Tag Archives: Nick Hooper

THE BATTLE OF THE BEARPIT

by Ben Ritchie, communications attaché to the BDF

Pitch your tent and man the BARRICADES! The Bearpit has been taken! Staring down the forces of gentrification, the ragtag militia of the BEARPIT DEFENCE FORCE (BDF) have dug in deep and are preparing with their allies for a long, hard winter campaign.

New Labour’s General Rees holds the eastern front, flanked by his psyops commander Kevin Slocombe and Kamikaze pilot Asher “THE SLASHER” Craig. Pumping out the propaganda, The Slasher has claimed that “the Bearpit experiment is over” and has promised the bourgeois forces a ‘creative hub’, coffee bean mushroom farm and EVICTION of the homeless residents.

After hearing this news the residents have used BDF support to OCCUPY strategic areas on the battlefield. The residents now have access to water, shelter and security.

New Labour’s proxy zealots ‘THE CIRCLE’ corporation are spread across the Northern front, cutting off supply lines to the People’s Republic of Stokes Croft and hoping to intercept new recruits.

New Labour Circle puppets Miriam ‘Carbs’ Delogu, Simon ‘Fundsurfer’ Green and Robin ‘Spent’ Halpenny have sought resupply from TRIODOS BANK and RESONANCE to continue their fight, despite closing their Bearritos command centre three times in 2018 (it was dissolved at companies house in August 2017).

The People’s Republic of Stokes Croft remain engaged in street fighting within their capital, dragging out pitched battles near HAMILTON HOUSE and TURBO ISLAND. We hope that PRSC freedom fighters will soon break the northern lines of the Circle and deliver much-needed paintbrushes and decorative ceramics to the cause.

On the Southern front intelligence suggests that The GOLDEN KEY, a shady multi agency placeholder for the homeless will be holding a meeting with Broadmead Improvement District’s (BID) Gruppenfuher John ‘thehomelessareaterroristthreat’ Hirst and Golden Key’s own Nick ‘TENTSNATCHER‘ Hooper at John Wesley’s Chapel, 36 The Horsefair. Heavy artillery is moving into place to ensure that there will be no treaty signed between the Circle corporation and BID.

We call on the people of Bristol to stand on legs that have rested for far too long and fight with hands that have for too long been held behind our backs. Homeless, renting, squatting, boating or whatever your situation, STAND UP NOW! Stand up to neoliberal New Labour politicians, stand up to developers taking a slice of OUR city, stand up to unelected fundraising children who throw a tantrum at the sight of a rough sleeper!

Get your dirty hands dirtier! Join the BDF and gender-neutral pronoun the barricades

FEBRUARY 2: IT’S GROUNDHOG DAY WITH SCAMALOT AND BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL

7 Replies

Today is February 2, Groundhog Day at no less than four BCC Properties visited by a team of housing activists accompanied by The BRISTOLIAN

After an epic High Court case in February last year, which ESTABLISHED TENANT RIGHTS FOR ‘PROPERTY GUARDIANS’ (a precedent-setting case) against empty BCC property-leasing scam landlords CAMELOT, Paul ‘Wolfie’ Smith, Labour’s housing boss, publicly stated he would terminate all property guardian relationships with BCC in ‘due course’.
This was because of the SCANDALOUS STATE of disrepair the tenants were living in, the NIGHTMARE LEGAL CONTRADICTIONS that BCC had been implicated in, and the unbelievable levels of INCOMPETENCE, MALIGNANCE and NEGLECT by both Camelot and also the council’s housing management team of Woods, Hooper et al which had led BCC into this situation.

So imagine the faces on the team of housing activists when, revisiting 4 BCC properties just under one year on from the historic court decision, they discovered these sub-standard, dangerous properties STILL OCCUPIED EXACTLY AS BEFORE. Sstill in disrepair and STILL WITH NO HMO LICENSES (houses of multiple occupation require rigorous safety standard licensing), and also with the tenants therein STILL PAYING SLUM LANDLORDS CAMELOT BOGUS ‘RENT’ AT BCC PROPERTIES! Not only that, but the team discovered employment agency, MERIDIAN, STILL SUB-LETTING FROM CAMELOT many months on AFTER they were exposed in both The BRISTOLIAN and The Nazi Post for their employment/rent scam and poor treatment of employees on BCC premises. Once again, these CAPITALIST CUNTS were found to be still DOCKING WAGES DIRECTLY from their workers on the premises to pay this spurious double-rent!

We estimate that there may be 150+ PEOPLE STILL LIVING in unsafe conditions on ‘Property Guardian’ run BCC properties in Bristol, most paying rent to these FRAUDSTER middlemen who’ve taken them over.

Yes, it’s Feb 2, and Groundhog Day for Bristol City Council! SO WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON, WOLFIE, 1 FULL YEAR ON? We demand that you make a new public statement.

At The BRISTOLIAN we demand:

That Bristol City Council FORCE Camelot and Ad Hoc to IMMEDIATELY CONFORM to the HMO license regulations at its properties that it is still leasing.
That BCC RECOGNISE ALL who are still living on these properties as DE FACTO COUNCIL TENANTS, following the decision in the Roynon v Camelot case of Feb 20 2017. This farce has gone on much too long to make anything else acceptable.
That BCC no longer pursues such OUTSOURCED SCAMS under dodgy ‘licenses/tenancies’ with private companies, whether these are ‘property guardian companies’, ‘homeless charities’, ‘affordable homes builders/property agents’ or anyone else, and instead EMBARKS UPON A CAMPAIGN OF ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY SOCIAL HOUSING UNDER DIRECT BCC CONTROL.
* We encourage all tenants of either Camelot or Ad Hoc to contact BCC’s Tenancy Relations to enquire into their rights and the legal precedent; to contact BCC’s Housing Environmental Health about their living conditions and the building’s HMO requirements, and to legally withhold rent until these repairs are carried out. Eviction notices given to you by Camelot or Ad Hoc should always be submitted to prior scrutiny by Tenancy Relations or the Avon Law Centre as to their legal validity.

WOLFIE’S GATEKEEPING SCAM EXPOSED

Leave a reply

Bristol City Council’s gatekeeping policy on trial

Earlier this month, The BRISTOLIAN revealed that Bristol City Council was reintroducing the ILLEGAL practice of “gate keeping”, one that it had already been reprimanded for in July 2013 by the LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN. The hush-hush policy aims to exclude certain categories of recently-made homeless from the assistance which a council is under a legal obligation to provide – all, of course, to allegedly “save money”.

We can reveal that BCC’s Housing Department Manager GILLIAN “Irma Grese” DOUGLAS and her boss, NICK “Pooper” HOOPER are the six-digit salary (and former “Dirty Thirty”) criminals responsible. In early September Pooper directed unterscharführer Irma to do his dirty work for him, which she promptly did. Telling the entire BCC Housing Department – by word of mouth ONLY so there was NO WRITTEN EVIDENCE – that from now on they were to EXCLUDE young Bristolians recently made homeless.

For example, if an applicant was a teenage single mother kicked out of her home, then she would have to go back to her parents and get a 28 DAY NOTICE TO QUIT and would not be helped until she had brought that “evidence” back IN WRITING.

The BRISTOLIAN can also reveal that word of this unauthorised scheme – drawn up by TWO OF HIS SUBORDINATES – landed on the desk of BCC’s Housing Czar, PAUL “Wolfie” SMITH, thanks to two concerned housing activists. In addition, it was revealed that not only were teenagers being excluded but also adults.

Wolfie responded that he was “very concerned” and would “investigate”. In addition he added that this would “at last” provide him with the evidence he needed to DRIVE OUT Pooper and SS unterscharführer Irma from BCC.

Well Wolfie, September is now finished and we’re still waiting for ANY ACTION AT ALL. Rumours are circulating that the latest BCC “gate keeping” policy introduced by two sociopathic apparatchiks on their own initiative is not only continuing, but has also been EXPANDED.

Wolfie had better get cracking, as The BRISTOLIAN is amassing compelling evidence of this and MANY OTHER UNCONSCIONABLE FAILURES by the Director of Housing that it will reveal in due course and, of course, PASS ON TO THE OMBUDSMAN.

ILLEGAL BCC GATE-KEEPING POLICY REINSTATED

3 Replies

Word is spreading that rogue bullshit jobbers (ie. middle management) in Bristol City Council’s Housing Department re-introduced the illegal practice of “gate-keeping” last week, presumably to restrict Bristol’s homeless access to public services they’re entitled to under the pretence of “saving money”.

Obviously aware that the council had already been reprimanded for this practice by the Ombudsman back in 2012, our very own bullshit jobforce (on huge salaries at taxpayer expense, and including members of the Dirty Thirty) went around all of BCC’s front-line housing staff in person and told them that they were to refuse all help to young Bristolians turfed out of their family homes, under the pretence that they “do not qualify as homeless” until they “can provide proof in the form of a legal notice to quit (28 days) from their families”. As if this is going to happen! Never mind, because the undeserving poor can just sleep on the streets until they get them.

So the question must be asked: Is Housing Director Paul “Wolfie” Smith aware of such illegal, clandestine shenanigans amongst his subordinates? Or are they simply doing whatever they want? And what is Nick “Pooper” Hooper’s role in all of this? Is the high priest of BCC’s bullshit jobbers still in charge of “administrating” the Housing Dept, or has he, as rumoured, been moved on to blight another department?

Maybe another visit by the Ombudsman can give us the answers to all of this and more…

ANTONA COURT: THROUGH THE KEYHOLE

4 Replies

More fun and games at Antona Court, the council owned residence of notorious housing activist and friend of the Bristolian, Steve “STORMIN'” Norman.

After 18 months of deranged accusations and smears emanating from the council’s housing service management pillock Nick “DROOPER” Hooper, Steve (and everyone else in the block including children) is now being subjected to camera surveillance from a PEEPING TOM weirdo resident while the council does nothing!

Last week, a female friend of Steve’s noticed – while walking through the communal hallway of Antona Court – a small CAMERA trained on her from the open LETTERBOX of one of the flats. Deciding she didn’t wish to be filmed by some sad old man, she pushed the camera back through the letterbox and went to visit Steve.

Alas, this did not go down well with the Nick “Drooper” Hooper’s new Peeping Tom SPY OPERATIVE who then proceeded to tell Steve that he would attack him with a baseball bat if his dodgy camera was touched again!

Steve, concluding that it might be better to engage with the authorities rather than beat the Peeping Tom to a finely juiced pulp, contacted Drooper’s NORTH BRISTOL ESTATES FALSE ALLEGATION UNIT to complain and they visited Antona Court last week.

Only to explain that the tenant in their view was doing NOTHING WRONG and they were happy for him to continue filming in the communal area of their flats if he wished.

Do you reckon if Steve were doing the filming that Drooper and his False Allegation Unit would be so lenient?

The council’s view also contradicts the police who have told Steve, if the council were to cooperate, they would assist in serving an ASBO on the Peeping Tom for fairly obvious reasons.

Meanwhile residents at Antona Court are voting with their feet. One grandmother is REFUSING to take her grand daughter through the hallway and past the camera. Presumably on the basis she doesn’t want some aging pervert filming her young grand daughter and retaining the footage for his personal use?

Other residents are requesting moves from the block to get away from Drooper’s freakish and anti-social SPY NETWORK.

Now the issue has now been handed to Drooper’s colleague Mary “Contrary” Ryan to resolve. Will she continue to allow the private filming of children and young women in communal areas of Antona Court or will she see sense?

Watch this space …

THE GREAT SIEGE OF RICHMOND TERRACE: SOME QUESTIONS

1 Reply

With the occupation at 44 Richmond Terrace apparently winding down, it’s time to start asking some QUESTIONS about decisions regarding the occupation taken by by Bristol City Council.

Specifically questions about what senior bosses at Bristol City Council – who have just been awarded pay rises of up to 20 PER CENT to reflect their ‘expertise’ – have been up to.

To the untrained, non-corporate eye, their decision-making over Richmond Terrace has been consistently CRAP. Why did a group of highly paid ‘strategic managers’ have no strategy whatsoever throughout this whole occupation?

Instead the bosses seem to have staggered from one short term RANDOM DECISION to the next. Either based on Service Director Nick Hooper’s well-known PERSONAL DISLIKE of occupier, Steve Norman, or they have responded to events on the ground as they happened. All the precise opposite of what we’re over-paying these clowns to do.

The fact is the bosses directly responsible – Service Directors Nick “Drooper” Hooper and Mary “Contrary” Ryan and Strategic Director Alison “Three Jobs” Comley – on a combined income of around £310k per year – have been thoroughly OUTFOUGHT, OUT THOUGHT and OUT RUN during the last six weeks by a band of Bristolian activists.

Is this trio of useless twats really the best Bristol City Council can offer to solve our housing crisis?

Here’s some of the questions that the council and its highly paid bosses need to start answering:

1. Why did the sale of 44 Richmond Terrace go ahead at all on 20 April hours after it had been occupied by protestors?

2. Why did both Bristol City Council and their auctioneers tell the buyer the house was “rumoured” to be occupied when Steve Norman had emailed housing Service Director, Nick Hooper, at noon on 20 April informing him he had occupied the house?

3. Why did no one at Bristol City Council visit and confirm if the house had been occupied or not on 20 April before proceeding with the sale?

4. Did Bristol City Council receive confirmed reports from the BBC on 20 April, prior to the auction, that the house had been occupied?

5. Why did Bristol City Council do nothing between 20 April – when the house was occupied and then sold – and 18 May – when the sale should have completed – to regain possession of the home?

6. After 18 May why did Bristol City Council not attempt to negotiate a solution to the occupation until 31 May, once they had dismally failed to evict the occupants after half an hour trying?

7. Why did Housing Service Director, Mary Ryan, visit the occupiers on 23 May claiming she was negotiating a solution with them while offering nothing?

8. Why did Bristol City Council not obtain an eviction order until 25 May, five weeks after the occupation had begun and one week after the sale should have been completed?

9. Why did the council take six days, from 25 May to 31 May, to attempt to evict the occupiers, giving the occupiers time to dig in and secure the house?

10. Why, when the council’s bailiffs visited on Tuesday 31 May, were they not aware the occupiers were on the roof of the house – and had been since Friday 27 May as reported on the BBC – and that a specialist team was required to remove the occupiers rather than the gang of thick, useless oafs they sent.

11. Despite repeated requests to Housing Service Director, Nick Hooper from April 20, why has he never supplied written evidence that Anthony Palmer was not entitled to extra housing priority as an ex-serviceman because he had left the services over five years ago?

12. Why was Anthony suddenly awarded this extra housing priority on 31 May without explanation?

13. Why was Anthony Palmer allowed to be harassed by staff from Connolly & Callaghan, the private owners of his homeless hostel, through regular checks on his whereabouts throughout the day?

14. Why was Anthony Palmer threatened with eviction if he did not stay at his shithole Connolly & Callaghan homeless hostel overnight? Is it a prison?

15. Why did housing Service Director, Nick Hooper, consistently disregard the advice of social services and health visitors in relation to the urgent housing need of Anthony Palmer?

16. Why did the details of 44 Richmond Terrace supplied on the Hollis Morgan website describe the house as requiring “complete modernisaiton” (sic) while the so-called ‘structural report’ produced by Bristol City Council on 25 May says the building has “structural damage”?

17. Who wrote the 224 word ‘structural report’ for 44 Richmond Terrace for Bristol City Council and when?

18. Was this ‘structural report’ sufficiently detailed and complete for a senior council boss to take the delegated decision to sell 44 Richmond Terrace?

19. Which manager at Bristol City Council took the decision to sell 44 Richmond Terrace?

20. Why did the council undertake renovations at 44 Richmond Terrace in the year prior to its sale?

21. Did the council offer the former tenant the opportunity to return to 44 Richmond Terrace earlier this year after the council had completed repairs and renovation?

22. Why did a council spokesman say on 25 May, “Costs to bring the property up to the standard we aspire to for council houses were estimated in excess of £35,000″ when the figure stated in the council’s own ‘structural report’ is £30,000?

23. Why had no one at the council been in touch with the buyer at any point to discuss the occupation of the home they had sold to her?

24. Why did the council tell the buyer information on the occupation was “confidential”. On what legal basis was it “confidential”?

25. Why was the buyer reliant on information regarding 44 Richmond Terrace from the media; from Richard Carey and Steve Norman occupiers at the property and from BBC Radio who had contacted her at various times? Why did the council not communicate with her?

26. Why did the council misrepresent the actual facts regarding the sale during pre-contract enquiries by the buyer?

27. Why had Marvin Rees not seen an email sent to him by the buyer on Thursday 19 May by Monday 30 May despite the sender receiving an automated acknowledgement from Marvin’s council email account? Who had seen that email and who withheld it from the mayor?

We anticipate no answers to these questions as the council, its staff and its councillors will now pour a lot of time, money and resources into defending at all costs the bent, overpaid deadbeats responsible.

THE GREAT SIEGE OF RICHMOND TERRACE: “MARVIN REES CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOUR BOYS TOOK A HELLUVA BEATING!”

Leave a reply

With ex-serviceman Anthony Palmer and his 18 month son, Kai, housed on Monday and news coming in that Bristol City Council have finally agreed with the buyer to cancel the sale of the house, thus keeping it in public ownership, the occupiers of 44 Richmond Terrace can claim TOTAL VICTORY.

We look forward to a homeless family moving into the house in the near future after it’s handed back to the council once repairs to damage due to the attempted eviction are completed.

Congratulations to all involved. You know who you are and what you did. Another victory for Avonmouth against the odds. No doubt more will follow.

Got a problem with Bristol City Council’s housing department? Contact your caring sharing BRISTOLIAN for no-nonsense results orientated housing advice.

BRISTOL HASN’T GOT A HOMELESS PROBLEM. IT’S GOT A HOUSING DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT PROBLEM

3 Replies

Bristol Labour’s new housing boss, Paul “Wolfie” Smith lets slip a few very INTERESTING FACTS in a piece of shameless self-promotion he’s written for the Guardian:

“Bristol has a real problem with homelessness, with more than 300 households in temporary accommodation at a net cost to the council tax payer of £800,000 a year; at the same time 550 council homes are empty, losing rent of £2m and £700,000 in council tax. “

Er, sorry, come again? We’ve been handing around a £1,000 a month to private sector temporary housing ‘specialists’ for each homeless family – at a cost he alleges of £800k but is likely to be much more – while leaving 550 council homes they could live in sat EMPTY?

Council homes that could generate almost £3m in income to the city. That’s lots of money and housing stock that we could be using to house the homeless ourselves. Instead our money’s being handed over to DODGY LOCAL BUSINESSMEN to provide a revolting, anti-human homeless service while our own housing resources are left to ROT.

Wolfie’s wrong. This city hasn’t got a homeless problem. It’s got a HOUSING MANAGEMENT PROBLEM. What the fuck is going on at Bristol City Council’s housing department? Wolfie offers us half an explanation:

“six years of austerity, service cuts, redundancies and restructures, all of which have destroyed both morale and provision”

It’s not just morale and provision that’s been destroyed, however. The concept of a social housing department that’s there to serve the public and provide support to the vulnerable has been PULVERISED.

The city’s senior housing bosses – strategic director, Alison “Three Jobs” Comley and service directors, Nick “Drooper” Hooper and Mary “Contrary” Ryan – have obsessively focused – for over six years now – on delivering Tory policies of AUSTERITY, CUTS and PRIVATISATION at the expense of their actual jobs of delivering a housing service to the public.

We’ve had these three fucking idiots systematically SACKING, DOWNGRADING and DESKILLING their workforce for over eight years now while introducing a GORMLESS CORPORATE CULTURE of privatisation, outsourcing, constant restructuring, regular office moves, ‘agile working’, management consulting, ‘demand management’, half-arsed techno solutions, useless software and IT fixes and any other PASSING MANAGEMENT FAD a well paid consultant can pass off on this trio of useful idiots.

These three bosses haven’t bothered running a housing department in the traditional sense for years. They’ve been implementing a right wing, ANTI-PUBLIC SECTOR ideology. DOWNGRADING a vital public service to the point where it’s barely viable. Try phoning (0117 922 2200) Drooper Hooper’s housing department and see if you can even get to speak to a human being.

All three need to QUIT or be SACKED. We need normal housing bosses in our housing department who can quickly provide homes fit to occupy and get families into these homes. It’s not difficult and it’s what a housing department should do. Leaving council homes EMPTY while stuffing the pockets of local businessmen with large amounts of public cash for shit housing is nothing short of a criminal enterprise.

The current housing management needs to go and go now. They’ve fucked up our city up and now they need to fuck off.

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: NO HEALTH RISKS FROM SEWAGE ANNOUNCES COUNCIL BOSS

Leave a reply

Victorian man: Drooper

Finally word arrives from Housing Service Director, Nick “Drooper” Hooper, on this small matter of the RAW SEWAGE in the basement of one his private sector homeless hostels showered with public money that he personally authorises.

Drooper confirms that, yes, there was indeed a load of human shit in the basement of the hostel. However, – possibly exposing a few flaws in his expensive education here – he goes on to claim “there are NO HEALTH RISKS from what was found.”

Really? No health risks from raw sewage you say? You’d probably have to go back to the 19^th Century to find the over-privileged and powerful so IGNORANT on matters of human sanitation and the poor.

On the matter of the poor quality building work at the hostel – where two buildings have been joined together so uselessly you can put your hand through the outside wall and into the kitchen – Drooper appears to have forgotten to respond!

Odd, when the first line of his email claims it will deal with the “OUTSTANDING ISSUES”. Except the ones it doesn’t presumably? However, rest assured we’ll be chasing Drooper up about this.

What will his response be? That the hostel is fully compliant with 19th Century building regulations as they apply to the poor?

Drooper also managed to address the vexed issue of Anthony Palmer’s housing priority as an ex-serviceman. He claims:

“We changed our allocation scheme in 2013/14, following extensive consultation, and this was introduced in May 2015. We give additional preference (increase by 1 band) if someone has served in the forces and had been discharged within the last 5 years and also come within a reasonable preference category.”

Alas, we’ve read Drooper’s Bristol HomeChoice Allocation Scheme a few times now and find no mention of this five-year limit on ex-services receiving additional preference. Neither does it appear in the Housing Act (1996) or its Amendments (2012) as Drooper’s staff have claimed.

Where on earth is this five-year mystery clause of Drooper’s? It’s almost like he’s making it up!

Here’s latest Drooper’s email and Steve Norman’s response:

From: Nick Hooper <nick.hooper@bristol.gov.uk>
Sent: 23 May 2016 09:49
To: ‘steven norman’
Cc: Mary Ryan
Subject: FW: RE:RE: MR ANTHONY PALMER

Mr Norman – further to my e-mail below to you I am now able to advise you on the outstanding issues.

We have checked Mr Palmer’s services record. This confirms that he was 16 when he signed up. He left the Army on 21/6/2007 (8 years 11 months ago), a week before his 18th birthday. Regulations were introduced in 2012 which said that local authorities should give additional preference to applications from certain serving and ex-members of the armed forces (and reserve forces) who come within what are called the ‘reasonable preference’ categories. We changed our allocation scheme in 2013/14, following extensive consultation, and this was introduced in May 2015. We give additional preference (increase by 1 band) if someone has served in the forces and had been discharged within the last 5 years and also come within a reasonable preference category.

With regard to the puddle of sewage water at the North St property this has been inspected by our private housing team. Their finding was that there was a small puddle of sewage in the basement (1m by 100cm by 1cm). The leak had been fixed some days before. The small puddle of sewage did not smell. The door to the basement had a padlock on it so access could not be by an unauthorised person. There was no one living in the basement and it was not being used for storage. The puddle was cleaned up last week by the property manager. There are no health risks from what was found.

Yours

Nick Hooper
Service Director – Housing Solutions & Crime Reduction
People Directorate
Bristol City Council
100 Temple Street
BS1 6AN
Bristol

Tel. 0117 922 4681

Email: nick.hooper@bristol.gov.uk

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:53 AM, steven norman <s-norman123@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your latest email, which I’ve now had time to consider and consult the Allocation Scheme you refer to.

To make this easy, I’ve attached a copy of the scheme. Perhaps you could print this off, mark the section which says you only give additional preference (increase by 1 band) if someone has served in the forces and had been discharged within the last 5 years, scan the document again and return it to me by return (say, within 24 hours) with this simple proof?

I’ve checked the scheme and I can find no reference to a 5-year limit.

The section relevant to Anthony appears to be ‘4.4 Band 1’:

k) Armed Forces Personnel (Additional Preference)

Applicants that meet The Housing Act 1996 (Additional Preference for Armed Forces) (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2989) and one of the reasonable preference categories in band 2 are given additional preference in priority by one band.

With reference to your claim in relation to raw sewage that “There are no health risks from what was found”, I find this surprising. The health risks of raw sewage are well known. Your knowledge of science appears even more limited than your knowledge of your own Allocation Scheme.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Stephen Norman
07747490902

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: WHY’S HOOPER AVOIDING THE QUESTION?

Leave a reply

On 30 Steve Norman, as Anthony Palmer’s representative, wrote to Housing Service Director, Nick Hooper. Here’s one section of the letter:

Thirdly, the preferences for ex-servicemen that automatically takes Mr Palmer up a band from band 2 to band 1: I noted with interest the comments made by the housing support officer where she stated that this did not apply because Mr Palmer had left the Army some 7 yrs ago and that Bristol City Council had set the criteria for this at 5 yrs.

I challenged this and I was informed this was set down in the Housing Acts (1996) and the (2012) amendments by government allowing local authorities to set there own criteria and length of time between discharge.

To this end I have been unable to locate such a clause within the Acts. Can you please advise as to what section of the Acts covers this statement for my reference?

Here’s Hooper’s response to that letter. Has anyone any idea why Hooper has avoided Steve’s simple question?

From: Nick Hooper <nick.hooper@bristol.gov.uk>
Sent: 18 May 2016 15:47
To: ‘steven norman’
Cc:anthonypalmer@hotmail.co.uk; Mary Ryan
Subject: RE: RE:RE: MR ANTHONY PALMER

Dear Mr Norman

Thank you for the authorisation form sent to my colleague Mary Ryan, which we note means that you can act on Mr Palmer’s behalf.

I have checked the conversation which you had with Linda Tasker and she feels that you may have misunderstood what she was saying. She merely advised you of the alternative possibilities the Council has with regard to providing temporary accommodation – she wasn’t actually offering Windermere, which as you note is generally used for larger families than Mr Palmer and his son, though we do occasionally use it for smaller households. I understand that Mr Palmer does not wish to be offered Windermere.

There is no question of us bullying you or Mr Palmer. We have over 300 households in temporary and emergency accommodation, some of which is very expensive, so we try to make best use of what we have access to, and need families to recognise that they must actively seek a move, which Mr Palmer has been.

I think your reference to the amount of time families should stay in hostels relates to government policy that families with dependent children should not stay in non self-contained temporary accommodation longer than 6 weeks (this is the Homeless Suitability of Accommodation Order 2003). However as Mr Palmer’s current accommodation is self-contained this does not apply.

I have investigated your allegations of sewage at North St, which have been referred to the owners. Apparently the photos are of a basement area, which residents are not allowed access, and there are signs stating this. North Street is inspected regularly by the Council, last visited 3-to-4 weeks ago, but I am arranging for it be inspected again.

Now that we have Mr Palmer’s service number in the armed forces, I am getting this checked and will contact you again.

Since your last e-mail Mr Palmer has moved into different accommodation at North St, which I understand he had requested and which meets his needs better. Meanwhile I am pleased to see that he has continued to bid regularly on HomeChoice and he is very close to being successful, on his last bid he came 5th. I am optimistic that he will be successful soon if his pattern of bidding is maintained.

Yours

Nick Hooper

Service Director – Housing Solutions & Crime Reduction

We shall be doing a full analysis of Hooper’s letter in due course ….