Fat Cats Stealing Tenancy Rights

[mark]

Just as people start getting ridculous new tenacy agreement 
changes 'suggestions' booklets coming through their letterbox to mess 
up their secure tenancies (Big thanks to those bribed into voting for ALMOs in Haringey) the real agenda - which most of us on this list knew anyway - becomes apparent.  Housing/Squatting campaigns have been a bit low key the past few years including the DHC ones in most places but Camden. 
The squatters, TLIO, traveller campaigns and the anti-capitalist stuff should think about coming together for a big push. Everybody seems to be stretched a little thin though now. I hope all the anti-capitalists didn''t get jobs with fat NGOs etc. :) 
Anyway, I digress....

Fat Cats to Steal Tenancy Rights  -

Trouble deepens for 6 million Tenants as Law Commision`s report on 
`Housing Tenure` to Parlianment, argues the case for `BIG BUSINESS!`.

You know you're in trouble when they bring the Lawyers in, just as 
the Law Commissions first statement on the reform of `Tenancy Law` 
states `Renting Homes is Big Business`. In an unprecedented report to 
Parliament it argues present `Housing Tenure Law` should be scraped 
in favour of a `Single Social Occupation Contract`.

The occupation contract will supersede all existing tenancy law; 
being replaced by two types of contract (Secure & Standard) which we 
are being assured will closely resemble the present models used now 
by local authority and private owner.

Demand for this `Single Social Occupation Contract` comes on the 
heels of local authority privatisation of its housing stock (ALMO, 
Transfer, PFI) and as a consequence reconciling the differences 
between private and social tenure is said to have become blurred.

What are not blurred are the consequences if this legislation should 
pass into Law. As of now a tenant of the council is more or less 
recognised as the owner of their home, protected by a 500 hundred 
year history of hard fought for legislation protecting the poor from 
the likes of Peter Rachman (
[]
 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman 
).

The single social occupation contract as a departure from the 
socially provisioned contract serviced by government, gives into the 
corporate ideology in which its survival is over and above that of 
the rights of its tenants. Housing Associations profits run into the 
billions, yet there are still stories of unjust evictions even under 
the pretence of claiming to be a charity and receiving benefits thereof.

This Bill needs to be stopped in its tracks now, as it relegates the 
tenant's home to being a consumer item. To be got rid of if it 
doesn't make a profit, to be sold on when at the whim of 
gentrification it will penalise the working class further. There can 
be no negotiations, only the spilling of the blood of the new barons 
that consorts to rob the tenant again of any security or safety of a 
decent home.

The Law Commission; Renting Homes
[]
  <http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/renting_homes.htm>http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/renting_homes.htm 


Summary of the final report
[]
  <http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc297_summary.pdf>http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc297_summary.pdf 


Renting Homes; The final Report
[]
  <http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc297_vol1.pdf>http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc297_vol1.pdf