Lambeth County Court Users Group response to the proposed closure to Lambeth County Court

Summary of Response

For the full response, click: Response to Court Closures – Law Centres

We oppose the closure of Lambeth County Court (LCC) and the transfer of its work to Wandsworth County Court for the following reasons:

1. The proposal represents very poor value for money

• LCC is rented at a peppercorn rent, the lease ends in 2024. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) can realise no capital from its sale and will lose the use of a purpose-built court for the next nine years.

• As the proposal includes the transfer of all staff and judiciary to the new court, there is likely to be a minimal saving in running costs.

• There proposal gives no indication of transfer costs but these are likely to be considerable. The transfer will have a knock-on effect to efficiency and this will result in greater overall costs.

• Because of the increase in travel times, there will be a substantial cost to other public bodies that use the court, most significantly those of the two local authorities – LB Lambeth and LB Southwark – who use the court extensively. It will also affect Housing Associations. Further, there will be an increase in costs to the Legal Aid fund for those tenants who are legally aided. Increased costs will threaten the survival of advice agencies.

2. The proposal will have a negative impact on efficiency

• LCC is currently the most efficient of the London Courts. The proposal’s claim that it is underutilised is based on flawed assumptions about the work of the court. The proposal gives no comparable figure for under-utilisation at Wandsworth.

• We have concerns that Wandsworth County Court will not be able to handle the near tripling of its workload.

3. The proposal will significantly undermine access to justice

• The Ministry’s proposal seriously underestimates the travel times to the new court. Many users of the court are on low incomes and use public transport to reach the court. They will be significantly disadvantaged under the proposal. Some may be unable to come to court or access its services. They will have greater difficulty in accessing advice, and the duty scheme will be imperilled. As a result, there will be more evictions and emergency applications will not be made. This will have catastrophic results for individuals and their families.

GOVERNMENT PLAN TO CLOSE LAMBETH COUNTY COURT WILL LEAVE COURT USERS STRUGGLING TO GET JUSTICE

• Government proposal to close Lambeth County Court will make it harder for those facing eviction to mount an effective legal challenge.
• Proposal to close courts is based on ‘wildly optimistic’ estimates of journey times for court users.

People battling eviction proceedings in South London will face greater hurdles to keeping their homes if government plans to close down courts and tribunals in London go ahead.

Lambeth Country Court, one of the country’s  busiest courts when it comes to housing possession cases  and evictions, is among 10 courts and tribunals in London slated for closure under the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ‘Estate Reform Programme’.

Under the MoJ’s proposal Lambeth County Court’s workload will be moved to Wandsworth County Court, leaving those who would attend proceedings at Lambeth facing longer journey times, and putting a greater strain on resources at Wandsworth. The proposal also fails to take into account the true length of time it would take those using Lambeth County Court to attend Wandsworth.

Stuart Hearne, the manager of the Cambridge House Law Centre in Camberwell, said:  “Taking someone’s home away from them is a serious legal sanction and anyone facing eviction deserves to be able to put their case forward and have a fair hearing.

“The current system is already under strain and closing Lambeth County Court will seriously affect access to justice for people in the local area. It will mean anyone who has to go to court to challenge an eviction order will have to travel further and face a court that is even more overloaded.

“The government’s proposal seems to suggest that closing Lambeth will only marginally affect court users, but in fact it will increase journey times quite considerably and make it more difficult for people to attend hearings that can dramatically affect their lives. The government’s estimates of how long it would take court users to attend Wandsworth County Court instead of Lambeth seem to me to be wildly optimistic.”

The government says court users will be only marginally affected by its proposed closures because London’s public transport system makes it relatively easy for people get to a different court.

But data compiled by Cambridge House – using the postcodes of court users, rather than the generalised data used by the MoJ – shows this to be an inaccurate assessment. For example:

• A journey from SE1 5RB in Bermondsey that currently takes 44 minutes by bus one way to Lambeth County Court, would take 1 hour 36 minutes one way to Wandsworth County Court;
• A journey from SE15 6AX in Peckham that currently takes 39 minutes by bus one way to Lambeth County Court, would take 1 hour 45 minutes one way to Wandsworth County Court;
• A journey from SE16 2XH in Rotherhithe that currently takes 53 minutes by bus one way to Lambeth County Court, would take 1 hour 49 minutes one way to Wandsworth County Court;
• A journey from SE21 8HS that currently takes 40 minutes by bus one way to Lambeth County Court, would take 1 hour 15 minutes one way to Wandsworth County Court.

The concern is that the closure of Lambeth County Court will lead to an increase in evictions and homelessness putting an even greater strain on already stretched resources.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

Cambridge House Law Centre

Cambridge House is a south London charity based in the heart of the borough of Southwark. Since 1889, Cambridge House has stood up for those who lack the ability and capacity to protect their own rights. By offering free expert legal advice and professional advocacy services we ‘give voice’ to the most vulnerable people in our society, increase access to justice for those without the means to pay, promote social inclusion, tackle inequality and address gaps in statutory provision.

Website: http://ch1889.org/

The MoJ’s proposal

The MoJ’s proposal documents for its Estate Reform Programme can be found here.

London’s Dispossessed: Local authority possession orders and homelessness in Southwark

Cambridge House receives funding from Leicester University to carry out research on housing in Southwark

The London housing crisis shows no sign of abating. Average property prices have reached nearly half a million while increasing numbers of people are being priced out of the rental market. At the same time social housing is in decline, and Government ‘reforms’ intended to cut the welfare bill such as the bedroom tax, benefits cap and recent withdrawal of tax credits have hit the poorest hardest. This has seen rising homelessness, displacement and overcrowding with central London becoming, according to Matthew Taylor in last weekend’s Observer, a no-go zone for below average income households.

Southwark where Cambridge House is based, is also undergoing rapid transformation as a result of Government policy and foreign investment. For the moment it remains polarised with areas of extreme wealth and poverty. The most deprived wards (Camberwell, Faraday, Peckham and Livesey) sit sandwiched between the recently regenerated south bank of the Thames (City Hall) and the leafy suburbs to the South. This however is set to change. Southwark Council one of the largest social landlords in the UK has been selling off run-down accommodation it can no longer afford to maintain. This has seen developers moving in to take advantage of the investment opportunities presented by estates such as the Heygate and Aylesbury situated less than a mile away from the river.

There is an emergent academic literature examining how the ‘new’ urban renewal is encouraging the gentrification of previously devalued council estates and its impact (Hyra 2008; Watt 2009; Lees 2014). However, less is known about who is at threat from eviction or homelessness or the effects on the individual. Further, there has been little investigation into how service providers should respond in order to best support vulnerable residents and adapt services to the challenges and requirements of living (or attempting to stay) in the capital.

Cambridge House is pleased to announce that it has recently received funding from the University of Leicester to help plug this gap. Working with Professor Loretta Lees an urban geographer who specialises in gentrification and urban regeneration and supported by Cambridge House Law Centre, the research will provide in depth insight into the experiences and circumstances of those facing the threat of eviction or who are already homeless in South London.

The research objectives are as follows:

• To establish who is vulnerable from eviction and/or homelessness and why
• To examine the personal impact of possession orders and homelessness on the individual
• To determine in what ways service providers can better support those at threat from, or who are already, homeless

If you wish to find out more about the research or would like to be involved please contact  hwhite@ch1889.org

Rob Anderson asks – Can the Supreme Court stop austerity hitting the vulnerable hardest?

Last month the Supreme Court delivered a land mark ruling in homelessness law. The case of Mr Kanu, demonstrates how far some cash strapped Council’s had squeezed the definition of vulnerability in order to avoid treating those with a physical disability or mental health issues as having priority need. With a further 12 billion in benefit cuts on the horizon, widening inequality and rising homelessness we ask can we rely on the law to protect our most vulnerable.

Under the Cameron administration, homelessness has now reached crisis point. Crisis and Shelter, report that rough sleeping has increased by 37% over the last three years, and last year more than 130,000 people approached their local authority as homeless (equivalent to the population of Cambridge).

Under the Housing Act 1996, local authorities have a duty to ensure accommodation for people who are homeless and in ‘priority need’. However housing shortages and spending restrictions have meant that the definition of ‘priority need’ had become the critical factor in determining who is entitled.

From 1998 a precedent referred to as the ‘Pereira Test’ had been used to assess an individual’s circumstances. Lady Brenda Hale, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, summed this up: “We had reached the point where decision–makers were saying, of people who clearly had serious mental or physical disabilities, that ‘you are not vulnerable, because you are no more vulnerable than the usual run of street homeless people in our locality’”.

Last month’s judgement throws the state’s failure to protect its most vulnerable citizens into stark relief. In early 2011, an eviction notice was served to Mr Patrick Kanu (the successful appellant) and his family. Mr Kanu was already facing debilitating health issues, including mental health concerns. He initially sought support, but was rejected by the local authority. Later that year, Mr Kanu applied again when facing street homelessness. The Local Authority refused his application on the basis that he was not considered “in priority need”.

Mr Kanu approached Cambridge House, who provided Mr Kanu, with legal advice and representation.  By this time, Mr Kanu’s health was seriously deteriorating, suffering from chronic pain, hepatitis B, and levels of hypertension flagged by his GP as “dangerous”. Even more troublingly, Mr Kanu was experiencing severe mental health issues, including bouts of psychosis, attempted self-harm (often only prevented by Mr Kanu’s wife), and suicidal thoughts. Despite the Local Authority’s own Medical Assessment Service recommending his categorisation as in “priority need”, it decided that he was not sufficiently ‘vulnerable’ to be eligible for housing. The reason given was that Mr Kanu could cope with the effects of homelessness and in any event because he was married his wife could assist him.

The Housing Act 1996 states that Local Authorities have a duty to ensure that vulnerable homeless people who are not intentionally homeless are supported into housing. In Mr Kanu’s case this vulnerability was clearly significant. Yet, it was only after four years and against a backdrop of increasingly severe health issues that Mr Kanu’s won his appeal in the Supreme Court.  Sadly, the extent of Mr Kanu’s vulnerability became clear shortly after the Supreme Court judgement. Only 3 days later, Mr Kanu died aged 48 provoking the question: ‘How vulnerable is vulnerable enough?’.

Under the new ruling, the Supreme Court has done away with the previous case law, including the Pereira Test, and specifically rejected some of the expressions used in homelessness cases such as “street homelessness” and “fend for oneself”. They have also abolished the use of statistics (a particularly blunt way of establishing ‘ordinary’ levels of vulnerability), and re-established the intended meaning of a “person who is vulnerable” under the Housing Act 1996. Critically, as Lady Hale commented, this means that vulnerability will now be established in comparison “with ordinary people generally”, not “ordinary homeless people”.

Despite the positive precedent established on May 13th, as local authorities brace themselves for the £12bn in welfare cuts stories like Mr Kanu’s are likely to become more rather than less common. The disturbing possibility is that in the face of single-minded austerity the law will not protect the most vulnerable. Either the government must accept the cost of caring or the stark reality of the cost of cutting – for our most vulnerable the threat of deprivation and destitution.

Sounding Out London Launch Crowdfunding Campaign

Who are Sounding Out London?

‘Sounding Out London’ is a Cambridge House youth project working to elevate the voices of young people to create the opportunity for real engagement and debate with policy makers on the issue of violence amongst young people. We are seeking funding for our consultation activities and to support an ambitious new programme of peer-led research looking into the structural causes of youth violence, with the aim of changing the ways in which the issue is viewed. Following the principles of co-production the research will be carried out by a team of young people who will receive support from an academic lead as well as research training from academic partners in order to develop their skills. The findings from the research and consultation events will be presented in a report for policy makers, while new audio, digital and film technologies will be developed to engage with the public and media. In addition to producing fresh insights into youth violence informed by the views and experiences of young people and policy recommendations, the project will act as a programme pilot with a view to replicating it and rolling it out nationally later.

Overall Aim

• To transform the way in which policy makers view youth violence

Specific aims

• Enable young people to speak with authority to policy makers
• Raise public awareness of the misconceptions around youth violence
• Put pressure on the media to change the way in which youth violence is portrayed

What have we found already?

Our work over the last two years with young people across London has produced compelling evidence on the difference between their experiences of violence and public perception currently informing intervention strategies. For example:

• Youth violence is caused by gangs.
• False. 94% of young people we consulted said that youth violence is not always associated with gangs. 58% reported that rivalries that lead to youth violence often start at school.
• Tough policing strategies are the only way to ‘solve’ youth violence
• False. There was zero correlation between young people who believed that solving youth violence was feasible and those who had confidence in the police and their methods.
• Youth violence mostly affects males.
• False. In our sample, young men and women were equally affected by youth violence.

What do Sounding Out London want to fund?

We need your help to fund the vital elements of our project:

1. Research Costs – £1400

Funds raised will cover the costs of the equipment we need to gather our data, including recording and transcription equipment to be used in our focus groups. This fund will also cover the travel expenses of our team of young volunteer researchers, widening our reach to London’s young people.

2. ‘Sounding Out London’ Engagement Events: ‘One Big Debate’ and ‘On The Record’ £2800

The young people whose views we will represent are central to every stage of our project. Once we have a collected our data, we will hold two dynamic events to give young people the opportunity to engage with our findings, express their views directly to policy-makers, and connect with one another in the movement against youth violence. One Bigger Debate – reaching out to young people across London to discuss the research findings on-line and develop policy solutions. On The Record – as part of the House of Commons Parliament Week, Sounding Out London will lead an enquiry into youth violence in the style of a Select Committee meeting.

To donate to the project please visit https://www.crowdshed.com/projects/sounding-out-london

Today the Supreme Court announced its decision on the most important case on homelessness in decades laying down clear guidance for assessing who is vulnerable and in priority need.

This landmark case is significant for homeless people with disabilities and will improve their housing rights through the Local Authority and was successfully pursued by South London charity Cambridge House.

For the first time since the homelessness provisions came into force in 1977 the meaning of ‘vulnerability’ has been considered by the highest Court in the land. This is of critical important for homeless people particularly those with disabilities who do not have children.

Increasingly vulnerable single homeless people have been refused housing and left to fend for themselves as cash strapped councils have turned away people with disabilities on the basis they are not a priority because they are able to cope or at least cope as well as an ‘ordinary homeless person’.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide how Local Authorities should approach the statutory test of vulnerability contained in the Housing Act 1996. Under the Act a homeless person without children is considered to be in priority need for accommodation if they are “vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason” S189(1)(c) HA 1996. In a series of appeals brought by Southwark and Solihull Councils, the Court of Appeal had previously ruled that a person was deemed to be vulnerable and in priority need, only if they would suffer more than an “ordinary street homeless person”.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Mr Patrick Kanu against Southwark Council’s decision that he was not in priority need for housing finding that his suffering should not have been compared with a street homeless person, but rather an ordinary person who stood to lose his accommodation. The Court also rejected the submission that the Equality Act 2010 could never add anything in vulnerability cases and that instead each case should be received on an individual basis.

In response to today’s judgement Mr Stuart Hearne of Cambridge House Law Centre, and the case lawyer stated:

“This is a very welcome judgement. I would hope that it will also be welcomed by Local Authorities. It will make it much clearer who should be assisted. In the past Local Authorities were having to compare homeless applicants with other homeless people to consider who is more vulnerable – this was a very difficult decision and one that led to disputes and some very disabled people being refused accommodation. It is not in anyone’s interest, including that of Local Authorities, that people who have disabilities or mental health issues should not be housed or left street homeless.

Rough sleepers have a lower life expectancy than the general population and are more likely to have mental and physical health problems.

This decision should now mean that the vast majority of homeless people who have a physical disability or have mental ill health should be accepted as being in priority need for accommodation”.

Available for comment:

Stuart Hearne Cambridge House Law Centre Manager and Case Solicitor

shearne@ch1889.org  DL: 0207 358 7025 M: 07792 631 033

Karin Woodley Chief Executive of Cambridge House

Kwoodley@ch1889.org   DL: 0207 358 7259 M: 07971 116 424

Notes to editor

The Supreme Court, in three appeals heard together, Kanu v Southwark LBC, Hotak v Southwark LBC and Johnson v Solihull BC was asked to decide how Local Authorities should approach the statutory test of vulnerability contained in the Housing Act 1996.

Mr Patrick Kanu had physical problems: including hepatitis B and hypertension as well as psychotic symptoms and suicide ideation.  He was cared for by his wife but despite her care, stress was raising his hypertension to what doctors characterised as “quite dangerous levels”.   Southwark Council had accepted that Mr Patrick Kanu would be in priority need for accommodation if he was on his own but decided that as he had a wife then he was not in priority need.

Mr Sifatullah Hotak is an adult with significant learning difficulties, with measured IQ on one test of 47 and a history of self-harming and depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.  His brother, Ezatullah looked after him but was also homeless.  Southwark Council decided that as Mr Hotak had a brother to care for him he was not considered to be in priority need.

The Court has overturned previous case law and guidance and has now established that:

1. An authority’s duty to the homeless under Part VII Housing Act 1996 is not to be influenced or affected by the resources available to the authority.
2. The correct comparator when assessing whether someone is vulnerable for the reasons in s189 (1)(c ) is an ordinary person if made homeless.
3. Support from a third party can be taken into account when assessing whether a person is vulnerable but that needs to be applied with “considerable circumspection” and that the fact of support in itself is not enough.
4. In the case of an applicant who has or may have a disability then at each stage of the decision making process the decision maker must have due regard to the need to achieve the goals of the Equality Act 2010 which include the need to eliminate discrimination, advance the equality of opportunity between those that have a disability and those that do not and to take active steps to meet the needs of those with a disability. S149 (1) (a)- ( c) Equality Act 2010.
5. That the consideration of the public sector equality duty must be exercised “in substance, with rigour and with an open mind”.

The full judgment can be downloaded from the Supreme Court website:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/latest-judgments.html

Mr Patrick Kanu was represented by Mr Stuart Hearne of Cambridge House Law Centre.  His barristers were Mr Zia Nabi of Doughty Street Chambers and Ms Helen Mountfield QC of Matrix Chambers.

This is out of order!

Law Centres play an essential role protecting people’s Human Rights owing to cuts to legal aid.

Since 2013 when cuts to aid for civil cases came into effect, law centres have seen a massive surge in people seeking support for welfare claims. Unable to pick up all cases, there has also been a major increase in people representing themselves.

Whatever the election outcome however, a change in the law seems unlikely. In his annual report to the Justice Committee, the Lord Chief Justice recommended that the law should be consolidated and made more accessible. This suggests that the poorest in society, those without representation, will continue to be denied access to a fair trial.

Since it was created in 1949, Legal Aid has played a vital role for those who cannot afford representation to access the legal system. The introduction of the Legal Aid Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LAPSO) however, on 1 April 2013, has seen major cuts to the service. All benefit has been cut for cases relating to welfare and family law (except domestic violence cases), while funding for housing advice has been limited to those facing homelessness, eviction or health concerns owing to disrepair.

Eligibility criteria have also got tougher. People on benefits and pensioners are no longer automatically entitled to support and are now subject to means testing. If someone has disposable income over £315 a month or assets over £1000 they will be required to pay towards their legal costs.

Unsurprisingly LAPSO has had a considerable impact. Figures suggest that access to legal aid for civil cases fell by 62% last year, and some categories of law such as social welfare and family law are becoming inaccessible for the most vulnerable in society (Guardian 09/09/2014). As a result there has been an up surge in unrepresented claimants in court.

However, the withdrawal of legal aid may be in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Owing to LAPSO, people are being denied access to a fair trial. The knock on effect has been the recent increase in miscarriages of justice. People representing themselves are losing winnable cases because they don’t know the system.

In September the House of Commons, Justice Committee opened a review looking into the impact of LAPSO – this is on-going. In January the Lord Chief Justice advised the committee that it should continue to review people’s access, but suggested that the various aspects of law should be consolidated so they are more accessible. This suggests that the current situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future and that the poorest in society will continue to have to represent themselves.

In the past legal aid has been essential to ensuring access to justice for all. The cuts however, mean that sections of society are now being denied access to legal representation and therefore a fair trial. Law Centres such as Cambridge House have continued to be able to take on welfare and employment cases – albeit a limited service – primarily because of funding received by Southwark Council. However the durability of Law Centres should not be taken for granted, cuts to legal aid have also severely restricted service provision and since LAPSO 10 centres have closed.

Something I wrote long before Russell Brand confronted Farage on Question Time

24th October 2014 – Biased coverage of UKIP has helped push debate on immigration and Europe further to the right. I wanted to address this by starting a campaign to bring together the voices of people who disagree.

Ten years ago, I was studying for a Masters at Bristol University. At that time, I frequently visited my parents in Baycliffe, a small village overlooking Morecambe Bay between Ulverston and Barrow. For me, the opportunity to explore Cumbria and go hiking in the fells was a welcome break from the monotony and isolation of being a single parent on benefit struggling to improve my circumstances.

During one visit we headed to Ulverston’s covered market. Here I stopped to browse a music stall, while my mother treated my son to a ride in a toy car. Moments later, she returned visibly shaken. Incredulously she explained that while she was having her ‘granny moment’, a passer-by had stopped and shouted in the face of my two year old ‘to go home’.

Soon after, 21 Chinese cockle pickers drowned in Morecambe Bay. Before the tragedy, the Chinese workers were at the centre of much local gossip. Little was said about the conditions in which they were working and living, although it was apparent that a number of people were roughing it along the shoreline through the winter. Instead they were considered to be a threat to people’s security. Later the news of the deaths of the Chinese cockle pickers, many of who were brought over illegally and exploited by gang masters, was met with sympathy as the realities of their experience became apparent.

In Barrow, UKIP came second in the recent European elections. One of the factors allegedly contributing to UKIP’s rise is its stance on immigration, despite the small number of migrants living in the area. To say the abuse directed at my son is representative of local attitudes however, would be a fabrication. At the moment UKIP is still supported by a small minority. But, in an area where levels of unemployment are above the national average it would also be naïve to suggest that UKIP will not garner further votes by exploiting people’s fears of outsiders in the run up to the election.

Since May, more or less every day the increasing popularity of UKIP has been reported in the media. Much has been made of the party’s success in the European Elections. UKIP won the highest number of seats, 24 out of 73, making it the first party since 1910 to break the ascendency of the two main parties in a nationwide election.

Last month, UKIP also scored its first elected MP. Douglas Carswell saw off his rivals in the Clacton by-election winning 21,113 votes compared with the Tories 8,709 and Labour’s 3,959. The success of UKIP, besides its stance on Europe and immigration, has been put down to the accessibility of its straight talking leader Nigel Farage, the party’s broad appeal and out-of-touch parliamentary elites.

The national media however must take responsibility for its part in accelerating the party’s reach. Rather than representing the views of the nation, UKIP’s success in the European Elections can be put down to poor voter turn out – just 6.8% of the population voted for the party (9.4% of the voting population). Nevertheless the media’s over-inflation of UKIP’s popularity has given them a platform and helped to position the party as a viable runner in the approaching election. The most obvious example is Nigel Farage’s invitation by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News to take part in the live TV leader debates. A gesture not extended to other minor political parties represented in the House of Commons.

On the left, some optimists have been relishing UKIP’s increased notoriety owing to its potential to derail the Conservative campaign. But as recent developments have shown, it’s not just David Cameron’s party that UKIP has in its sights. ‘Working class’ Labour voters are also being targeted. It is still uncertain however, whether UKIP will gain any real influence in the House of Common’s. What is clear is the influence the party is having on mainstream debate, particularly on Europe and immigration. Rather than challenging the rising opposition to immigration, politicians on both the left and right are adopting nationalistic rhetoric.

The absence of balanced debate is what motivated us to start the campaign Say No to UKIP. Our raison d’etre (if you’ll excuse the use of a foreign phrase) is to help create the opportunity for alternative voices to be heard. To start off with we are seeking the support of 39,143 people to pledge against UKIP. We have chosen this number as it is the current membership of the party. This, we hope, will put the slanted coverage given to the party in perspective.

To register go to Say No to UKIP Change.org

https://www.change.org/p/british-public-say-no-to-ukip

Word up

---

Many people blog – so why add one more voice? Well at Cambridge House we know we have something to say.

Our views are shaped by our experience. We are a social justice centre based in Southwark. We provide a number of services which include our law centre, advocacy, education, family support and youth engagement. Consequently, we know what’s going on. We also house a nursery, Blackfriars Advice Service, and the NHS amongst others. Oh and Harriet Harman is taking up residence soon.

Personally I am interested in how the deficit is shaping welfare delivery. This is informed by my reading, research and teaching . I am also interested in the reasons behind the ascendance of nationalism, immigration and rising inequality.

We’re excited to start blogging. We will be talking about the issues which affect the residents of Southwark, such as housing, changes to legal aid, food banks, the concerns of young people and much, much more.

I am currently setting up this site and will start blogging shortly.