Pavilion threaten critics
Keith Parkins | 16.04.2008 15:18 | Repression | Social Struggles | Liverpool | South Coast
Pavilion Housing Association are behaving like spoilt playground bullies, threatening and intimidating their critics in a crude attempt to shut them up.
'I must warn you that if you publish material that calls into question our good name, or makes derogatory remarks about our homes, our staff, or our residents, we will take legal action against you without further warning.' -- Paul Ryrie, Pavilion minion
'In your letter, you refer to my newsletter The Truth in Rushmoor as 'inaccurate'. Which you know well it is not. So I will explain the reason it is called The Truth in Rushmoor – because that's exactly what it is. It's an accurate summary and picture of what is going on around our estates.' -- Peter Sandy
'The vast majority of tenants are good tenants who expect a good quality of service from Pavilion. ... we do not think they are getting what they deserve and the standard of the estate managers is not up to scratch.' -- Councillor Steve Masterson, Rushmoor Borough Council
'I have had a number of animated discussions with tenants about repairs to their homes. I have had 11-30 pm phone calls from residents worried about the state of their homes.' -- Councillor Mike Roberts, Rushmoor Borough Council
Pavilion is what was once the council housing stock of the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor in Farnborough and Aldershot.
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/farnboro.htm
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/ald-shot.htm
It was one of the first stock transfers to the private sector. That was over a decade ago. Four years ago, the Audit Commission published one of its most damning reports on a housing association.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/07/295403.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296816.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296854.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/09/297984.html
Pavilion now forms part of First Wessex Housing Group, which also owns housing stock in Portsmouth and Eastleigh.
Pavilion has a poor reputation, repairs not carried out, botched jobs, anti-social behaviour, all the problems that are usually associated with slum estates.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396006.html?c=on
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396456.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396672.html
Peter Sandy, a local community activist, a former Rushmoor councillor, has been prepared to act for tenants, to publicly criticise Pavilion. For his activities, in particular distributing a leaflet highlighting the failings of Pavilion, he has been threatened by Pavilion.
The threatening letters issued by Pavilion are so pathetic, that it is laughable. But then what is to be expected from bully-boys behaving like cartoon Rachman landlords?
Pavilion threaten to take Peter Sandy to Court. They claim their good name has been defamed.
In a letter to Peter Sandy, Paul Ryrie, with reference to a leaflet highlighting the failings of Pavilion, wrote: 'we are not prepared to allow you to publish further such material'.
I did not know his 'permission' was required in the first place!
It obviously has not occurred to Pavilion that you have to have a good name in the first place to be defamed.
Obviously Pavilion have not heard of the McLibel case. A handful of anarchists handing out leaflets outside a McDonald's The group had more infiltrators than it had members. By taking the anarchists to Court, all two of them, the whole world woke up to what they were saying, and it has reverberated around the world ever since.
http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news6287.htm
http://www.mcspotlight.org
If Pavilion want their dirty linen flaunted in public, then please go ahead, as there will be a lot of people who will be only too willing to help them. The residents of their slum estates will be queuing out the door to give testimony that Pavilion is a Rachman landlord.
If Pavilion do proceed to Court to air their dirty linen in public, they would have to finance the action out of their Director's fund, and not from rent accounts, otherwise they would have to demonstrate what benefit there was in their actions for tenants.
What then has so incensed Pavilion, apart that is the Truth has been told?
Quite a lot it seems.
They do not like reference to 'anti-social misfits' on their slum estates.
They do not like their glossy newsletter being referred to as a 'comic book'.
A 'comic book' the residents of their slum estates treat as unwanted junk mail and throw unread straight in the bin.
There is a strange mismatch between what Pavilion describe in their 'comic book', to what residents actually experience every day of their lives.
Pavilion do not like their slums estates being referred to as 'slums' and 'ghettos'.
What would the prefer: 'third world shanty towns'?
In their 'comic book', Pavilion ask that tenants inform on their anti-social neighbours, but presumably, they cannot be referred to as 'anti-social misfits'.
Pavilion even have a group of people to do this, residents hand-picked by Pavilion, seen by other tenants as 'busy-bodies' and 'nosy parkers', in what smacks of repression in the old Soviet Union and Iraq under Saddam Husein.
One of these 'busy bodies', as referred to by the local residents, has been running round the estates saying: 'Peter Sandy is being done by our law firm.' It begs the question: who was the source of this information?
This system of neighbourhood informants informing on their neighbours is already well established in Eastleigh.
Classic divide and rule tactics!
The last thing Pavilion want is to engender community spirit as the community will then be united against a common enemy.
Pavilion do not like a reference to housing associations 'robbing people blind', and in the words of Pavilion 'by implication Pavilion'.
If the cap fits!
Rents have been going up faster than inflation, new tenants, post-privatisation, pay higher rents, service charges have gone up much faster than rents.
Research by Defend Council Housing has shown rents, and in particular service charges, in the privatised housing association sector, have gone up much faster and are now at higher levels than for council housing.
http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk
Pavilion levy service charges or serve bills for services not delivered. To most reasonable people this would appear to constitute fraud, obtaining money under false pretences. Pavilion do not like the use of the word 'fraud' to describe their underhand activities, charging for non-existent services.
It is apparently unacceptable to say any of these things about Pavilion. If you do the bully-boys will come along and huff and puff and blow your house down.
What is unacceptable is that in a wealthy country at the beginning of the twenty-first century, people are forced to live in slums, fear to venture out at night, are intimidated and threatened by slum landlords. Conditions more akin to urban slums in a third world country.
This is not the first time Pavilion have tried to threaten and intimidate Peter Sandy. When he was a councillor, they filed complaints with the Standards Board for England, complaints the Standards Board threw out. Before he was a councillor, Pavilion tried to have him thrown out of his home.
Peter Sandy is not though the only one to criticise Pavilion. At a recent council meeting, Pavilion were hammered by local councillors, their estate managers were described as 'a disgrace'. [Landlord 'not doing enough to curb yobs', Aldershot News, 28 March 2008]
The only person to speak in favour of Pavilion was Rushmoor chief executive Andrew Lloyd. He has since been invited by tenants to come and see for himself, so that in future he does not utter a load of ignorant bullshit. It remains to be seen whether he will gracefully accept the invitation, or whether he will chicken out and prefer instead to remain in a state of blissful ignorance.
Andrew Lloyd has been given a simple choice: either he visits the residents and resolves their problems or they visit him and occupy his office.
Councillors admit they are getting large numbers of complaints from their constituents, which is why on the slum estates it has become a major election issue in the May local elections.
The situation with Pavilion is now so bad, that on their slum estates, candidates in the May local elections are vying with each other in their criticism of Pavilion, and who if elected promise they will demand something be done.
'In your letter, you refer to my newsletter The Truth in Rushmoor as 'inaccurate'. Which you know well it is not. So I will explain the reason it is called The Truth in Rushmoor – because that's exactly what it is. It's an accurate summary and picture of what is going on around our estates.' -- Peter Sandy
'The vast majority of tenants are good tenants who expect a good quality of service from Pavilion. ... we do not think they are getting what they deserve and the standard of the estate managers is not up to scratch.' -- Councillor Steve Masterson, Rushmoor Borough Council
'I have had a number of animated discussions with tenants about repairs to their homes. I have had 11-30 pm phone calls from residents worried about the state of their homes.' -- Councillor Mike Roberts, Rushmoor Borough Council
Pavilion is what was once the council housing stock of the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor in Farnborough and Aldershot.
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/farnboro.htm http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/ald-shot.htm It was one of the first stock transfers to the private sector. That was over a decade ago. Four years ago, the Audit Commission published one of its most damning reports on a housing association.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/07/295403.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296816.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296854.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/09/297984.html Pavilion now forms part of First Wessex Housing Group, which also owns housing stock in Portsmouth and Eastleigh.
Pavilion has a poor reputation, repairs not carried out, botched jobs, anti-social behaviour, all the problems that are usually associated with slum estates.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396006.html?c=on http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396456.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396672.html Peter Sandy, a local community activist, a former Rushmoor councillor, has been prepared to act for tenants, to publicly criticise Pavilion. For his activities, in particular distributing a leaflet highlighting the failings of Pavilion, he has been threatened by Pavilion.
The threatening letters issued by Pavilion are so pathetic, that it is laughable. But then what is to be expected from bully-boys behaving like cartoon Rachman landlords?
Pavilion threaten to take Peter Sandy to Court. They claim their good name has been defamed.
In a letter to Peter Sandy, Paul Ryrie, with reference to a leaflet highlighting the failings of Pavilion, wrote: 'we are not prepared to allow you to publish further such material'.
I did not know his 'permission' was required in the first place!
It obviously has not occurred to Pavilion that you have to have a good name in the first place to be defamed.
Obviously Pavilion have not heard of the McLibel case. A handful of anarchists handing out leaflets outside a McDonald's The group had more infiltrators than it had members. By taking the anarchists to Court, all two of them, the whole world woke up to what they were saying, and it has reverberated around the world ever since.
http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news6287.htm http://www.mcspotlight.org If Pavilion want their dirty linen flaunted in public, then please go ahead, as there will be a lot of people who will be only too willing to help them. The residents of their slum estates will be queuing out the door to give testimony that Pavilion is a Rachman landlord.
If Pavilion do proceed to Court to air their dirty linen in public, they would have to finance the action out of their Director's fund, and not from rent accounts, otherwise they would have to demonstrate what benefit there was in their actions for tenants.
What then has so incensed Pavilion, apart that is the Truth has been told?
Quite a lot it seems.
They do not like reference to 'anti-social misfits' on their slum estates.
They do not like their glossy newsletter being referred to as a 'comic book'.
A 'comic book' the residents of their slum estates treat as unwanted junk mail and throw unread straight in the bin.
There is a strange mismatch between what Pavilion describe in their 'comic book', to what residents actually experience every day of their lives.
Pavilion do not like their slums estates being referred to as 'slums' and 'ghettos'.
What would the prefer: 'third world shanty towns'?
In their 'comic book', Pavilion ask that tenants inform on their anti-social neighbours, but presumably, they cannot be referred to as 'anti-social misfits'.
Pavilion even have a group of people to do this, residents hand-picked by Pavilion, seen by other tenants as 'busy-bodies' and 'nosy parkers', in what smacks of repression in the old Soviet Union and Iraq under Saddam Husein.
One of these 'busy bodies', as referred to by the local residents, has been running round the estates saying: 'Peter Sandy is being done by our law firm.' It begs the question: who was the source of this information?
This system of neighbourhood informants informing on their neighbours is already well established in Eastleigh.
Classic divide and rule tactics!
The last thing Pavilion want is to engender community spirit as the community will then be united against a common enemy.
Pavilion do not like a reference to housing associations 'robbing people blind', and in the words of Pavilion 'by implication Pavilion'.
If the cap fits!
Rents have been going up faster than inflation, new tenants, post-privatisation, pay higher rents, service charges have gone up much faster than rents.
Research by Defend Council Housing has shown rents, and in particular service charges, in the privatised housing association sector, have gone up much faster and are now at higher levels than for council housing.
http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk Pavilion levy service charges or serve bills for services not delivered. To most reasonable people this would appear to constitute fraud, obtaining money under false pretences. Pavilion do not like the use of the word 'fraud' to describe their underhand activities, charging for non-existent services.
It is apparently unacceptable to say any of these things about Pavilion. If you do the bully-boys will come along and huff and puff and blow your house down.
What is unacceptable is that in a wealthy country at the beginning of the twenty-first century, people are forced to live in slums, fear to venture out at night, are intimidated and threatened by slum landlords. Conditions more akin to urban slums in a third world country.
This is not the first time Pavilion have tried to threaten and intimidate Peter Sandy. When he was a councillor, they filed complaints with the Standards Board for England, complaints the Standards Board threw out. Before he was a councillor, Pavilion tried to have him thrown out of his home.
Peter Sandy is not though the only one to criticise Pavilion. At a recent council meeting, Pavilion were hammered by local councillors, their estate managers were described as 'a disgrace'. [Landlord 'not doing enough to curb yobs', Aldershot News, 28 March 2008]
The only person to speak in favour of Pavilion was Rushmoor chief executive Andrew Lloyd. He has since been invited by tenants to come and see for himself, so that in future he does not utter a load of ignorant bullshit. It remains to be seen whether he will gracefully accept the invitation, or whether he will chicken out and prefer instead to remain in a state of blissful ignorance.
Andrew Lloyd has been given a simple choice: either he visits the residents and resolves their problems or they visit him and occupy his office.
Councillors admit they are getting large numbers of complaints from their constituents, which is why on the slum estates it has become a major election issue in the May local elections.
The situation with Pavilion is now so bad, that on their slum estates, candidates in the May local elections are vying with each other in their criticism of Pavilion, and who if elected promise they will demand something be done.
Keith Parkins
