« | Home | »

Among the ‘Property Guardians’

Tags: |

Rectory Gardens, a residential mews in Clapham Old Town, is being emptied, one household at a time. Henry, who has lived in the street since 1985, is among those waiting to be rehoused. When he leaves, Lambeth Council will probably hire Camelot, a ‘vacant property management’ company, to install ‘guardians’: people who pay the company for the privilege of staying in disused buildings and keeping out squatters. There are several property guardians already living on the street.

Rectory Gardens was supposed to be demolished in the early 1970s and turned into an old people’s home. The council bought the houses by compulsory purchase order but then couldn’t afford to knock them down. Not wanting to be lumbered with empty, derelict properties, the council let the squatters who had moved in stay on as ‘short-life’ tenants. They formed a housing co-operative. Many are still there forty years later.

Property prices in the area, like everywhere in London, have soared: a three-bedroom flat in a gated development next door sold for £979,000 in May. It isn’t surprising that Lambeth Council wants the houses back. It has offered priority rehousing to anyone who agrees to leave Rectory Gardens, ahead of many of the 20,000 people already on the waiting list. When they go, a property guardian moves in.

Camelot advertises ‘fees’ (not rent) from £35 per week, but in London the price is likely to be far higher: £408.90 per month to live in a former care home in Hackney, for example. This may be low by the standards of the private rental market, but as they’re neither tenants nor employees, guardians have none of the rights of either. They can be evicted at extremely short notice, inspected and fined for being messy. They can’t spend too many nights out and can’t bring guests round without booking them in.

Guardians in Rectory Gardens are lucky: most of the houses have been carefully restored over the years, though residents still describe the street as ‘ramshackle’. Elsewhere, guardians can expect far worse than ramshackle. Camelot boasts to speculative clients that their guardians are ‘flexible and adventurous’ and can live almost anywhere.

Camelot started in the Netherlands in 1993. Its co-founder, Bob De Vilder, came up with the idea of property guardians while squatting himself. The company moved into the UK in 2001. Bond Precaire Woonvormen is a Dutch organisation that campaigns against property guardian – or ‘anti-squatting’ – organisations. Abel Heijkamp, who works with them, says that companies like Camelot are ‘violating tenants’ rights on a massive scale, resulting in a growing group of second class tenants’.

Margreet Brinxma, a former squatter from Utrecht, says she ‘would never, ever think of Camelot as a solution’ to homelessness. ‘I personally find it very ignorant of society and renters to see anti-squat as a legitimate way to solve the problem of limited availability of affordable housing. Giving away your right as a renter is basically saying that you agree with lowering the legal position of renters.’

By making it easier for councils to break up communities like Rectory Gardens, by undermining squatting and eroding tenants’ rights, Camelot is improving its own prospects; as more people become desperate for a place to live, an increasing number will forgo their right to be a tenant – let alone their tenants’ rights – to live in places many people would consider uninhabitable.

Comments on “Among the ‘Property Guardians’”

  1. TommyZoom says:

    “….but as they’re neither tenants nor employees, guardians have none of the rights of either.” Not sure that’s right – The Supreme Court (née House of Lords) cases, Street v Mountford 1985 and Bruton v London and Quadrant 1998, indicate otherwise.

    And as for “They can be evicted at extremely short notice”, well that is wrong too, Even if these lettings are not tenancies, so long as they are for money or money’s worth, the Protection From Eviction Act 1977, section 3, will mean that the licensees cannot be summarily evicted – the licensor (in common terms, the landlord), will need to get a court order to lawfully evict.

    So if Camelot were to act as you describe, they would be committing a serious criminal offence – and I suspect they know it – ironically this bit of criminal law is enforceable by Lambeth Council itself.

    As for squatting, well the current government, in about their only legislative act directed at private sector housing, made it a criminal offence to squat residential premises. Thus absolutely undermining squatting whatever the wishes of Lambeth Council, et al.

    • Harry Stopes says:

      Property guardianship companies (Camelot is one among many) give their ‘tenants’ very short rolling contracts. So while they aren’t technically ‘evicted’ at short notice, they can lose their home at short notice. It amounts to the same thing really.

      Also, property guardians do undermine squatting, because they often ‘guard’ non-residential premises, in which squatting is still legal.

      • TommyZoom says:

        You’re spot on about non-residential premises.

        But you’re wrong about losing homes at short notice – even if the contract is a short rolling contract (a rolling contract will be a periodic tenancy/licence). A court order will be necessary and it would take (in London at least) three months to affect eviction.

        The point is that those residing under a guardianship company contract do have some minimum rights that they can legally enforce. And enforcement of those rights can defeat, or at least seriously interfere with, the guardianship company carrying out their contract.

  2. roon says:

    This article doesn’t really consider why someone would be willing to give up tenants’ rights to become a guardian. The real story is about the state of the private rental market, where landlords are just as cut-throat as the Guardian companies, whilst demanding a lot more money.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • ksh93 on ‘Essentially Bohemian’: When Castro visited US in 1959 and met Vice President Nixon, the latter suggested that Castro's regime would do well to emulate the development model ...
    • denismollison on At Mount Rushmore: PS : Apologies, that link should be http://www.startribune.com/the-real-history-of-mount-rushmore/388715411/
    • denismollison on At Mount Rushmore: I'm surprised that this post doesn't reference Mount Rushmore's history as a monument to european americans' treatment of the indigenous people. It i...
    • alan.hertz@faculty.hult.edu on At Mount Rushmore: I don't think it's just a quibble to point out that Tate didn't go into the sugar business until 1859 -- more than a quarter century after the aboliti...
    • Jeremy Bernstein on Boosting: I just wanted to clarify. When I wrote that tritium was super heavy I meant among hydrogen isotopes. Ordinary hydrogen has one proton in the nucleus, ...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

Advertisement Advertisement