What a way for officials to treat tenant with grievance

Published: 2 April 2010

WHAT'S happening with public accountability when council officials determine who can attend meetings (council or otherwise) within council buildings by citing complainants as vexatious. As a council tenant in a street property managed by Partners for Improvement in Islington, I attended the recent Partners Residents’ Forum at the town hall.

A drama was already in progress as I arrived a few minutes early. I was advised that as a resident I could proceed but officials were awaiting the outcome of a pre-meeting before they would enter. It transpired that the officials were refusing to attend the meeting if a particular individual was present. 

I am familiar with many details of this man’s plight – he and his family were put in alternative accommodation for six months, during which the Partners had, in the name of Decent Homes improvements, caused significant damage to his Grade II-listed council home, leaving well-recorded and independently and expertly evidenced health and safety hazards, posing risks to life and property. 

His extensive efforts to have his “situation” addressed by the council holding the contractors to account were repeatedly dismissed as he became an increasing thorn in their side. This individual has recently received a letter from council chief executive John Foster categorising him as “vexatious”. 

At the town hall meeting the chair of the residents’ panel and other residents saw no justification for excluding this individual as an observer, which he confirmed was his sole intention. With the threat of a complete boycott by officials and out of respect for the chair and other residents present, the individual, with notable humility, agreed to leave, merely seeking a commitment that the meeting was minuted and that he would be provided with a copy.

What could be so scary about an individual taking notes of public proceedings at meetings of elected representatives? It is surely ridiculous when those who are the subject of an individual’s complaints can determine that a resident may not attend residents’ consultation meetings which discuss the services they provide. 

Should the Partners’ contractors be in a position to hold an entire panel of resident representatives to ransom over who they may and may not have attend their public meetings?

Council tenant N5 
(Name and address supplied)

COULD someone from Islington Council’s Lib Dem executive explain the reasoning behind the decision to have a 30-year contract with Partners for Islington, a PFI (private finance initiative), to maintain the council’s 6,500 street properties?

Oriel Hutchinson
Conservative candidate, Canonbury ward