Evicted with four hours’ notice – 21 people left scrambling for housing

Twenty-one people were left scrambling for emergency housing after being evicted with just four hours’ notice when their temporary home failed a fire safety inspection on Friday (19 August).

Brighton and Hove City Council evicted the 21 “guardians” from Knoll House, in Ingram Crescent West, Hove.

Knoll House had been under the management of Oaksure Property Services but the council said that Oaksure had not improved fire safety standards after failed inspections last month.

The council terminated their contract with Oaksure at 2pm on Friday after East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service checks earlier in the day.

The fire service said that general fire safety management was poor, Oaksure had not provided enough information and training to the “waking watch” at Knoll House and fire extinguishers were outdated.

It also said that incorrect information relating to the occupied rooms could delay crews in an emergency.

The 21 residents, who were licensed security guardians of the former care home, were given until 6pm to leave.

Head guardian Wendy Paver said: “There were about 10 people currently in the building at that point.

“None of us had anywhere to stay that night. Emergency housing was provided for those in the most need.

“One of our gang had left her phone at home and there was no way we could contact her. She arrived back at the property at quarter to six in the evening and she was told at the front door, you’ve got to grab your stuff, now.

“We feel incredibly let down and betrayed by Oaksure. We have had no official communication from Oaksure around anything that happened on Friday.

“The council have been fantastic about it which is actually above their remit really because our contract was with Oaksure. Oaksure should be looking after us.”

Simon Stride is one of the residents who was moved into temporary emergency housing and has been struggling since Friday.

Mr Stride said: “It’s like living in a dirty, grimy version of Fawlty Towers. There are no cooking facilities. There’s no microwaves or toaster. There’s not even a fridge.

“We had an expensive weekend and it’s going to continue because they’ve told us we can’t have food vouchers because they’re reserved for families with children.

“We’ve been referred to a food bank to go and pick up some raw food but can’t even save it because there’s no fridge and we can’t cook it.”

Those in emergency housing have been offered financial assistance from the council in the form of an initial deposit for renting privately.

Mr Stride said: “They can give us some deposit or the first month’s rent but you’ve got to be able to sustain it ongoing yourself and I could never do that on the wages I’m on, absolutely never.

“Even if I moved out of town to Peacehaven or Lancing I still couldn’t afford it. So if I want to live anywhere, I’ve got to leave my job and my friends and go and find a city somewhere that I can afford but then I’ve got no job.”

A joint statement from the council and fire service said: “Fire safety risks which could lead to loss of life or serious injury are something which the city council cannot tolerate.

“In light of the learning from the Grenfell tragedy, we cannot afford to take risks with people’s lives, and sadly difficult decisions are sometimes needed to do just that.”

A further statement from the council said: “Given the significant risk to life caused by the fire safety issues, we make no apology for insisting that the occupants moved out and they understood why this was necessary.

“We had given Oaksure repeated opportunities to resolve the fire risk so that their live-in guardians were safe. But the situation had become so serious that we had no option but to prioritise safety over income.

“Through our contract with Oaksure, we received a proportion of the fees they were charging their guardians for occupying the premises.

“The final accounts are yet to be completed but most of this income was spent on paying utilities and carrying out building works to allow the building to continue to be occupied as per the contract.

“The fact that we have thus lost money by ending the contract shows how just how seriously we have taken our duty to public safety and protecting the guardians.

“We are pleased that there are now only five guardians who have not found alternative accommodation. We are continuing to support those who have not yet been able to do so.”

Ms Paver said that the community of guardians at Knoll House had been focused on finding solutions to the fire risks in the building.

She said: “We as guardians did exactly what (the fire service) told us to do. Everything else was Oaksure’s responsibility.

“We don’t know what was going on at Oaksure headquarters but from our perspective they seemed more interested in getting the money out of us than actually fixing the problems that would allow us to stay on for another seven months. They were still chasing people who’d left the building for their licence fee.

“Of course, none of us want to live in a building where we might not wake up in the morning because we’ve been burned to death or smoke inhalation.

“But at the same time, when you’re living in a building managed by a company, you kind of assume that you’re safe. You assume someone is doing those things, making those things safe for you.”

Ms Paver was informed that her verbal agreement to test the fire alarms technically made her the fire warden for the building, with legal liability despite this not being contractually agreed. She said: “When I found that out, I was furious and scared of what could have happened to me.”

The council is keeping the residents’ belongings safe, with appointments available to gain access to collect them until the end of September.

The head guardians were initially told in June that the building was being taken back by the council. Ms Paver said that there were a myriad of emails to guardians which miscommunicated the dates of the eviction notice.

She said: “We received a third email, from the director of Oaksure, to say there has been an error. ‘Your building is not being taken back by the council. We are rescinding the notice that you were given earlier today. You guys are okay where you are.’ So of course, everyone relaxes.

“Only because I approached Councillor (Robert) Nemeth and said there’s been a little bit of a squiffy moment here – and he thankfully did a bit of investigation into it – did we find out that, ‘No, nothing’s been rescinded. You guys are under that 20 days’ notice.’”

The council said in its statement that it would be reviewing the use of guardianship schemes in future.

Ms Paver, has been a head guardian with Oaksure since 2016. She said: “As a scheme itself, guardianships can be fantastic. They can allow people who are on low incomes to be able to live relatively comfortably.

“Those of us that are on a more medium income were able to save to hopefully get out of the rental market eventually into our own properties and stuff. So I think they’re fantastic and it has always worked for me up until now.”

Among the residents were an intensive care nurse and an NHS carer.

Mr Stride, who works in maintenance for the council, said: “There were a lot of public sector workers here – the teachers, social workers, carers – because we’re on the lowest of incomes and we’ve been shafted the most over the last 15 years. That’s why we’re all here.”

Councillor Gill Williams, who speaks on housing for the Labour group, said: “The council could have appointed another management company or even made right any concerns themselves, thus allowing residents to stay.

“This is shocking. A few days’ accommodation is not anywhere near adequate to avoid homelessness. These people are traumatised by this experience.

“This should never have happened in the first place. We must demand answers to ensure this does not happen again.”

Oaksure Property Services said: “Brighton Hove City Council (BHCC) are not only the landlord of the property but our contract with them for guardian services has them receiving 50 per cent of the rent paid by guardians. Therefore, they are the main beneficiaries of the residents they have forcibly evicted.

“Our contract also says the BHCC are responsible for statutory compliance.

“After the arrival of a new EHO (environmental health officer) at Brighton, we received a list of amends. We then received a termination notice, which was subsequently annulled by the chief executive of the council who gave us an official extension of our contract.

“We carried out all of the amends requested by BHCC and the fire brigade except new fire training of guardians and evacuation drills, which were in process.

“The property was deemed safe by the fire risk assessor we contracted to do the fire risk assessment for the property and that there were no urgent advisories outstanding.

“This was confirmed to the council by the risk assessor who happened to be onsite when the council came during their eviction.

“We have never received a prohibition notice from the fire brigade which would be the only legal grounds for an eviction with less than 28 days’ notice.

“Our contract with Brighton and Hove requires 20 working days’ notice to be given for termination of contract. This is the statutory minimum according to the Housing Act 2004.

“Brighton and Hove sent us a letter on (Friday) 19 August, when the eviction had already commenced, which said they were terminating with 24 hours’ notice.

“BHCC have thus carried out an illegal eviction of residents from whom they were receiving money for accommodation.

“This is in breach of the Housing Act 2004 and is actually a criminal offence, not a civil one. They have also breached their contract with us.

“The council carried out a clandestine operation to evict our guardians without notice. They did not notify us or the guardians and forcibly removed people from their homes rendering many of them homeless.

“They even used security guards, not licenced bailiffs. They had no court order establishing possession either.

“To make matters more obscene, the council have immediately installed another provider of guardian services, after waiting for us to carry out all of the amends required. This firm were on site during the illegal eviction.

“We have offered all of our guardians free accommodation in hotels for the next 28 days while they find alternative permanent accommodation.

“We have also returned all deposits to the guardians who have given us bank details and are inviting all others to stay in contact is so we can provide as much support as possible.

“We are speaking with our lawyers about the council’s breach of the Housing Act 2004 and the breach of our contract with Brighton which requires 20 working days’ notice.

“We can back up all of the above with evidence.

“BHCC should not be allowed to get away with total disregard of the Housing Act and making two dozen people homeless with 24 hours’ notice.

“The council own some 12,000 properties and their residents need to have confidence that they are safe in their homes and protected by law.

“The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 is designed to prevent rogue landlords. For the council to themselves be behaving like a rogue landlord is extremely concerning as they are supposed to be the first point of protection for residents’ against the behaviour of rogue landlords.

“They also have shown no respect for the contractual terms they agree with sub-contractors. Sub-contractors should be concerned about the council’s ability to stick to their agreements.”