The beginning
Following lengthy discussions between a dozen national and local organisations, the IWCA was formed in October 1995. It was agreed that Labour had ditched the working class and become a party for the middle classes, that the existence of the ‘Labour Movement’ was a myth, and that the working class no longer had any genuine representation.
Accordingly, there was a need for a new independent working class organisation that would break cleanly with the past. This organisation would be community based with open membership and would strive for immediate gains in the interests of working class people.
In 1997, before the general election, IWCA activists leafleted council estates across the country, including Blackbird Leys. The leaflet, entitled ‘Done well under a Labour Council? You Wait until Labour’s in Government’ stressed the need for working class organisation in the face of a New Labour administration which threatened to be even worse than the Tories.
Two years later a number of local elections and by-elections indicated that New Labour was starting to lose its ‘heartland’ vote. Blackbird Leys IWCA was started by residents frustrated by conditions on the estate and fed up of the council and the local housing associations not fulfilling their responsibilities.
The first issue of the Blackbird Leys IWCA newsletter, Leys Independent, made it clear that it was up to people living on the estate to take matters into their own hands if they wanted to see anything done about their day-to-day problems.
The following articles from Leys Independent continue the story.
Frys Hill residents to take action over antisocial neighbours
Fed up Frys Hill residents are sick of being kept awake at night by a small and selfish minority—two or three families intent on forcing their non-stop noisy nocturnal lifestyle onto everybody else in the neighbourhood.
A number of complaints have been received from residents who are frustrated by the lack of interest shown by the housing associations.
It appears Oxford City Council, through the housing associations, has adopted a policy of dumping antisocial elements onto our estate. The current attitude in the housing department seems to be: push all problems to the eastern edge of the city, out of sight and out of mind.
Residents paying rent, whether to the Council or housing associations, are entitled to more than just bricks and mortar. They are entitled to expect a decent environment in which to live. At the moment, residents on Frys Hill are not receiving this. No one should have to put up with endless noise and sleepless nights. Life is hard enough for working class people without this added burden.
How long would such antisocial behaviour have been allowed to continue if the New Labour councillors for this area lived close enough to be affected? Why not phone up and ask them next time you are kept awake all night. You can contact Val Smith on 772893, Tony Stockford on 779795 and David Ewell on 724685 [David Ewell has since been replaced by Pat Stannard on Oxford City Council].
The residents of Blackbird Leys have only two choices. Either ignore the problem as it eventually grows to undermine the whole community, like attracting like until a culture of selfishness develops, or take action now for the immediate and long-term collective benefit.
Of course, we are not suggesting children should be seen and not heard or parties and social gatherings should cease. We want to see a vibrant, lively community as much as anyone else.
Nor are we suggesting residents go running off to the authorities to sort out every minor neighbourly dispute. We should, and will, sort out day-to-day minor problems ourselves.
But when a housing association has knowingly landed a recurring problem of antisocial behaviour on our doorsteps then the responsibility of solving that problem lies squarely with them.
We have been reliably informed that Northcote has received a number of complaints about the problem on Frys Hill but has taken no proper steps to deal with it. Some residents have come to the conclusion that the only way to make the housing association carry out its responsibilities is to withhold rent until the problem has been solved. The victims and perpetrators know who they are.
Leys Independent, Issue 1, August 1999
Whose side are they on?
The occupants of one house on Frys Hill are described by a housing association representative as ‘... the worst on the whole estate.’ Their neighbours would find it hard to disagree. Examples of the antisocial behaviour surrounding families have to put up with include:
constant noise from late night parties—these often spill onto the street and regularly attract environmental health officers;
unrelenting loud music;
a dog which yaps persistently and nips the ankles of passers-by;
an endless stream of car repairs with attendant noise—grinders, roaring engines, etc.;
use of the road outside the house as a race track (handbrake turns thrown in for good measure) leading to fear over children’s safety;
numerous police raids;
threats and at least one case of physical assault against neighbours.
At a recent meeting hosted by Blackbird Leys IWCA, concerned residents made their feelings known to a member of Oxford City Council and a representative from the housing associations.
One resident stated to general nods of agreement that ‘this estate would be a great place to live if it weren’t for these people.’ Another resident explained that a couple of families had already upped sticks and gone—driven to the end of their tether and frustrated by lack of action from the authorities. One young mother put it more bluntly: ‘It’s not fair that the rest of us should have our lives ruined by those selfish bastards.’
The heated debate that followed was concluded with the representative from the housing associations admitting that he did not want to see the problem family moved on anyway. Unbelievably, he said he hoped to see them mend their ways.
Ealing Family claims that the only way forward is for residents to testify against their neighbours in court. The IWCA strongly condemns the housing association’s complete disregard for the safety of its tenants. Given the violent history of the accused, residents who testify could be in considerable danger.
Even the councillor who was present agreed there was no way he would be prepared to ‘... risk a baseball bat over the head ...’ by standing up in court.
Despite having a mountain of evidence against the problem household, Ealing Family insist that nothing can be done unless residents take to the witness stand. Even if they decide to take this route the housing association admits there is only a 50% chance of a conviction.
However, there is one important fact which the representative from the housing associations failed to make clear. A new piece of legislation apparently allows local authorities to apply for court orders against antisocial tenants. Why our landlords wish to keep us in the dark over this is anyone’s guess.
We have argued all along that as the housing association is responsible for landing the problem of antisocial behaviour on our doorsteps, the responsibility for solving that problem lies squarely with them. It is our right as paying tenants to demand action now.
Leys Independent, Issue 2, November 1999
Housing Association backs stalker
Two Blackbird Leys residents have recently won a court order to stop a fellow resident from stalking them. Mr and Mrs Smith (this is not their real name) were driven to take legal action after suffering months of verbal abuse and threatening behaviour which left Mrs Smith a nervous wreck.
Before going to the courts, the Smiths made a complaint to Ealing Family Housing Association—their landlord—pleading for protection. The stalker swiftly put in a counter-claim.
Mr and Mrs Smith, a quiet couple with a young family, had been model tenants for five years. By contrast, the convicted stalker had recently been moved to Blackbird Leys after similar antisocial behaviour in North Oxford. Despite being fully aware of this, the housing association chose to ignore the Smith’s complaint and accepted the stalker’s version of events. Whether Ealing Family’s decision was influenced by the fact that the stalker was, at the time, actively involved in housing association bodies is open to speculation.
After making their complaint, Mr and Mrs Smith were horrified to discover that associates of the stalker were bandying about confidential information relating to them. This information was held in the housing association’s offices. Ealing Family were subsequently investigated by the Police for breaches of the Data Protection Act but no conclusive evidence was found.
Not content to allow the Smiths to suffer continued harassment at the hands of the stalker, the housing association decided to add to their misery by prosecuting them for falling behind on the rent. Mr Smith had lost an important contract after two of his work vehicles were vandalised by an unknown party, and on top of this he was forced to take time off work to look after his terrified wife.
Indifferent to Mr and Mrs Smith’s plight, Ealing Family lost no time in gaining a possession order on their home. At the same time, the housing association was liable for repairs on the Smith’s house estimated at almost twice the value of the rent arrears. These repairs have not yet been carried out.
Although the Smiths have now won their legal battle against the stalker, they are still concerned that Ealing Family’s role in this has been swept under the carpet. To make matters worse, the possession order still hangs over the Smith’s heads, even though all their arrears have been settled.
Sadly, this case highlights another example of the housing associations bringing antisocial elements onto our estate and refusing to deal with the consequences. The allegations that Ealing Family leaked confidential information about tenants are particularly worrying given that several other residents have expressed similar concerns to the IWCA. These individuals suffered swift reprisals from antisocial neighbours after making complaints about them to the housing associations.
In the light of this, serious questions have to be raised about the motives and intentions of the housing associations. Whose side are they on? If they are not on the side of decent-minded residents, who play by the rules, then why are they running our estate?
Leys Independent, Issue 2, November 1999
Warning! Oxford City Council is planning to sell your home
A number of national newspapers have confirmed that the government is planning to sell off all council housing stock within the next decade. This process is already in full swing, with New Labour having privatised more council homes in 3 years than the Tories managed in 18 years. Twenty-five local councils plan to privatise 300,000 more council homes this year.
Among these is West Oxfordshire District Council which is currently trying to persuade its residents to agree to privatisation at a forthcoming ballot. It can only be a matter of time before Oxford City Council starts putting pressure on the people of Blackbird Leys to sell off their tenancies.
Residents can soon expect to find themselves bombarded with propaganda from agents acting on behalf of the council and its friends in the private sector. Assurances will be made that rents will not rise under privatisation as housing associations are non-profit making. These assurances should be taken with a pinch of salt.
A survey conducted by the government’s own Housing Corporation has shown that one in eight of the major housing associations which have already taken over council homes have ignored rent guarantees, including High Weald Housing Association which increased rent by a massive 12.09%. According to Housing Today magazine they ‘have been allowed to hike rents to honour loan commitments’. The Sunday Telegraph (13 February) also explains that ‘under new proposals council rents will be made to reflect private rents’ In one area this has already meant a rent rise of 400%.
Residents may also take issue with the housing associations’ definition of non-profit making. When it is understood that Rod Cahill, Chief Executive of Ealing Family—the biggest landlord on Greater Leys—has a salary of over £75,000 per year and that the earnings of some other housing executives far exceed this, the notion of non-profit making seems hard to swallow.
The impending council sell-offs cast doubt on the motives behind Oxford City Council’s decision to plough £100,000 into Windrush and Evenlode Towers. New Labour council leader John Tanner promised that the money would be used to install ‘French-style concierges as in the poshest flats in London’, helping make council flats comparable to some of the best areas in the capital city.
In the light of the government’s privatisation policy, tenants could be forgiven for suspecting that the Council is in the process of tarting the place up to attract the private sector. Smarter flats would of course mean higher rents for the new landlord.
All this adds to the disillusionment of those who hoped that the change of government 3 years ago would finally bring to an end 18 years of Tory attacks on working class communities. The grim reality is that the Blair administration has only continued those attacks. Even former Conservative housing minister David Curry seems to agree, describing New Labour’s social housing policies as ‘... the triumph of Tory policies in the hands of a Labour government’ (The Guardian 3 November 1999).
Unfortunately for New Labour, under present guidelines tenants have to approve the hiving off of their homes. However, Blackbird Leys council tenants will have to be organised in order to fight a successful campaign against privatisation. In St. Helens, Tower Hamlets, Cambridge and Wokingham, tenant-led campaigns have been successful in preventing sell-offs. For further information on the threat of privatisation contact the IWCA.
Leys Independent, Issue 3, April 2000
All quiet on Frys Hill
Blackbird Leys residents involved in the IWCA campaign against antisocial neighbours have shown what decent working class people can achieve by sticking together and refusing to let the authorities fob them off. Previous issues of Leys Independent highlighted residents’ determination to put an end to the persistent abusive behaviour of a family living on Frys Hill and condemned the complete lack of action taken by the council and housing associations. This proved too much for the family concerned, who were forced to go to the local press to plead that the IWCA call off the offensive.
A double page spread in the Oxford Mail (27 November) headed ‘We’ve been branded the neighbours from hell, but we promise to mend our ways,’ carried an interview with the family, in which they held their hands up to all the charges levelled against them. So far the family has kept their promise, improving the quality of life for other residents considerably.
Despite numerous complaints over the last two years, the housing associations on Blackbird Leys and their bedfellows, the New Labour City Council, have done nothing but make empty assurances that the problem was in hand. The result achieved by the IWCA’s relatively short campaign has left them none too pleased.
In response to criticism of their policies in Leys Independent, the housing associations sent a letter to all their tenants complaining that the IWCA newsletter fed ‘stereotypes about the area’s image’ and undermined ‘all the excellent work done by the many local groups ...’ If the housing associations had been this quick to respond to complaints about antisocial behaviour and deal with the perpetrators there would have been no need for the IWCA campaign in the first place. Unfortunately, it appears their main priority is to uphold the estate’s ‘image’. If this means airbrushing residents’ genuine concerns out of the picture then so be it.
The letter also accused Leys Independent of providing ‘incorrect information’. No examples of this were given apart from a claim that Ealing Family had not been investigated by the Police for breach of the data protection act—information the IWCA received from a reliable source who was able to give the name of the WPC involved. Interestingly, no attempt was made to deny that the housing associations, in conjunction with the New Labour council, have a policy of relocating antisocial tenants to Blackbird Leys.
Not content with attacking Leys Independent, representatives of the housing associations were reduced to making a series of abusive phone calls to the IWCA. They also tried to pull the plug on the Children’s Cinema, which had been booked by the Farmstead Management Group for the residents’ Christmas party, threatening legal action over a minor technical detail.
Another result of the IWCA campaign was a renewed interest in the estate by local New Labour politicians. The dwindling party faithful were forced to get off their fat arses and trawl the streets of Blackbird Leys for the first time in years, distributing their own newsletter. Their Blackbird Leys and Oxford City Labour News (the only issue seen) further insults the intelligence of residents, claiming that the party is dealing with all the issues raised by the IWCA, top of the list—antisocial neighbours. As an IWCA activist pointed out in the Oxford Mail letters page: ‘If [the New Labour] Oxford City Council genuinely wanted to rid this area of antisocial elements it would not be carrying out a policy of dumping them here in the first place.’
Leys Independent, Issue 3, April 2000
The enemy within
Violence on our buses is yet another example of the antisocial behaviour that threatens Blackbird Leys. This behaviour must be stopped.
Previous issues of Leys Independent have focused on the problem of antisocial behaviour on our estate. A related and growing problem is violence on our buses.
Assaults on bus drivers on the Blackbird Leys route, particularly the late night services, have increased at an alarming rate. Some of these cowardly attacks, carried out by gangs, have been serious enough to feature in the local media. However, the majority of abuse endured by drivers and passengers goes unreported.
Blackbird Leys residents plough a fortune into these companies. Nonetheless, both Stagecoach and the Oxford Bus Company have a stock response when publicity over these attacks forces them to make a statement—they threaten to withdraw the service.
The bus companies should be held responsible for the safety of their drivers and passengers. Instead, they have made it clear that the only consideration they have is financial. In effect they are penalising the decent people of the estate for the actions of a handful of idiots.
The attitude of the two companies suggests they would rather turn a blind eye to violence on their buses than dip into their profits to provide security or even (God forbid) conductors to make late night journeys safer.
In the past drivers could look to their unions for support in such cases, but not today. Stagecoach (and Thames Transit before it) have a history of union bashing while at the Oxford Bus Company the union, like in many places, is in the bosses’ pocket.
So what about the gangs that carry out these attacks? Think about the courage it takes: in the red corner you have a bus driver trapped behind his wheel late at night, isolated; in the blue corner several youths, often armed and intoxicated. Now there’s a fair fight for you.
Those who carry out these attacks—the same type that carry out other heroic acts such as mugging pensioners—are a cancer in the community. The enemy within. Their strength is in numbers, but they are only a microscopic minority. The problem is: they are organised; we are not.
At the end of a tiring and stressful day, most of us just want to shut the door on the world and enjoy a bit of peace and quiet. Unfortunately, keeping yourself to yourself can eventually cease to be an option.
Blackbird Leys still has a strong sense of community and it is a relatively decent place to live. However, it is frightening how rapidly neighbourhoods can career downhill when antisocial elements are left to fester.
In the Newtown area of Birmingham during 1997 and 1998, IWCA members found themselves facing a crime epidemic. The situation had become so bad that residents were being mugged on their doorsteps at eight in the morning.
The local council and police appeared to be happy to contain the problem in Newtown and just didn’t seem interested in the plight of the inhabitants.
The IWCA organised a public meeting to find some way of dealing with the problem. 200 people turned up. Residents at the meeting soon concluded that the problem was only going to be solved by themselves. A series of initiatives was agreed, including bricking up ‘rat-runs’ used by the muggers to make their getaway.
Fed up of waiting for the council to take action residents decided to build their own walls to block the rat-runs.
The campaign was heavily reported in the local papers and residents were interviewed on the television news. Despite initial threats to knock down the newly built walls, the council was eventually forced to bow to public pressure and accept the residents’ initiative.
As a result of residents’ actions Newtown became a no-go area for muggers.
The experience in Birmingham proves the old adage: if you want a job done properly you have to do it yourself.
While Blackbird Leys is by no means a bad estate there are plenty of antisocial elements doing their best to drag it down. Whether this takes the form of abuse from neighbours, muggings, or violence on our buses, we can only stop this by acting together.
Leys Independent, Issue 4, September 2000
For later articles please visit the archive and recent news pages
| 
