Landlord to evict 200 tenants - because they received housing benefit

First topic message reminder :


Buy-to-let property supremo shuts door on housing benefit tenants
One of Britain's best-known landlords, who owns nearly 1,000 homes, has sent out 200 eviction notices

One of Britain's best-known landlords has issued eviction notices to every tenant who is on welfare, and told letting agents that he will not accept any more applicants who need housing benefit.

Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare. He says the move is purely an economic decision and points out that private landlords are running a business.

"Rents have gone north, and benefit levels south," he said. "The gap is such that I have taken the decision to withdraw from taking tenants on housing benefit. From what I can gather just about all other landlords have done the same. Our situation is that not one of our working tenants is in arrears – all those in arrears are on housing benefit."

A key factor for Wilson and other landlords is that it is impossible to obtain rent guarantee insurance for a tenant on housing benefit. This type of insurance is sold to landlords and is designed to cover the rent if the tenant stops paying for any reason.

Another issue Wilson raises is the number of tenancy applications landlords receive for each property.

"Tenants on benefits are competing with eastern Europeans who came to the UK in 2005 and have built up a good enough credit record to rent privately. We've found them to be a good category of tenant who don't default on the rent. With tenants on benefits the number of defaulters outnumbers the ones who pay on time," he said.

"Single mothers on benefits have been displaced to the bottom of the pile; sympathy for this group is disappearing. There aren't enough places for people to live."

Dan Wilson Craw, a spokesman for campaign group Priced Out, says he is dismayed to hear Wilson's announcement: "Evicting tenants because you're suddenly upset about new government policies is unbelievably heartless, and could lead to more people deciding not to claim benefit for fear of losing their home, and sinking further into poverty," he said, "This is just one symptom of a wider housing market that is simply not working in the consumer's interests. The instability and poor conditions that private tenants have to deal with would not be tolerated in any other market."

Wilson's decision comes after figures from the National Landlords' Association published in December, which showed that the number of private landlords letting to people on benefits has halved to just one in five.

Problems for tenants on benefits seem likely to get worse when universal credit is introduced. Under the scheme, six means-tested benefits, including housing benefit, will be combined into one monthly payment. Tenants on benefits will need to budget and pay the rent to their landlord themselves.

Universal credit started to be introduced in April 2013 and it is predicted that all claimants will be moved to the scheme by 2017.

The Wilsons shot to prominence in 2006 when it was revealed that they had built up Britain's biggest buy-to-let empire, sometimes snapping up a property every day in the early part of the decade.

Wilson is not the first large-scale landlord to raise concerns about low-income tenants. Last month Kevin Green, a landlord with more than 700 properties in Wales, said he may stop letting to people on welfare.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants

Don't get sick, don't lose your job, don't have a zero hours contract, don't be on minimum wage, if you do, make sure you have warm clothes so you can live on the street.

Costa wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


What is not so Costa?

I mean it's not changed.

..oh, I see !

Catman wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I'm FAIRLY sure that up here people get the HB paid  into their bank account, as before folk on the DSS were at a disadvantage when private rents often said....sorry, no DSS.

But perhaps it's changed under this government?

Maybe something has been changed recently on the quiet.

And maybe your paranoia makes you so desperate to blame any non Labour government that you cant handle the truth.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Maybe something has been changed recently on the quiet.

And maybe your paranoia makes you so desperate to blame any non Labour government that you cant handle the truth.

It's not about Catman, sphinx. Let's stick to the landlord issue.

Joy Division wrote:

Catman wrote:

Maybe something has been changed recently on the quiet.

It could even be a regional thing varying from council to council Phil?l just like you said.

Don't know but i think that the rent should always be paid direct to the landlord and not the tenant, if it's paid direct to the tenant there is a tiny minority that might spend the money and that puts of private landlords from renting to all those on benefits.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Rubbish.   Got housing benefit myself a couple of years ago, the payment could not go through until the landlord had signed the form, even though the money was being paid to me.

Did your tenancy agreement have an up to date rent amount?  Most people who renew their tenancy each year or who are on rolling monthly contracts do not have a tenancy agreement showing the up to date rent - it shows the original rent with a statement that said rent can be changed at whatever interval under whatever circumstances.  In that case the council ask for evidence of rent and the easiest way to provide it is to get the landlord to sign a form.  If you get a new tenancy with up to date rent each year that is all you need to claim.

Everything was up to date, the tenancy agreement had only just started and had been dealt with properly, the money was going to be paid to me, but it was held up until the landlord signed the form.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Maybe something has been changed recently on the quiet.

And maybe your paranoia makes you so desperate to blame any non Labour government that you cant handle the truth.

Who is blaming any government or council over HB?

Catman wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


It could even be a regional thing varying from council to council Phil?l just like you said.

Don't know but i think that the rent should always be paid direct to the landlord and not the tenant, if it's paid direct to the tenant there is a tiny minority that might spend the money and that puts of private landlords from renting to those on benefits.

..your bang on the money Phil. I agree.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

And maybe your paranoia makes you so desperate to blame any non Labour government that you cant handle the truth.

It's not about Catman, sphinx.  Let's stick to the landlord issue.

OK I just get bored sometimes of him insisting something is so because that fits in with his life view while the observable facts do not.

Costa wrote:

Catman wrote:

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

Not so. You have a choice whether the money goes direct to your landlord, or the money goes straight into your bank account for you to pay your landlord directly yourself.

Whilst receiving housing benefit, I took the option to pay my landlord directly myself, that's how I know.

Me too the LHA amount was paid in to my account and I paid the total to the landlord

Catman wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


It could even be a regional thing varying from council to council Phil?l just like you said.

Don't know but i think that the rent should always be paid direct to the landlord and not the tenant, if it's paid direct to the tenant there is a tiny minority that might spend the money and that puts of private landlords from renting to all those on benefits.

Unfortunately it is not that tiny a minority.

Also private landlords can be put of accepting benefits direct into their account because it means money can be taken direct out of them. For instance Joe Bloggs claims benefits - gets a part time job that reduces the amount he qualifies for but waits a couple of weeks to declare it. His rent is being paid direct to his Landlord and when he declares it the council works out they have over paid X amount. Instead of writing to Joe Bloggs saying "you owe us this" the council can (and trust me they do) take that amount out of the landlords account without so much as a by your leave. This can leave landlords overdrawn because they had no warning it was going to happen and it puts landlords right off accepting direct payments.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Did your tenancy agreement have an up to date rent amount?  Most people who renew their tenancy each year or who are on rolling monthly contracts do not have a tenancy agreement showing the up to date rent - it shows the original rent with a statement that said rent can be changed at whatever interval under whatever circumstances.  In that case the council ask for evidence of rent and the easiest way to provide it is to get the landlord to sign a form.  If you get a new tenancy with up to date rent each year that is all you need to claim.

Everything was up to date, the tenancy agreement had only just started and had been dealt with properly, the money was going to be paid to me, but it was held up until the landlord signed the form.

I will take your word for it - I have never heard or seen anything like that either on private rents or social housing. It has always been a case of provide proof of tenancy and rent and thats it. I would actually question if forcing you to inform your landlord is legal because of privacy issues?

Catman wrote:

Loki wrote:

Actually they could if they spent the additional rent money on drink instead of paying their rent.

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

No it isn't. It can be, but not most of the time.

Housing Benefit (and LHA) are paid in arrears, which can make things difficult if your landlord wants you to pay your rent in advance. If you are having problems talk to your local council office. The benefit is usually paid directly into your bank account or rent account, but occasionally it is paid straight to your landlord.

http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/money/benefitsandtax/housingbenefit

Good evening Folks.

Myself & the good Mrs.Shady own a second property which we let out & is managed by a letting company.Our stipulations regarding residents are no pets (they stink),no smokers (they stink),no benefit claimers (they........).

To be honest,I don't really know if there is any difference with the ability of benefits receivers & non benefit receivers in paying their rent but from what I can read between the lines the management company discourage tennants on benefits.

To date,we have received every months rent.

Also, housing benefit is paid every 4 weeks.

Therefore, if you are a private tenant and pay your rent per calendar month and not every 4 weeks, then you stand to benefit, as you have a month of housing benefit money free in the year. Well, that's how it worked for me. I had a month in the year,where I kept the money to myself.

Loki wrote:

Catman wrote:

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

No it isn't.  It can be, but not most of the time.

Housing Benefit (and LHA) are paid in arrears, which can make things difficult if your landlord wants you to pay your rent in advance. If you are having problems talk to your local council office. The benefit is usually paid directly into your bank account or rent account, but occasionally it is paid straight to your landlord.

http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/money/benefitsandtax/housingbenefit

That's very recent then as i notice that they refer to ESA which is a very new benefit.

Catman wrote:

Loki wrote:
No it isn't.  It can be, but not most of the time.

Housing Benefit (and LHA) are paid in arrears, which can make things difficult if your landlord wants you to pay your rent in advance. If you are having problems talk to your local council office. The benefit is usually paid directly into your bank account or rent account, but occasionally it is paid straight to your landlord.

http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/money/benefitsandtax/housingbenefit

That's very recent then as i notice that they refer to ESA which is a very new benefit.

But it was the same before - obviously people update websites to take into account a benefit that has been around for 4 years but the information was identical for IB as well.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

That's very recent then as i notice that they refer to ESA which is a very new benefit.

But it was the same before - obviously people update websites to take into account a benefit that has been around for 4 years but the information was identical for IB as well.

I really don't think so, we filled the housing benefit form out as i have said and certainly in this borough there was no option to have the money paid to yourself.

councils pay the rent direct to the tenants which is a stupid idea bcause some of them spend this money on booze, fags and bingo and thus cannot pay their rent.[ I'm talking about Solihull council]

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

But it was the same before - obviously people update websites to take into account a benefit that has been around for 4 years but the information was identical for IB as well.

I really don't think so, we filled the housing benefit form out as i have said and certainly in this borough there was no option to have the money paid to yourself.

From what I can make out there has to be - there is no legal obligation for landlord to know their tenant is getting housing benefit. Go on your local borough website and look for the question does my landlord have to know I am on housing benefit. Like I said there is a tendency for councils to try and brush over the option.

.....And anyway...If it has always been the case that tenants could have the rent money paid to themselves, then why this sudden big outcry from local authorities and housing charities etc over Universal Credit when money will be paid direct to tenants then.

This is something that the government have changed recently on the quiet.

nicko wrote:councils pay the rent direct to the tenants which is a stupid idea bcause some of them spend this money on booze, fags and bingo and thus cannot pay their rent.[ I'm talking about Solihull council]

Perhaps a tiny minority do, rags like the Daily Mail and other government RW propaganda will have you believe that the problem is more widespread  

Catman wrote:.....And anyway...If it has always been the case that tenants could have the rent money paid to themselves, then why this sudden big outcry from local authorities and housing charities etc over Universal Credit when money will be paid direct to tenants then.

This is something that the government have changed recently on the quiet.

No phil honestly it is not something recent - go google it if you want.

The big outcry is because the authorities and charities believe all benefit recipients to be incapable of managing on their own. They try to distract people from noticing they can have the money paid to themselves and tell them that if they did they would make a mess of it - and when people are told they will make a mess of it they believe it. This is something that is making me so so angry. I have talked to young women who do an incredible job of managing who are terrified of having to pay their own rent - because the nice charity has told them they will fail and get into arrears so they should sign protests against UC   .

There will be a very very small number of people who because of learning and mental disabilities would genuinely struggle - but all of these people should already have "a responsible adult" to oversee their affairs whether that is a relative or support worker. What is really bothering the social landlords is the tenants they know are going to go waste UC money and go into arrears not because they dont know what they are doing but because they just dont care and think they wont be evicted anyway (which belief is supported by seeing people get into over £2000 arrears and not be evicted) or if they are evicted they will be rehoused (which they will be). The problem is not that people will not be able to cope it is that people will not bother to cope because they know they wont have to and the social landlords are going to be the ones left out of pocket.

Catman wrote:

nicko wrote:councils pay the rent direct to the tenants which is a stupid idea bcause some of them spend this money on booze, fags and bingo and thus cannot pay their rent.[ I'm talking about Solihull council]

Perhaps a tiny minority do, rags like the Daily Mail and other government RW propaganda will have you believe that the problem is more widespread  

But it is exactly this RW propaganda that is being used by the left to stop UC.

So why should private landlords take the risk of having dodgy tennants who may not pay their rent on time?

Costa wrote:Also, housing benefit is paid every 4 weeks.

Therefore, if you are a private tenant and pay your rent per calendar month and not every 4 weeks, then you stand to benefit, as you have a month of housing benefit money free in the year. Well, that's how it worked for me. I had a month in the year,where I kept the money to myself.

If, on the other hand, you make it payable every second or third Monday, you tie the payment to the calendar month. That's the way they do it in the US.

Shady wrote:So why should private landlords take the risk of having dodgy tennants who may not pay their rent on time?

And there in lies the problem.

To be honest people claiming benefits do apply to "No benefits" landlords and do get housed they just get far more closely scrutinized. They may have to provide their own guarantor because the landlord cannot get non payment insurance, they will provide very solid references, quite possibly people personally known to the landlord and landlords will listen and consider these people on merit.

Nicko wrote:ouncils pay the rent direct to the tenants which is a stupid idea bcause some of them spend this money on booze, fags and bingo and thus cannot pay their rent.[ I'm talking about Solihull council]

It's self-defeating, Nicko.  If benefits are paid directly and misused, the claimant loses his ability to pay rent.  Eventually, he is out of the system.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Perhaps a tiny minority do, rags like the Daily Mail and other government RW propaganda will have you believe that the problem is more widespread  

But it is exactly this RW propaganda that is being used by the left to stop UC.  

Well there will be some with varying problems that won't be able to manage to pay their rent, and these will find it hard to manage, and with the cost on living crisis and price rises as i've said in the past, they will find it getting increasingly harder to live and will in the end have to decide between paying the rent or putting food on the table.

sphinx wrote:

Shady wrote:So why should private landlords take the risk of having dodgy tennants who may not pay their rent on time?

And there in lies the problem.

To be honest people claiming benefits do apply to "No benefits" landlords and do get housed they just get far more closely scrutinized.  They may have to provide their own guarantor because the landlord cannot get non payment insurance, they will provide very solid references, quite possibly people personally known to the landlord and  landlords will listen and consider these people on merit.

To add to that,in my eyes a few extra hundred quid a month is a big deal & no doubt landlords want as little risk as possible regarding such sums of money.

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

But it is exactly this RW propaganda that is being used by the left to stop UC.  

Well there will be some with varying problems that won't be able to manage to pay their rent, and these will find it hard to manage, and with the cost on living crisis and price rises as i've said in the past, they will find it getting increasingly harder to live and will in the end have to decide between paying the rent or putting food on the table.

Like I said those with genuine problems will or should already have their responsible adults who will help them with this just the same as they do with other things. Having said that I have experience of working with learning handicapped people who are better able to budget than some "average" school leavers simply because "special" education tends to focus on everyday living skills.

As for the cost of living and price rises they are the same however the money is delivered because the amount of money is no different. In fact UC will actually pay slightly more than current benefits because it will cost less to manage. At the moment it takes a minimum of 3 wages to pay me my benefits because they come from 3 totally separate departments - I say minimum because the benefits are made up of 5 separate amounts even if I dont see 2 of them (I have my rent and council tax paid direct). Under universal credit it will only take 1 wage to pay the same amount - so the government have saved 2 or possibly 4 wages - now multiply that by the total number of benefit claimants. Of course it is not quite that simple but once they get the system in and working properly it will have much lower running costs than the present system which should mean either lower taxes or increased benefit rates or a combination of both ( I suspect reality will be that something else is found to take up the save money but hey) Even to start off with I think UC puts ordinary unemployed claimants £2 a week better off - and if they find part time work they can earn £56 a week without loosing any benefit.

Shady wrote:

sphinx wrote:

And there in lies the problem.

To be honest people claiming benefits do apply to "No benefits" landlords and do get housed they just get far more closely scrutinized.  They may have to provide their own guarantor because the landlord cannot get non payment insurance, they will provide very solid references, quite possibly people personally known to the landlord and  landlords will listen and consider these people on merit.

To add to that,in my eyes a few extra hundred quid a month is a big deal & no doubt landlords want as little risk as possible regarding such sums of money.

As most people will tell you the lowest risk of all is with people you have personal knowledge of. A landlord who wont accept benefits claimants will still let their property to for instance the child of the best man at their wedding even thought that child is receiving benefits because they know the child is genuine and wont default or trash the place.

Easy solution to the problem...
These greedy individuals (landlords) are a new breed of creature to the ones of old, but no less evil....seize their properties and GIVE them to existing tennants. The parasitic creatures that presently own the property contribute little to the real economy, spending their ill gotten gains abroad or stashing it away in some off shore tax haven so their dissapearence will be no loss.

grumpy old git wrote:Easy solution to the problem...
These greedy individuals (landlords) are a new breed of creature to the ones of old, but no less evil....seize their properties and GIVE them to existing tennants. The parasitic creatures that presently own the property contribute little to the real economy, spending their ill gotten gains abroad or stashing it away in some off shore tax haven so their dissapearence will be no loss.

I'm sure that there are plenty of nice landlords around, and they aren't all greedy as you are suggesting..These days private landlords rent out rooms in their own houses just as a means to make ends meet.

Catman wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:Easy solution to the problem...
These greedy individuals (landlords) are a new breed of creature to the ones of old, but no less evil....seize their properties and GIVE them to existing tennants. The parasitic creatures that presently own the property contribute little to the real economy, spending their ill gotten gains abroad or stashing it away in some off shore tax haven so their dissapearence will be no loss.

I'm sure that there are plenty of nice landlords around, and they aren't all greedy as you are suggesting..These days private landlords rent out rooms in their own houses just as a means to make ends meet.

Unfortunately though, there are a lot as 'Grumpy old Git' describes. In fact, landlords not keeping property in good order, the actual fabric of the buildings, is quite a problem in some areas.

If you have a good landlord, and I have, you have to count yourself lucky.

ALL landlords, and we are not counting the very few who are merely "letting a room" (usually) to a freind/family member/some-one they know, have got to be at least "closet tories" and thus evil. Phil my old mate you are just not radical enough. Where has the wolfie smith in you gone??

Sassy wrote:

Catman wrote:

I'm sure that there are plenty of nice landlords around, and they aren't all greedy as you are suggesting..These days private landlords rent out rooms in their own houses just as a means to make ends meet.

Unfortunately though, there are a lot as 'Grumpy old Git' describes.   In fact, landlords not keeping property in good order, the actual fabric of the buildings, is quite a problem in some areas.

If you have a good landlord, and I have, you have to count yourself lucky.

Of course there are rogue landlords about, just like you, i would count myself lucky that we aren't under a rogue landlord here either.

grumpy old git wrote:ALL landlords, and we are not counting the very few who are merely "letting a room" (usually) to a freind/family member/some-one they know, have got to be at least "closet tories" and thus evil. Phil my old mate you are just not radical enough. Where has the wolfie smith in you gone??

He is still there..Just there is a future project afoot which would see me being a landlord.

Come on then...Who are you on the other forums   

:<:i}: 

grumpy old git wrote::<:i}: 

You like a cigarette?

....Still none the wiser!

I'll leave my identity to be discovered by the sagacious here. I trust Doug is ok, or at least as well as can be expected, and hopefully better than that

grumpy old git wrote:I'll leave my identity to be discovered by the sagacious here. I trust Doug is ok, or at least as well as can be expected, and hopefully better than that

Well he isn't actually, but we work through all things together, just like we have always done to the best of our abilities   

Keep strong Phil, you are one in a million  

grumpy old git wrote:Keep strong Phil, you are one in a million  

I wouldn't exactly describe myself as that, but another door does seem to be opening every day.

I intend to make things better for Doug and i, and that's a reality and not just a pipe dream  :D 

Britain is witnessing the emergence of "benefit blackspots" as welfare claimants are forced to move out of the towns of their choice after being evicted from rented housing by private landlords.

Housing charity Shelter has warned that entire UK communities could become claimant-free zones, after the Guardian revealed on Saturday that one of Britain's best-known landlords has sent out eviction notices to every tenant who is receiving benefits. Fergus Wilson, who owns almost 1,000 properties in Kent, has also informed letting agents that he now refuses to accept applicants who need housing benefit.

The charity said that a number of other landlords had already taken the same action. The issue has raised the prospect of claimants being clustered in the least desirable locations throughout Britain, and forced into the worst quality housing.

Roger Harding, director of policy and communications at Shelter, said: "It is very worrying. If this policy continues over the long term, we will see blackspots in the country where people on housing benefit simply cannot find anywhere reasonable. There'll be areas where, if you lose your job or become ill, and you try and fall back on housing benefit, it won't be high enough for you to find somewhere. Unless you have savings, you're going to move town."

Harding said there were 500,000 people currently claiming housing benefit in the private sector, many of whom were at risk as rents rise and benefits are squeezed. "It is an awfully large number and includes pensioners and people in work who can't afford their rent. This could affect any area where future rents really outstrip inflation and where there is a lot of pressure on the rental market."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/04/eviction-tenants-housing-benefit-blackspots

Starting to happen already. Councils outside London are beginning to be overrun with people who can't afford to live there, or who can't pay their rent because of bedroom tax, and now won't be able to get accommodation if they are on housing benefit. And these are working people.

Sassy wrote:Britain is witnessing the emergence of "benefit blackspots" as welfare claimants are forced to move out of the towns of their choice after being evicted from rented housing by private landlords.

Housing charity Shelter has warned that entire UK communities could become claimant-free zones, after the Guardian revealed on Saturday that one of Britain's best-known landlords has sent out eviction notices to every tenant who is receiving benefits. Fergus Wilson, who owns almost 1,000 properties in Kent, has also informed letting agents that he now refuses to accept applicants who need housing benefit.

The charity said that a number of other landlords had already taken the same action. The issue has raised the prospect of claimants being clustered in the least desirable locations throughout Britain, and forced into the worst quality housing.

Roger Harding, director of policy and communications at Shelter, said: "It is very worrying. If this policy continues over the long term, we will see blackspots in the country where people on housing benefit simply cannot find anywhere reasonable. There'll be areas where, if you lose your job or become ill, and you try and fall back on housing benefit, it won't be high enough for you to find somewhere. Unless you have savings, you're going to move town."

Harding said there were 500,000 people currently claiming housing benefit in the private sector, many of whom were at risk as rents rise and benefits are squeezed. "It is an awfully large number and includes pensioners and people in work who can't afford their rent. This could affect any area where future rents really outstrip inflation and where there is a lot of pressure on the rental market."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/04/eviction-tenants-housing-benefit-blackspots

Starting to happen already.   Councils outside London are beginning to be overrun with people who can't afford to live there, or who can't pay their rent because of bedroom tax, and now won't be able to get accommodation if they are on housing benefit.   And these are working people.

If you lived in London...Would you really want to stay here, with the rising costs of living here?

I'm London born and bred, but i can see no other option than to move away from here now..My family live in the North now, so perhaps it's easier for me to up and leave....Where for others, that wouldn't be the same kind of scenario, it would be so much of a harder decision to make.

I was born in St Thomas's Hospital, my Mum's family are all from the East End, my Dad was posher lol. Although we moved about so much, always thought of London as home, and my first job was there. But I have got used to country life, and as you say, the cost of housing in London is just ridiculous, how ordinary people get a start there I haven't the faintest!

Sassy wrote:I was born in St Thomas's Hospital, my Mum's family are all from the East End, my Dad was posher lol.   Although we moved about so much, always thought of London as home, and my first job was there.   But I have got used to country life, and as you say, the cost of housing in London is just ridiculous, how ordinary people get a start there I haven't the faintest!

I was born in Woolwich...Then brought up in Eltham...I can tell you this, that Eltham (where Steven Lawrence was murdered)...It was highly racist and homophobic..When my grandfather died, we moved to Eltham Park Gardens SE9...Tyndall (founder of the national front)..He lived four doors away from us with his elderly mother...He was a cunt and us kids used to throw stones at him!

..I think that i might have been an organiser, but i would have been about 13 at the time!

I was the first one to put up big red Labour bills in our windows that road!

Mum put leaded windows in, with stupid diagonal stuff...That pissed me off, because you couldn't see the writing properly!   

....There was a Tory councilor living opposite, he used to glare at me!