Barnet folk have suspected for a while that councillor Brian Coleman lives in a rent-controlled flat owned by the Methodist Church. Blogger David Hencke has got sight of the bit of paper that proves it, and shared it here.
It shows Coleman paying £546 pcm for a two-bedroomed flat in pleasant Finchley N3.
I witnessed the recent Cabinet meeting where Brian Coleman railed against the "slums" that some Barnet residents live in: ie, Barnet council estates such as Grahame Park and West Hendon.
He supported the government's moves to let "social housing" rents rise closer to market values. In his diatribe against social housing, he bellowed: "the market will decide!"
Presuming that Coleman really believes that, and thinks controlled rents should be abolished, I have been looking at what he could get for his money if he wasn't prepared to pay above his current budget for rent. I have assumed that he also sets some store by location, location, location, ie, he wants to stay living in Finchley N3, and confined my search to that postcode.
A survey of estate agents' windows close to where Coleman lives reveals that the market rate for his current level of accommodation is actually £250 per week, twice what he is paying. On his budget of £546 pcm, he can only realistically aspire to finding a room in a shared house. Let the market decide!
It conjures up frightening images, though, doesn't it? Coleman would be the flatmate from hell: can you imagine him buying his own food or sharing a meal? Padlocks on the fridge doors time, I think. What would he insist on watching on TV in the communal living room? Can you imagine him doing his stint of cleaning the shared facilities, ie, the bathroom and toilet? And would you want to go in there after him?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
"He supported the government's moves to let "social housing" rents rise closer to market values. In his diatribe against social housing, he bellowed: "the market will decide!"
Presumably, the kind of wages Coleman has been receiving, over the past 8 years, he could have purchased a home for a princely toad instead of, renting one from the Methodists charity, who could then house one of the LESS DESERVING famililes. So maybe, this CHRISTIAN church and charity should be kicking the rich little oik out of his home. Why is a two bedroom 'social' family home being let to single person.
That wonderful Conservative or Liberal landlord Rachman, kicked you out if one could not afford the 'market' rent. Under this Conservative Government of Coleman's dogma, if you earnt that pay rise, the council landlord will evict you because, you could pay for the impending 6.8% rent increase, the sort of tenant Rachman would be pleased to have, though the rent would be much higher, not enough of a salary increase to service a private landlord's income nor afford a mortage. Meanwhile, the Social Landlord's like 'Assettrust' in the Home ownership business, (see how many are going there) will suggest, that you don't earn as much as the public sector professional, to afford the Part Buy/Rent shoebox and all the pitfalls of service charges that come with it.
Truly frightening images to consider, none of which will affect Coleman and many like him wth a similar social conscience of mustard colour.
Meanwhile, a question for Coleman and all Charities. How does the Housing support worker, re-house a 65 year old with disability issues, squatting (tolerated trespasser or otherwise) in an property for the past 3 months owned by one of his acquaintances, who wished not to see him homeless This property is due to be gutted in days. Where does that elderly dude go now? Who pays for the costs of a man's kindness and charity?
I think that it might be fun sharing with him. I do like a challenge. I would be there all the time, in his face,laughing and bullying him. I would not give an inch. He would end up either in a mental home or on a park bench.Then the police could arrest him for loitering or something then they could put him in jail where he belongs.
There are so many issues raised by this revelation ... are Charities not obliged to manage their assets in such a way that would maximise the financial benefit to the church revenue? More importantly, should not the Christian values of the church impose an obligation to offer such accommodation to a disadvantaged parishioner? I wonder what old Wesley would make of it all ... Thirdly, who on earth would want to live in such a place when they can easily afford a mortgage or rent for a lovely flat or house in one of the posher roads in the borough? Other than Ebenezer Scrooge?
Anonymous, he does tend to bring those feelings out in people.
Given the announcement the Conservative Government is about to make later today regarding housing by returning it to the Victorian era , I just wonder if they will extend the Right To Buy to include the Housing Asociations and Charities in the property business.
It's not Ebeneezer Scrooge but Brian Coleman Conservative Politician whom could afford that posh home due to our charity, for him to enjoy his perks.
Post a Comment