Lewisham Council's planning enforcement under POCA: A scandal of Post Office proportions

On January 12, 2024, we submitted a detailed Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Lewisham Council concerning its legal department and planning enforcement officers’ aggressive prosecutions of ordinary citizens. The FOI aimed to uncover the council's expenditure on criminal legal advice and prosecutions, with a focus on cases involving external legal firms like Browne Jacobson, exacerbating costs for taxpayers. The goal was to ensure transparency and accountability in the council's actions and unchecked legal spending. Little did we realise, there's more to this story than meets the eye. TheBigRetort...

Lewisham Council's response to our Freedom of Information Act request was unsurprising. Its position was to invoke Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, citing excessive costs as grounds for refusal. 

A familiar retort. However, this type of refusal from the team headed by Jeremy Chambers, Director of Law & Corporate Governance, underscores a systemic barrier to transparency and accountability within local government, leaving constituents unaware of the council's actions and expenses, and the true reasons for its escalating planning prosecutions. It also opens up the shapeshifting grifters inside the ivory tower to some scrutiny.

Exploitation of the POCA System

Lewisham Council's refusal to disclose vital information sheds light on an alarming pattern of exploitation within the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) system by local councils. This system, meant to combat actual criminal activity and seize proceeds from unlawful conduct, appears to have been manipulated by councils to target ordinary citizens for minor infractions, akin to a mugging exercise on steroids.

For instance, Kevin Bottomley, a local DIY shopkeeper in Lewisham, reported below, faces prosecution for storing sand, cement, and timber at the side of his store KJ Building Supplies. The case has now escalated to Woolwich Crown Court, and at some cost. Where the absence of a jury may conceal from the public that Lewisham Council is netting £62,600 of what it alone determines is the proceeds of crime rather than benefits of honest public servitude. Yes, you heard that right, a DIY merchant flogging building materials on which taxes and VAT have already been paid has worked for nothing. One wonders how that fits with Lewisham's anti-slavery policy.

This outrageous exploitation is compounded by the Home Office's Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (ARIS), where the investigating and prosecuting authority, in this case, Lewisham Council, benefits financially from the prosecution. Raising concerns about conflicts of interest and a convenient lack of checks and balances.In other words, planning lawyers are furtively going up the ARIS of Lewisham’s constituents in order to bloat their own wages.

Implications

However, there is a preceedent in defence of such actions, Lewisham Council take note. The Court of Appeal's March 8, 2019 ruling in Wokingham Borough Council v. Scott and others upheld the cessation of prosecutions against 11 defendants, finding that the council's improper consideration of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) and failure to apply the public interest test warranted an abuse of process, highlighting the need for transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal standards in prosecuting planning matters.

Lewisham Council's refusal to disclose key information raises serious doubts about its commitment to accountability and the public interest, and fairness in the planning enforcement system. By concealing data on expenditure, recoveries, and legal proceedings, the council undermines principles of open governance and perpetuates a culture of secrecy and distrust. It also leaves the way open for its planning lawyers to make money off the backs of unintended victims. A banditry that is led by overzealous planning enforcement officers, who themselves evade scrutiny.

Conclusion

The journey to uncover Lewisham Council's dodgy legal practices underscores the challenges in holding all local authorities accountable. Despite facing rejection and evasion, it highlights the importance of transparency and scrutiny within local government. Advocating for transparency is vital to ensure that democracy and accountability prevail. The exploitation within the POCA system, with its erosion of checks and balances by in-house belligerent lawyers, is just one aspect of a broader issue demanding sustained attention and action. Not only in Lewisham but nationwide. Lest we witness a repeat of the Post Office scandal.

 THE BIG RETORT

 

The Persecution of a shopkeeper: Lewisham Council's POCA abuses

Kevin Bottomley, the former proprietor of KJ Building Supplies in Brockley, dragged out of retirement, still finds himself ensnared in an unrelenting kafkaesque legal battle with Lewisham Council. His alleged crime? Storing basic construction materials on land and in a container adjacent to his shop.

However, beneath the thin veneer of law enforcement lurks a profit-driven agenda. Lewisham Council, under the guise of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), stands to gain a significant portion, 37.5%, of what it claims is £167,000 of the proceeds from successful prosecution. A crime indeed.

Bottomley's plight illuminates the unjust practices of a local authority operating as modern-day bounty hunters, all under the guise of democracy. This article exposes the unjust treatment of a senior citizen and the dubious tactics employed by Lewisham Council's enforcement officers who place discretion aside in the pursuit of an easily forged shilling

The prosecution

Lewisham Council's aggressive pursuit of Kevin Bottomley underscores a troubling pattern in its enforcement practices condoned by its legal department. Instead of prioritising genuine public safety concerns, Lewisham Council has targeted small businesses like Bottomley's DIY store and local residents. 

However, by weaponising POCA, a law intended to combat serious criminal activity, Lewisham Council exploits its power to prosecute law-abiding citizens, all in pursuit of financial gain. 

Bottomley, faced with a staggering £167,000 penalty for routine business activities, serves as a pawn in the council's quest for gluttonous and shameful profit.

Abuse of POCA

The abuse of POCA in Bottomley's case is glaringly apparent. Instead of focusing on combating serious criminal enterprises, Lewisham Council has set its sights on individuals merely trying to earn an honest living. 

POCA was never intended as a means for revenue generation or punishing minor infractions. Yet, Lewisham Council's enforcement practices suggest otherwise. 

By relentlessly pursuing prosecutions like Bottomley's, we can reveal that Lewisham Council stands to profit immensely, receiving nearly forty percent of the confiscated funds. This ill-gotten gain, obtained at the expense of hardworking individuals like Bottomley, is nothing short of scandalous.

Modern-day bounty hunters

In their relentless pursuit of prosecutions, Lewisham Council's enforcement authorities resemble modern-day bounty hunters and latter-day slave-traders. Call it the POCA triangle: victim, enforcement, profit. #

However, by prioritising financial gains over the welfare of their constituents, it is the elected members, the councillors, who abandon principles of fairness and proportionality by remaining silent. 

Bottomley's case serves as a stark reminder of the perils of unchecked local government power and the erosion of civil liberties via its executive. 

Enough we say. Kevin Bottomley's struggle underscores the urgent need for reform in local government enforcement practices.

Bottomley's fight transcends his own circumstances; it symbolizes the broader battle against injustice and local government overreach. 

Lewisham Council must re-evaluate its tactics and prioritise the welfare of its community over financial gain. 

The council's motto, "Salus Populi Suprema Lex," rings hollow in the face of its exploitative enforcement tactics against a retired man, however, while acknowledging the council's financial needs, it should not debase itself by resorting to predatory enforcement practices. 

This abuse of POCA by authorities like Lewisham Council simply cannot go unchallenged. It is incumbent upon us to hold our elected officials accountable and demand transparency and fairness in the administration of justice.

Hopefully a new mayor may heed the warning: Ask not for whom the bell tolls.

 

 THE BIG RETORT

 

Unravelling the value of history: The Elgin Marbles and their present-day worth

The acquisition of the Parthenon Marbles, also controversially known as the Elgin Marbles, remains an enduring saga intertwining history, cultural heritage, and the complexities of ownership. In the early 19th century, Lord Elgin's removal of these ancient sculptures from the Parthenon in Athens raised debates that still echo through time. Yet, what about their monetary value? TheBigRetort

In 1816, the British government acquired the Marbles from Lord Elgin for a paltry £35,000. However, the question of their true worth in today's terms transcends mere monetary evaluation. Adjusting for inflation over nearly two centuries reveals a stark contrast between the value paid then and the potential contemporary value.

Be that as it may. Determining the present-day value of £35,000 from 1816 involves a trawl through historical records, understanding economic shifts, and estimating inflation rates over time. The process is complex, relying on average inflation rates spanning 207 years, assuming a conservative annual inflation rate of 2.5%.

The application of such a rate over more than two centuries yields a cumulative inflation factor that, when applied to the initial amount, results in an estimated present-day value. However, precise calculations necessitate historical inflation data for each year, a detail often overlooked in generalised estimations.

Critics argue that the £35,000 transaction in 1816 was a fraction of the Marbles' true worth. The artefacts, with their symbolic and historical importance to Greece and the world, are perceived as cultural treasures transcending monetary evaluations.

The controversy surrounding the Marbles epitomises broader debates on the rightful ownership and guardianship of cultural heritage. It underscores the shifting perceptions of cultural artefacts and the ethical responsibilities surrounding their acquisition and display.

Efforts to quantify the present-day value of the Parthenon Marbles from Lord Elgin's time highlight the challenges in appraising historical transactions in today's context. While methodologies exist to estimate their worth, the value of these cultural treasures surpasses mere financial evaluations, encompassing their intrinsic historical, cultural, and emotional importance.

As discussions persist on repatriation and the ethical dimensions of retaining cultural artefacts, the value of history continues to evolve, emphasising the need for nuanced understandings beyond monetary measures in safeguarding our global heritage.

However, the story of the Parthenon Marbles isn't just about their monetary value. They represent a pivotal part of ancient Greek art and culture, embodying immense historical significance beyond quantifiable financial terms. Their removal from Greece by Lord Elgin, under circumstances still debated today, ignites discussions on cultural ownership, preservation, and restitution.

Not too long ago, we too used to play the game of marbles. Some variations of the game involve the winner keeping the marbles they knock out. Of course there were tears back then. However, while it’s recommended we don’t strike the Parthenon Marbles against each other, stubborn heads may be somewhat different.

Council in skylight spotlight: Absent prosecutor's wasted costs order brings early victory for defendants

Pictured above, Quentin Hunt with the Powells

On October 31st, a legal battle regarding wasted costs unfolded between the London Borough of Lewisham Council and a Brockley resident, Trevor Powell, and his wife. This case, which was heard at Bexley Magistrates Court recently, revealed significant issues with the Council's earlier legal representation at a previous trial. And serial unexplained absences by its prosecutor.

At an earlier hearing on October 5th, the presiding judge, D.J. Sarah Turnock, expressed visible bewilderment at the Council's handling of what initially seemed like a mundane dispute over a single additional skylight's planning enforcement. However, it swiftly transformed into a consequential wasted costs order against Lewisham Council due to the absence of its prosecutor.

The inexplicable absence of the prosecutor did not sit well with the district judge. Council prosecutor Jay Kidd-Morton had demanded that the couple themselves appear or face further prosecution, a large fine, or even imprisonment. Unfortunately, at the earlier trial in Bromley Magistrates Court, Kidd-Morton herself couldn't be found, leading to the Powells' wasted costs application.

Following an attempt at direct contact by the judge to the missing prosecutor, the council failed to produce any substantiating evidence or rationale for the non-attendance, leaving both the defendants' counsel and judge firmly in the dark regarding the skylight enforcement case. The charge was having inserted one skylight too many into their roof-space.

On the judge's further inquiry, the prosecutor's absence was later attributed to an unspecified condition.

Later, at the wasted costs trial against Lewisham Council, Mr. Quentin Hunt, a distinguished Direct Access barrister with over 22 years' experience, raised the question: "What if the defendants had behaved similarly?" He was certain they would have felt the full force of the court since the judge had placed them on unconditional bail to appear.

Defence counsel Hunt continually raised critical points about why the prosecutor should not be allowed to evade further scrutiny or censure. He also questioned why Lewisham Council had not informed the court of any inability to attend the earlier hearing. The undisclosed condition was apparently known prior to the prosecutor's employment. "What's good for the goose must also be good for the gander," Hunt argued.

Hunt's unwavering commitment to finding the reason for such behaviour left an indelible mark on proceedings. District Judge Turnock disclosed that Kidd-Morton would not be returning as prosecutor 'anytime soon,' leaving unanswered questions about whether this was due to the unnamed condition or potential sanction by the judge.

Ironically, Lewisham Council's attendant prosecutor at the wasted costs trial, Edward Arash Abedian, challenged Mr. Hunt's hourly rate, prompting an observation by the judge, who acknowledged the substantial difference in experience between Hunt and the junior prosecutor.

The focus shifted to the wasted costs application, with Mr. Hunt highlighting Mr. Abedian's failure to serve evidence properly. Having submitted it just minutes before the court convened, he deprived Hunt of the necessary review time. However, he graciously let the matter drop. Moreover, the recurrent absence of Kidd-Morton in previous unconnected sessions raised suspicions, with the judge acknowledging a sense of mystery surrounding 'similar issues' with non-appearances. "Five or six times," were noted. 

D.J. Turnock delved into the past non-attendance at other trials, revealing a lack of clarity in the reasons provided and further intensifying doubts due to the opacity and communication gaps.

The forensic probing by defence barrister Quentin Hunt, along with the diligence and humility of the Powells, must have set a powerful example. Mr. Hunt emphasised the imperative of accountability and questioned why the Council hadn't arranged an alternative lawyer, considering its substantial financial resources. In a verdict that underscored Lewisham Council's negligence and lack of transparency, the judge ruled in favour of the Powells, wasted costs of £3,360 being awarded, with a payment deadline by November 28. A substantial victory for the Powells and much embarrassment for the cash-strapped council.

Discussions also surfaced about transferring the upcoming trial to a higher court, but the Powells, released on unconditional bail once more, expressed a preference for the Magistrates Court. Consequently, a trial date of December 21, 2023, was set for Bromley Magistrates, along with pre-date submissions.

The skylight wasted costs judgment spotlights the need for greater accountability within the public sector. It serves as a reminder of the importance of contingency plans for large organisations and public bodies, especially when foreseen absences due to known recurring disabilities can and will occur. It also highlights the misuse and potential abuse of publicly funded trials.

Following the win by the Powells, this case should be long remembered. 

The Greedy Landlord: Finding the balance between profit and goodwill

In the world of property management, landlords often find themselves navigating a complex terrain where financial interests must be balanced with the welfare of tenants. Profit and goodwill form a delicate balance, one that a landlord, who's been managing rental properties for decades, is all too familiar. Recently, a chance encounter with a potential tenant seeking an affordable rental home in a conservation area shed light on the stark differences in perspective that can shape these relationships. TheBigRetort

A recent encounter with a militant flat seeker looking for a rental property revealed a strikingly different viewpoint to lettings than most landlords might expect. This particular tenant, firmly believed that landlords should reduce rents for tenants, not out of goodwill, but because it was the "right" thing to do. 

Her perspective was clear: greedy landlords should provide lower rents. Any financial sacrifices they might make were secondary. It did not form goodwill but was simply the guilt that arose from the bloated profits made by landlords. In short, it would be easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than to get a greedy landlord through the pearly gates.  The uppermost landlord, He upstairs, would simply send the greedy down to the basement into the fires of hell. Such was her thinking.

No, she did not understand maths or finance and didn’t care. “You have made too much money out of property and so you should give some back.” 

She seemed quite angry and there was little Greedy Landlord could do to placate her. Had she listened she may have discovered that Greedy Landlord’s long property management journey had been marked by a commitment to providing quality housing while maintaining a successful rental business. 

Successful in that if it loses money then it is probably time to move on to greedier pastures. 

While profit is undoubtedly a significant aspect of this venture, it had never been the sole driving force for Greedy Landlord. 

Instead, Greedy Landlord had strived to find a harmonious balance between profit and goodwill, recognising the importance of both in keeping good tenants and in making good tenants great.

On the other hand...  the militant flat seeker's view was rooted in the naïve belief that landlords have already profited handsomely from their tenants and so should now give something back. 

Greedy Landlord, who had occasionally been in a position to offer reduced rents (when circumstances allowed), was taken aback by the militant flat seeker's response. He did have a flat coming on the market, who knows? 

He tried to argue that there were many factors governing why she was being forced out of a beautiful conservation area into the hinterlands of Zone 6 London or beyond. 

“What are they” She asked not really pausing for an answer. She simply assumed that any goodwill was trumped by profit and that lower rents were an entitlement rather than a gesture of goodwill.

Greedy Landlord's approach, not that uncommon among responsible property owners actually, had always emphasised the importance of maintaining a balanced perspective. Providing reduced rents, while commendable, is not always feasible for every landlord due to various factors such as market conditions, property expenses, and government policies. A balanced approach acknowledges the need for a rental business to remain financially viable while also valuing long-term tenant relationships. Failing that it’s sell then bank or invest elsewhere.

Militant Flat Seeker didn’t care. She was being driven out of the conservation area in which she had enjoyed reduced rents for years. 

But that was then and this is now. Now rents were on the up and up all over London and she blamed Greedy Landlord. If there was a property crash then he would have to sell up and she could at least then afford to rent at a lower rate. Or buy? 

But then when she bought would she not want house prices to increase?

She seemed annoyed and frustrated. "Of course!"  

She did not seem to be able to do the maths, as she previously admitted, on why taxation had increased rents. Like Mr Micawber, “My other piece of advice, Copperfield,’ said Mr. Micawber, ‘you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.”

The encounter with the militant flat seeker serves as a stark reminder of the varying priorities and values that shape the landlord-tenant relationship. While profit is a fundamental consideration for landlords, many, like Greedy Landlord, so named by the militant flat seeker, understand that goodwill and positive relationships with tenants also play an important role in the success of their rental business.

And a business it is after all. Even if it is not treated as such for tax purposes by HMRC. Not itself averse to taxing buy-to-let landlords differently, further ensuring rent increases.

Finding a balance between profit and goodwill is a challenge that responsible landlords strive to meet, recognising that the welfare of their tenants and the health of their rental business are intertwined. Why re-let every 6 months at a higher rent with subsequent voids and improvements if you can let for years, with some improvements along the way?

Greedy Landlord continues to embrace this approach, understanding that while profit is important, the goodwill that comes from providing quality housing and respectful relationships can be equally rewarding. In the ever-evolving landscape of property management, it's the delicate balance between these factors that ultimately defines the path of responsible landlords. If only Militant Flat Seeker realised. 

Instead, she cut the encounter short with a withering look: “Well, nice to meet you, bye!” she said. Even though it clearly wasn't.

Wait! Greedy Landlord nearly called out. After all he had a flat coming onto the market..?

Then he remembered Mr Micawber and paused, saying “Nice to meet you too!” Even though it wasn’t. 

He watched Militant Flat Seeker angrily cross the road before no doubt heading towards Zone 6 London and beyond. 

Meanwhile, Greedy Landlord had a flat, in the conservation area, Zone 2 London, soon to be empty, and at a reduced rent.

Editor's note.

 In response to concerns about the potential reinstatement of mortgage interest relief (MIR) for landlords, UK housing secretary Michael Gove has reiterated the government's stance. Reinstatement is not on the horizon. Gove emphasised that there are two key factors at play in the decision. Firstly, so the argument goes, many “older” landlords had previously benefited from MIR, and its reinstatement could be seen as favouring them. Secondly, Gove questioned the fairness of granting landlords a more favourable tax regime compared to individuals purchasing homes as their primary residences. This points to a broader issue in the taxation of property ownership: homeowners are often exempt from capital gains tax when selling their primary residences, while landlords are liable for both capital gains tax on property sales and income tax on their "total" rental earnings. Despite what they may be paying in mortgage interest. The differences in tax treatment between homeowners and landlords remain a subject of debate and consideration for housing and tax policies in the UK. And form the primary reason why rents are soaring. 

Copyright (C) The Big Retort