important because that’s the reason why it doesn’t care about residents and it why it won’t disappear until after the DH programme.”
No idea what you are on about – THH was set up as a way of getting a pot of government money, something all political parties try at one time or another.
That has no bearing on the quality of its services or its longevity – there are plenty of local authorities around the country who did the same, and whose housing organisations deliver at least average services.
“THH has been in business for about 8 years. If it doesn’t know how improve by now it never will. THH is poorly managed and doesn’t care about residents who pay their salaries.”
But THH is really managed by LBTH (i.e. if the Mayor says Jump, the THH CEO jumps)… so if it is poorly performing, it is an indicator of the performance of LBTH as well. The point you are avoiding addressing is why THH continues to perform as poorly under Mr Biggs (Labour) – if not worse – than under Mr L Rahman (THF)….
“Biggs has the power to get rid of it and last year as part of his manifesto but has now changed his mind.” – yes, and I would like to know why. I hope that it wasn’t the usual “let’s put any old cr-p in the manifesto, then forget about it later”.
“Staff speaking off the record won’t help and neither will the new CEO.” – this makes no sense at all. Staff speaking honestly off the record help tremendously in identifying issues, and a new CEO (if properly qualified) could improve THH tremendously – unfortunately Mr Biggs simply box ticked the incoming CEO agree by Mr L Rahman and Co.
Still waiting to hear someone give a coherent explanation as to why Mr Biggs would campaign on a platform including the importance of local housing, yet fail to improve the main provider of it.
Jay Kay wrote
Other Labour authorities actually closed-down their poorly performing, very expensive to run and public funds-wasting ALMOs several years ago. Yet Decent Homes for the Future modernisations continue.
If they can successfully scrap their ALMOs why can’t LBTH ?
Curious Cat.
CC / YCMIU – give it a rest! I’m not reading the details of your posts as they are almost as tedious as the infighting that typifies THING!
Willy-waving on the internet isn’t a good look so give it a miss.
I keep mine smugly wrapped-up inside my trousers. Don’t know about the others.
THH is an ALMO and it’s not controlled by John Biggs – so why don’t you stop blaming him for things he doesn’t control?
Instead, why don’t you identify the ten members of the Board who do control it?
This is what their website has to say about How we are Run
Wakey, wakey Couldn’t.
I am amazed, again, that someone with your local government background lacks basic knowledge about how local government in England operates.
Although an ALMO is technically at “arms length” from its sponsoring local authority, it is never ever totally independent of that local authority who continue to exert influence and, occasionally, discretely intervenes despite the public relations “fool the tenants” crap – so typical of ALMOs.
Nothing what-so-ever should ever be accepted at face value in local government ! Its far too slimy, far too corrupt and far too political to be a true servant of the public that pay its costs including excessively high salaries, pensions, perks and redundancy bonuses (although that has recently been reduced).
And, less anyone of us forget, its Tower Hamlets after all – the heart of Labour’s corruption in the South-East.
The English local government system, under Labour’s leadership, created King Rahman. Biggs is just another Labour-controlled politician whose first loyalty is to LABOUR rather than to the public, of which they are many, who live and work in the less-than-wonderful LBTH.
Close down THH and re-introduce council housing.
If THH is really out of council control, why does anyone want Biggs to poke his nose in or to show any interest in what is actually a private company ?
Who runs the HRA (Housing Revenue Account) ?
Happy Christmas.
Curious Cat.
I’m just amazed at how you manage to constantly confuse organisational management structures you don’t like with automatic sleaze!
In this case, the ALMO as an organisational mechanism for generating external funding for housing and new homes and refurbishments is working just fine all over England. They’re not all perfect but the fact that they do work means the structure is not the problem. see http://www.almos.org.uk/almos
In my (more considerable than yours) experience, the issue about effectiveness in working and delivery almost always basically boils down to the quality of governance and not money or structures.
Maybe they work elsewhere because
1) they’re not operating in Tower Hamlets?
2) both the Council side and the ALMO side are effectively managed?
THH is not technically at arms length – it’s actually at arms length.
It has (or should have) a wholly separate constitution and legal identity and Board and auditors etc etc etc.
The question as always is
* who runs the ALMO,
* how competent are the Councillors on the Board of what is an ARMS-LENGTH management organisation (eg do they know anything about housing; do they read the agendas; do they actually get involved; do they actually got meetings)
* how competent the independent people on the Board are – and how truly independent they are (and ditto the questions above)
Of course one also needs to also ask who really runs the HRA on the Council side – and what sort of oversight does the Mayor and the Council have of how that operates in reality as opposed to in principle.
I should imagine Mayor Biggs had a long list of things that needed sorting post the exit of the ex-Mayor. To expect him to sort out every quagmire straight away is totally unrealistic!
Who’s to say that THH is not on the list?
Why not ask him? 🙂
“the issue about effectiveness in working and delivery almost always basically boils down to the quality of governance and not money or structures”
YCMIU, yes this I would agree with.
However governance in reality comes back to LBTH – whatever you’ve read elsewhere. Lutfur would call up the previous CEO to set policy on various matters, just as I am sure Biggs does/could do. In fact, given Biggs has a far larger party machine, I am sure he has far more time to do so.
“what sort of oversight does the Mayor and the Council have of how that operates in reality as opposed to in principle.
I should imagine Mayor Biggs had a long list of things that needed sorting post the exit of the ex-Mayor. To expect him to sort out every quagmire straight away is totally unrealistic!
Who’s to say that THH is not on the list?”
Sorry, but you are just sounding like a lovelorn apologist for Mr Biggs and Co. As I have pointed out, THH controls the housing conditions of 20,000+ LBTH residents, so a reasonable person would have expected at least some movement by Mr Biggs by this point in his rule.
Maybe the simple truth is that Mr Rahman wasn’t much cop, and neither is Mr Biggs?
Couldn’t,
I live in the imperfect real world. No point in replying to your points because, with respect, I think you are posting fairy tales describing an ideal situation.
Sweet dreams.
CC.
YCMIU – with respect, you seem to have little knowledge of how THH works in practice – reading websites and brochures only tells you how it should be run, not how it is run in practice.
Curious Cat is correct in his assessment of the independence or otherwise.
The Board says very little, and is headed by the usual type of clueless ‘great and good’ cardboard cut-out who is used as a nodding dog by the CEO.
It is clear that you have never attended a THH board meeting – maybe you should try doing that before commenting…
I’m merely making the point that the way it is run wholly depends on who is appointed to run it. See http://www.towerhamletshomes.org.uk/top_level/about_us/our_board.aspx
So why is nobody grumbling about what any of the Councillors are doing re. pulling their weight to get things sorted – they are the people who are PERSONALLY accountable for the Council’s involvement
an ALMO is also never going to behave in the same way as a council housing department for the simple reason that it’s not one.
The ex-Mayor behaved in a number of ways which were wholly inappropriate even for a Mayor. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that Biggs follows his example.
The reason for citing how ALMOS are run elsewhere is because if you don’t know any different then you don’t know how things could be. 🙂 It’s good to take a look at the wider perspective and to hold people to account for how things could be (i.e. if this happens there, why not here as well?)
Finally – just because the people commenting here don’t know what the new Mayor has or has not done doesn’t mean to say he hasn’t been doing something. It just means you don’t know.
My recommendation – don’t speculate about what he has or has not done – ask him the question directly. He even replies to tweets!
You could also try writing to ALL the individual Councillors and see what sort of answer you get.
Telling them that you will publicise the answer always raises the stakes and gets them to perk up!
Biggs does control THH. Housing is an executive function controlled by the Executive Mayor who is the sole shareholder of THH and who appoints his own Councillors to the THH Board which is a company wholly owned and controlled by LBTH. In what way is Biggs not controlling THH?
TOWER HAMLETS HOMES LIMITED
Company number 06249790
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06249790/filing-history
Annual accounts = 22 Oct 2015 Full accounts made up to 31 March 2015
PDF available from “Filing History” tab.
Annual accounts, PDF page 5 of 30 = “The company is a controlled company (by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets) ……”
Annual accounts, PDF page 7 of 30 = “THH is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Council”.
Annual accounts, PDF page 18 of 30 = “The London Borough of Tower Hamlets, the ultimate parent organisation ……….”
Annual accounts, PDF page 25 of 30 = “The Company participates in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Pension Fund.”
Annual accounts, PDF page 30 of 30 ….. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Is there anyone still claiming THH is 100% independent of the LBTH ???
Curious Cat.
The Councillors appointed by the Council do NOT run the Board. Count the number of OTHER members of the Board and their various affiliations and degrees of representing different interest groups.
The AL in ALMO means ARMS-LENGTH!
I think some of the people commenting are confused between strategic Housing and operational housing delivery.
Only the Strategic element of housing remains with the Council as the commissioning body and recipient of the HRA. Everything else re. delivery is the responsibility of ALMOs and housing associations around this borough.
Let’s also not forget there are a huge number of other housing organisations in the borough doing exactly the same job as THH and very many of these are also beset by issues very similar to those experienced by people housed by THH.
Are people suggesting that the Mayor should only focus on THH and simply ignore the experiences of all other tenants of social housing in this borough?
Happy Christmas to everyone including Couldn’t.
THH and who actually controls it in reality – not in theory – is well established 🙂
CC.
Here’s a benchmark for you – relating to the world of ALMOS outside Tower Hamlets
http://www.almos.org.uk/include/getDoc.php?did=7228&fid=8351
and another very recent publication which provides benchmarks around governance
2015 Resident/Tenant Engagement Survey – Summary Findings
http://www.almos.org.uk/include/getDoc.php?did=7298&fid=8450
Somewhat predictably Tower Hamlets Homes did not participate in this national survey!
“Somewhat predictably Tower Hamlets Homes did not participate in this national survey!”
Very interesting – THH Resident Engagement has historically been given huge amounts of money by the gormless THH management, who for some reason thought that it had a direct line to Mr Rahman and the Bengali community.
In fact, the Resident Engagement department manager was seen as a joke by THFirst apparently, and they avoided having any dealings with him.
This might have been due to him having been involved in Dame Colet House a few years back – worth doing a google on that!
So instead of speculating on a blog why don’t you write an email and ask them why they didn’t participate when 90% did
THH Resident Engagement costs residents, not THH, over £1m. For what?
Jay Kay asked:-
To conclusively prove how utterly inept the management and directors of THH are ?
In England, housing associations and ALMOs can waste money without repercussions, without fear of annoying tenants, whilst inflicting sub-standard rubbish fraudulently described as “service”. The people who ultimately pay have no rights in the matter. Seems like an arrogant dictatorship !
Curious Cat.
Somewhat predictably Tower Hamlets Homes did not participate in this national survey!
No point in coming last in the survey and publicly being shamed 😉
THH know how crap they are.
The bottom line – people are accountable and things happen only when and if you hold them properly accountable in the right sort of way.
Banging on about things on this blog does not count.
Four people went to the Election Court and made the relevant people accountable – and now we have an ex-Mayor who is bankrupt and having his assets sold off to discharge his debts, is banned from public office for five years and may well be struck off as a solicitor.
So the next time somebody wants a politician to do something – how about if you tell us first what you have done to hold them accountable.
* Have you written or emailed them with the question?
* Have you asked them a question in Council?
* Have you tweeted them and asked a question?
* Have you stood up at a meeting and asked them a question?
* Have you organised a petition?
If you want action and to make things happen then you need to play your part in making it happen.
You also have to play your part within “the rules” for how things work. Knowing and understanding the rules and then making them work for you is what makes a difference.
More wishful and idealistic wonders from Couldn’t.
Can anyone at all, including Biggs or Mr & Mrs Rahman, explain to the public of the LBTH how can the public hold the bigwigs running the Tower Hamlets Show to account by:-
Asking a single question, as opposed to a House of Commons select committee-style grilling, can never ever hold anyone, not even a tiny mouse, to account for anything.
Curious Cat.
UCMIP seems to view the world as it should be, and not as it really is.
We are all living in hope Lutfur Rahman’s assets will be sold off to pay for the legal costs- for the sake of the petitioners. But is this realistic?
As for standing up at meetings and asking questions we all know that during the Rahmanite era this was pointless, as both the disgraced Mayor and THING councillors were simply unembarrassable. And who could forget that asking Lutfur questions violated his human rights- on the Monitoring Officer’s (isabella Freeman’s) advice apparently.
As for petitions, those who bothered to organise them in the pre-Biggs era are still trying to get them looked into- and encountering huge resistance from officers.
As for tweeting I have been trying it out with some success, but THH avoid engaging in any sort of dialogue in a public forum. I haven’t tried the Mayor yet- perhaps I should have a go and report later 🙂
We desperately need Select Committee style grilling, but having been to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s meeting I was disappointed by the speedy and shallow way it skimmed through the issues.
On the whole things are improving, but way too slowly. It still feels like banging my head against the wall, but now tiny bits of plaster are coming off….
Monja wrote
Hear, hear !
CC.
SRA statement issued today
Investigations in this matter are ongoing. Any disciplinary action the SRA takes against solicitors is normally published on its website at
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/recent-decisions/recent-decisions.page
unless there are factors which support a decision not to publish.
++end
I dont see any bad in Ohid going back to his roots, after all he was pretty high up in the labour party regionally before he met Lutfur. Its about time a decent man went back to working with decent people and I hope to see him campaigning for Sadiq Khan.
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/465452.article?Decision-1
I think this is him
Reprimanded – full decision to be published in due time
No it’s not
We all want the one titled:-
Rahman, Mohammed Lutfur – 2787
(admitted as a solicitor on 15 April 1997)
Happy and enjoyable Christmas and a great, successful and prosperous New Year to everyone.
Curious Cat
P.S. Please think of the people without homes.
Ah, sorry – feel free to remove!