On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:40:44PM +0100, Aden wrote:
> People are always looking for places to move to, and every attempt
> I've made to get a hacker house share has failed, so the best way is
> to take over an existing house share by stealth... So thought I'd post
> this here, go ahead and flame me if you like.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 11:19:39AM -0700, a...@aden.org.uk wrote:
> Sound like an interesting idea, I've got no idea how housing co-ops work, > do banks lend money to housing co-ops these days, or does everyone living > there have to pay a share of the place?
The vast majority of housing co-ops in the UK are run on a not-for-profit
(ie rental only) basis, though either approach is possible, and a few do
have buy-in and sell provisions.
A housing co-op is a legal entity that owns or in some cases leases
property, the tenants of whom reciprocally have voting rights in the co-op.
But it also very usefully provides a structure that, when used properly,
provides some degree of protection against a "bad egg" member not playing
ball and ruining the typical informal house-share arrangements.
By the way, I'm a member of a housing co-op in NE London and I've often
thought that a bunch of hackers should do a hacker housing co-op project
(it's as much as I can do to persuade the members of my co-op to use a wiki
and not send MS Word attachments by reply-to-all email!).
I may be looking for a new place next month, would definately be an
interesting idea. I know a few ppl that have done similar will ask for
advice
On Oct 20, 2012 7:19 PM, "a...@aden.org.uk" <a...@aden.org.uk> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:05:36 PM UTC+1, Robert Morris wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:40:44PM +0100, Aden wrote:
>> > People are always looking for places to move to, and every attempt
>> > I've made to get a hacker house share has failed, so the best way is
>> > to take over an existing house share by stealth... So thought I'd post
>> > this here, go ahead and flame me if you like.
>> How about a hacker housing co-op?
> Sound like an interesting idea, I've got no idea how housing co-ops work,
> do banks lend money to housing co-ops these days, or does everyone living
> there have to pay a share of the place?
I've got access to three buildings, two in Leyton, and one in
Stratford.
The manager of the estate management company was interested in leasing
all three buildings, when at the time i wanted just the one flat. I
told him that i didn't feel comfortable taking on all three on my own.
With help it would be a different story...
It'll need to be approached in a reasonably professional manner for
them to take it seriously.
If anyone is interested in setting up a housing co-op, shout here.
On 20 Oct, 19:46, "Martin (Crypt)" <crysi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I may be looking for a new place next month, would definately be an
> interesting idea. I know a few ppl that have done similar will ask for
> advice
> On Oct 20, 2012 7:19 PM, "a...@aden.org.uk" <a...@aden.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:05:36 PM UTC+1, Robert Morris wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:40:44PM +0100, Aden wrote:
> >> > People are always looking for places to move to, and every attempt
> >> > I've made to get a hacker house share has failed, so the best way is
> >> > to take over an existing house share by stealth... So thought I'd post
> >> > this here, go ahead and flame me if you like.
> >> How about a hacker housing co-op?
> > Sound like an interesting idea, I've got no idea how housing co-ops work,
> > do banks lend money to housing co-ops these days, or does everyone living
> > there have to pay a share of the place?
Le samedi 20 octobre 2012 19:19:39 UTC+1, ad...@aden.org.uk a écrit :
> Sound like an interesting idea, I've got no idea how housing co-ops work, > do banks lend money to housing co-ops these days, or does everyone living > there have to pay a share of the place?
There's a lot of diversity in the sector. Historically many were started with grants. They vary from being essentially private, to having all their places nominated by local authorities.
They can be a very useful and flexible mechanism, though there's presumably a lot of experience in their internal politics that I'm not familiar with. Living co-operatively with others is not necessarily simple. But if you are a member of London Hackspace you know all about that.
If anyone was setting one of these up for hackers, I'd be happy to look over the tenancy agreement that you intend to use. While my current hat is really "tech. lawyer", I used to do a lot of housing work and ended up with a weird specialism in co-ops and housing co-ops that still seems to be with me. There are a few - in some cases recent - wrinkles that have come up with some co-ops, so its worth taking a little legal advice.
I'm really up for setting this up, although as I said, gunna be out of
the country until middle of next month. If anyone wants to do
anything before then, I'm on email and will help however I can. If
you guys can wait a month, then I'll happily work with you to set it
up when I get back.
> Le samedi 20 octobre 2012 19:19:39 UTC+1, ad...@aden.org.uk a écrit
> :
>> Sound like an interesting idea, I've got no idea how housing
>> co-ops work, do banks lend money to housing co-ops these days, or
>> does everyone living there have to pay a share of the place?
> There's a lot of diversity in the sector. Historically many were
> started with grants. They vary from being essentially private, to
> having all their places nominated by local authorities.
> They can be a very useful and flexible mechanism, though there's
> presumably a lot of experience in their internal politics that I'm
> not familiar with. Living co-operatively with others is not
> necessarily simple. But if you are a member of London Hackspace you
> know all about that.
> If anyone was setting one of these up for hackers, I'd be happy to
> look over the tenancy agreement that you intend to use. While my
> current hat is really "tech. lawyer", I used to do a lot of housing
> work and ended up with a weird specialism in co-ops and housing
> co-ops that still seems to be with me. There are a few - in some
> cases recent - wrinkles that have come up with some co-ops, so its
> worth taking a little legal advice.
> Francis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
> I'm really up for setting this up, although as I said, gunna be out of
> the country until middle of next month. If anyone wants to do
> anything before then, I'm on email and will help however I can. If
> you guys can wait a month, then I'll happily work with you to set it
> up when I get back.
> On 21/10/2012 00:25, Francis Davey wrote:
>> Le samedi 20 octobre 2012 19:19:39 UTC+1, ad...@aden.org.uk a écrit
>> :
>>> Sound like an interesting idea, I've got no idea how housing
>>> co-ops work, do banks lend money to housing co-ops these days, or
>>> does everyone living there have to pay a share of the place?
>> There's a lot of diversity in the sector. Historically many were
>> started with grants. They vary from being essentially private, to
>> having all their places nominated by local authorities.
>> They can be a very useful and flexible mechanism, though there's
>> presumably a lot of experience in their internal politics that I'm
>> not familiar with. Living co-operatively with others is not
>> necessarily simple. But if you are a member of London Hackspace you
>> know all about that.
>> If anyone was setting one of these up for hackers, I'd be happy to
>> look over the tenancy agreement that you intend to use. While my
>> current hat is really "tech. lawyer", I used to do a lot of housing
>> work and ended up with a weird specialism in co-ops and housing
>> co-ops that still seems to be with me. There are a few - in some
>> cases recent - wrinkles that have come up with some co-ops, so its
>> worth taking a little legal advice.
>> Francis
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
Francis: Would you be up for talking to http://www.oneclickorgs.com/ about housing co-op's? One of the organisers is Martin Dittus. While
i've been able to help, what they need is someone who can produce
things that are watertight from a legal standpoint...
I'll chase up on the timescale for when the buildings i know of, can
be available. That way, we can get an idea of the lead time we'll
have, to get the legal structure up and running. Also see if i can get
a copy of the last surveyor's report.
They may not be the ideal places to live, but they'll be pretty much
the same as a private let anywhere else in London. It'll at least get
us a revenue stream up and running.
I'll admit, though, I've only seen one of the buildings. It's where i
currently rent. Two flats above a shop, both two bedrooms. If
possible, i'll arrange a site visit to see the other two.
One idea that would suit the longer-term, make it a child-friendly
housing co-op. Otherwise anyone deciding to hatch podlings will have
to move out...
On 21 Oct, 12:04, Eugene Nadyrshin <menta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > Cool thanks Francis.
> > I'm really up for setting this up, although as I said, gunna be out of
> > the country until middle of next month. If anyone wants to do
> > anything before then, I'm on email and will help however I can. If
> > you guys can wait a month, then I'll happily work with you to set it
> > up when I get back.
> > On 21/10/2012 00:25, Francis Davey wrote:
> >> Le samedi 20 octobre 2012 19:19:39 UTC+1, ad...@aden.org.uk a écrit
> >> :
> >>> Sound like an interesting idea, I've got no idea how housing
> >>> co-ops work, do banks lend money to housing co-ops these days, or
> >>> does everyone living there have to pay a share of the place?
> >> There's a lot of diversity in the sector. Historically many were
> >> started with grants. They vary from being essentially private, to
> >> having all their places nominated by local authorities.
> >> They can be a very useful and flexible mechanism, though there's
> >> presumably a lot of experience in their internal politics that I'm
> >> not familiar with. Living co-operatively with others is not
> >> necessarily simple. But if you are a member of London Hackspace you
> >> know all about that.
> >> If anyone was setting one of these up for hackers, I'd be happy to
> >> look over the tenancy agreement that you intend to use. While my
> >> current hat is really "tech. lawyer", I used to do a lot of housing
> >> work and ended up with a weird specialism in co-ops and housing
> >> co-ops that still seems to be with me. There are a few - in some
> >> cases recent - wrinkles that have come up with some co-ops, so its
> >> worth taking a little legal advice.
> >> Francis
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://www.enigmail.net/
On Sunday, 21 October 2012 16:03:49 UTC+1, Billy wrote:
> Francis: Would you be up for talking to http://www.oneclickorgs.com/ > about housing co-op's? One of the organisers is Martin Dittus. While > i've been able to help, what they need is someone who can produce > things that are watertight from a legal standpoint...
> I'll chase up on the timescale for when the buildings i know of, can > be available. That way, we can get an idea of the lead time we'll > have, to get the legal structure up and running. Also see if i can get > a copy of the last surveyor's report.
> They may not be the ideal places to live, but they'll be pretty much > the same as a private let anywhere else in London. It'll at least get > us a revenue stream up and running.
> I'll admit, though, I've only seen one of the buildings. It's where i > currently rent. Two flats above a shop, both two bedrooms. If > possible, i'll arrange a site visit to see the other two.
> One idea that would suit the longer-term, make it a child-friendly > housing co-op. Otherwise anyone deciding to hatch podlings will have > to move out...
> On 21 Oct, 12:04, Eugene Nadyrshin <menta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm strangely intrigued by the idea!
> > > I'm really up for setting this up, although as I said, gunna be out of > > > the country until middle of next month. If anyone wants to do > > > anything before then, I'm on email and will help however I can. If > > > you guys can wait a month, then I'll happily work with you to set it > > > up when I get back.
> > > On 21/10/2012 00:25, Francis Davey wrote:
> > >> Le samedi 20 octobre 2012 19:19:39 UTC+1, ad...@aden.org.uk a écrit > > >> :
> > >>> Sound like an interesting idea, I've got no idea how housing > > >>> co-ops work, do banks lend money to housing co-ops these days, or > > >>> does everyone living there have to pay a share of the place?
> > >> There's a lot of diversity in the sector. Historically many were > > >> started with grants. They vary from being essentially private, to > > >> having all their places nominated by local authorities.
> > >> They can be a very useful and flexible mechanism, though there's > > >> presumably a lot of experience in their internal politics that I'm > > >> not familiar with. Living co-operatively with others is not > > >> necessarily simple. But if you are a member of London Hackspace you > > >> know all about that.
> > >> If anyone was setting one of these up for hackers, I'd be happy to > > >> look over the tenancy agreement that you intend to use. While my > > >> current hat is really "tech. lawyer", I used to do a lot of housing > > >> work and ended up with a weird specialism in co-ops and housing > > >> co-ops that still seems to be with me. There are a few - in some > > >> cases recent - wrinkles that have come up with some co-ops, so its > > >> worth taking a little legal advice.
> > >> Francis
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://www.enigmail.net/
> Francis: Would you be up for talking to http://www.oneclickorgs.com/ > about housing co-op's? One of the organisers is Martin Dittus. While
> i've been able to help, what they need is someone who can produce
> things that are watertight from a legal standpoint…
Francis is already a long-time advisor for OneClickOrgs, and among other things produced most of our legal documentation.
(He's also an advisor to the London Hackspace. I would take his help in a heartbeat, for any project. He's a busy man but a great and highly skilled legal mind.)
It's also worth mentioning that OneClickOrgs is now working with Cooperatives UK to set up an online tool for cooperatives.
I'll happily refer any hacker co-op groups to the appropriate people if needed.
Le dimanche 21 octobre 2012 17:55:44 UTC+1, Martin Dittus a écrit :
> It's also worth mentioning that OneClickOrgs is now working with > Cooperatives UK to set up an online tool for cooperatives.
I wasn't sure if this was something I could mention, but now Martin has said so, yes, we are putting together something which should have an acceptable template constitution available from co-ops UK as a sponsoring organisation that is compatible with oneclicks e-governance.
I am of course doing none of the heavy lifting - even if I had time I'm a python man really and the coding is in ruby - so I don't know how that end is going.
Just a quick remark about how co-op constitutions work. To get the goodness out of being a housing co-op you should really incorporate as an Industrial and Provident Society (oooer). They are regulated by the FSA rather than Companies House. Registration of a society increases in price the more variations you have from a model constitution sponsored by a sponsoring organisation (like co-ops). Its different.
The "goodness" above is that a fully mutual housing co-operative avoids a lot of older housing legislation. The theory (not an unreasonable one) is that if all the tenants "own" the landlord then you can rely on tenant democracy to decide on things like eviction and can therefore not bother with lots of modern tenant protection law (assured (whether or not shorthold) tenancies don't exist for fully mutual housing co-ops for instance).
I say "older" because whoever it was in the relevant government department who knew about co-ops must have retired or somehow legislative drafters lost the plot, so some much more recent legislation doesn't have a "but not co-ops" clause.
This created a cunning trap. Many (most?) housing co-ops had a clause in their tenancy agreements saying something along the lines of "we won't evict you unless you are bad". Which expresses what most intended. So in theory the co-op can evict at will, but in practice they won't, they'll go through proper internal processes.
Alas, as any landlord and tenant law geek will tell you, a tenancy *must* have a fixed length. You can't have an indefinitely long tenancy. That's a contradiction in terms. The fixed length can be lots of baby fixed lengths (eg weekly) but you can't have a "forever unless you are bad" type of tenancy. Error.
But we've been doing property law for centuries, so a long time ago the courts thought of a wheeze to get around this. An indefinite tenancy would be assumed to be a tenancy "for life" (for the life of the tenant). It then has a specific and certain end-point, but obviously you have to wait to see when it will be. So its "fixed" but not certain. Life tenancies were often used anyway because, obviously, you often want to say to someone "you can live here as long as you live" with the understanding you get back the property afterwards.
But in 1925 eager reformers in Parliament were having none of this. They wanted nice, fixed, length tenancies that you could always know, in advance, exactly when they would end. They included in the massive 1925 land law reform a rule that any tenancy for life auto-converted into a 90 year tenancy (which was long for a life in 1925) plus a provision it could be ended early if the tenant died.
In theory that means that any "we won't evict you unless you are bad" tenancy (such as a lot of co-ops had) would be "indefinite" and, under ancient common law rules, be treated as a tenancy for life (rather than just failing) and then auto-converted by the 1925 Act to 90 year tenancies. So, secretly, even though they didn't know it, all those tenants of housing co-ops actually had 90 year tenancies.
So the Supreme Court found a couple of years ago.
So that was very weird, but careful examination showed the weirdness was worse than it seemed because of ignorant 21st century law makers - who probably slept through Land Law at university, assuming they ever attended the lectures. In 2002 they passed legislation containing a bunch of rules to protect long leaseholders. One rule required a landlord to notify a tenant between 30 and 60 days in advance of any rent being due. That works fine for *annual* rents of £1 or a red rose, but does not make sense for a tenant paying weekly on housing benefit.
Hence: totally ridiculous situation.
Hence therefore my remark that there's are a few things that require care when putting together a housing co-op.
Please forgive my brain dump. I will let you get back to all the wonderful things you do with real objects.
> I'll happily refer any hacker co-op groups to the appropriate people if > needed.
Excellent. If anyone wants to talk to one-click about it, Martin is your man.
On Saturday, 20 October 2012 19:05:36 UTC+1, Robert Morris wrote:
> Hi,
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:40:44PM +0100, Aden wrote: > > People are always looking for places to move to, and every attempt > > I've made to get a hacker house share has failed, so the best way is > > to take over an existing house share by stealth... So thought I'd post > > this here, go ahead and flame me if you like.
On Saturday, 20 October 2012 19:05:36 UTC+1, Robert Morris wrote:
> Hi,
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:40:44PM +0100, Aden wrote: > > People are always looking for places to move to, and every attempt > > I've made to get a hacker house share has failed, so the best way is > > to take over an existing house share by stealth... So thought I'd post > > this here, go ahead and flame me if you like.
Not sure about getting involved in the wiki but what I could do is come down
to the space, either just socially or as an event, about setting up a
housing co-op. I might be able to get one or two of my fellow co-op members
to come too (they've heard me talk plenty about the LHS!).
Unfortunately (and ironically) I'm away all next week at Co-operatives
United in Manchester, so it would have to be during the week following. Let
me know if this is of interest.
The Saturday of that week (17 November) is our co-op's monthly social, this
is mainly, though not exclusively, a recruiting ground for potential new
members - but sometimes people come along who are interested in setting up
other co-ops too; and are most welcome. There will be a few co-op members
present, sometimes the social is in a pub, sometimes other places.
The details of the November event haven't been finalised but I can circulate
them to anyone who is interested.
I'm also interested! Currently thinking of moving to Glasgow as I can't find anywhere suitable in London. I've got the number of someone who's going to have a house available to rent in Kensall Rise on the 27th. Maybe we could get in there if we have enough people right now? I think there are five bedrooms. Maybe this is a pipe dream.
On Saturday, 20 October 2012 19:05:36 UTC+1, Robert Morris wrote:
> Hi,
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:40:44PM +0100, Aden wrote: > > People are always looking for places to move to, and every attempt > > I've made to get a hacker house share has failed, so the best way is > > to take over an existing house share by stealth... So thought I'd post > > this here, go ahead and flame me if you like.
No, it's not a pipe-dream, just something that'll probably require
more than three days work to get off the ground.
Get the terms of the let, and shout here. After all, there are other
people on this thread who are currently looking for a place to live.
See what the landlord is like. If they're interested in longer-term
let's/leases, then that's even better. But don't get hung up on a
specific property. There are always going to be other places to rent
in London.
There are several places we can meet up. The quiet room at the
hackspace is always an option, but if it isn't available, there are
plenty of other places we can go.
On 24 Oct, 00:46, Andy Danger <rarelyife...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also interested! Currently thinking of moving to Glasgow as I can't
> find anywhere suitable in London. I've got the number of someone who's
> going to have a house available to rent in Kensall Rise on the 27th. Maybe
> we could get in there if we have enough people right now? I think there are
> five bedrooms. Maybe this is a pipe dream.
> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 19:05:36 UTC+1, Robert Morris wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:40:44PM +0100, Aden wrote:
> > > People are always looking for places to move to, and every attempt
> > > I've made to get a hacker house share has failed, so the best way is
> > > to take over an existing house share by stealth... So thought I'd post
> > > this here, go ahead and flame me if you like.
I've only put down dates in nov, as I won't be around, but please
don't let this stop you having a meeting before then, if it helps get
things off the ground. Will be able to help out a lot more when I get
back
> No, it's not a pipe-dream, just something that'll probably require > more than three days work to get off the ground.
> Get the terms of the let, and shout here. After all, there are
> other people on this thread who are currently looking for a place
> to live.
> See what the landlord is like. If they're interested in
> longer-term let's/leases, then that's even better. But don't get
> hung up on a specific property. There are always going to be other
> places to rent in London.
> There are several places we can meet up. The quiet room at the > hackspace is always an option, but if it isn't available, there
> are plenty of other places we can go.
> On 24 Oct, 00:46, Andy Danger <rarelyife...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm also interested! Currently thinking of moving to Glasgow as I
>> can't find anywhere suitable in London. I've got the number of
>> someone who's going to have a house available to rent in Kensall
>> Rise on the 27th. Maybe we could get in there if we have enough
>> people right now? I think there are five bedrooms. Maybe this is
>> a pipe dream.
>> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 19:05:36 UTC+1, Robert Morris
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:40:44PM +0100, Aden wrote:
>>>> People are always looking for places to move to, and every
>>>> attempt I've made to get a hacker house share has failed, so
>>>> the best way is to take over an existing house share by
>>>> stealth... So thought I'd post this here, go ahead and flame
>>>> me if you like.
>>> How about a hacker housing co-op?
>>> Robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
I've put my availability in, which unfortunately is rather limited for the
next few weeks. If it turns out we don't do anything until mid-November,
folk might be interested in the following in the meantime:
- Radical Routes gathering in Brighton, Sat 10 - Sun 11 Nov. Introduction to
co-ops session is on Saturday morning, from 10am I think (you can travel
down Friday night and take a sleeping bag if you're not an early starter!)
- The Drive Housing Co-op's monthly social event will be on Sat 17 Nov,
details TBC but most likely will be at a local pub during the afternoon.
Email me off-list if interested and I'll confirm arrangements when known.
As it maybe a few weeks yet before we meet I've been thinking if maybe it worthwhile making an quick geo location web app that puts interested people on the map ("privacy" nazis aside). The reason for it is that we'll need to restrict our search for properties that are that works for the majority. The location could be where they work or where they'd like to be. I'm thinking of making a basic algorithm that scores every new property on the location.
Thinking of doing something similar for the new space search as with our current requirements estate agents aren't coming up with anything new, so it would make sense to expand search area.
> Le dimanche 21 octobre 2012 17:55:44 UTC+1, Martin Dittus a écrit :
> It's also worth mentioning that OneClickOrgs is now working with
> Cooperatives UK to set up an online tool for cooperatives.
> I wasn't sure if this was something I could mention, but now Martin > has said so, yes, we are putting together something which should have > an acceptable template constitution available from co-ops UK as a > sponsoring organisation that is compatible with oneclicks e-governance.
> I am of course doing none of the heavy lifting - even if I had time > I'm a python man really and the coding is in ruby - so I don't know > how that end is going.
> Just a quick remark about how co-op constitutions work. To get the > goodness out of being a housing co-op you should really incorporate as > an Industrial and Provident Society (oooer). They are regulated by the > FSA rather than Companies House. Registration of a society increases > in price the more variations you have from a model constitution > sponsored by a sponsoring organisation (like co-ops). Its different.
> The "goodness" above is that a fully mutual housing co-operative > avoids a lot of older housing legislation. The theory (not an > unreasonable one) is that if all the tenants "own" the landlord then > you can rely on tenant democracy to decide on things like eviction and > can therefore not bother with lots of modern tenant protection law > (assured (whether or not shorthold) tenancies don't exist for fully > mutual housing co-ops for instance).
> I say "older" because whoever it was in the relevant government > department who knew about co-ops must have retired or somehow > legislative drafters lost the plot, so some much more recent > legislation doesn't have a "but not co-ops" clause.
> This created a cunning trap. Many (most?) housing co-ops had a clause > in their tenancy agreements saying something along the lines of "we > won't evict you unless you are bad". Which expresses what most > intended. So in theory the co-op can evict at will, but in practice > they won't, they'll go through proper internal processes.
> Alas, as any landlord and tenant law geek will tell you, a tenancy > *must* have a fixed length. You can't have an indefinitely long > tenancy. That's a contradiction in terms. The fixed length can be lots > of baby fixed lengths (eg weekly) but you can't have a "forever unless > you are bad" type of tenancy. Error.
> But we've been doing property law for centuries, so a long time ago > the courts thought of a wheeze to get around this. An indefinite > tenancy would be assumed to be a tenancy "for life" (for the life of > the tenant). It then has a specific and certain end-point, but > obviously you have to wait to see when it will be. So its "fixed" but > not certain. Life tenancies were often used anyway because, obviously, > you often want to say to someone "you can live here as long as you > live" with the understanding you get back the property afterwards.
> But in 1925 eager reformers in Parliament were having none of this. > They wanted nice, fixed, length tenancies that you could always know, > in advance, exactly when they would end. They included in the massive > 1925 land law reform a rule that any tenancy for life auto-converted > into a 90 year tenancy (which was long for a life in 1925) plus a > provision it could be ended early if the tenant died.
> In theory that means that any "we won't evict you unless you are bad" > tenancy (such as a lot of co-ops had) would be "indefinite" and, under > ancient common law rules, be treated as a tenancy for life (rather > than just failing) and then auto-converted by the 1925 Act to 90 year > tenancies. So, secretly, even though they didn't know it, all those > tenants of housing co-ops actually had 90 year tenancies.
> So the Supreme Court found a couple of years ago.
> So that was very weird, but careful examination showed the weirdness > was worse than it seemed because of ignorant 21st century law makers - > who probably slept through Land Law at university, assuming they ever > attended the lectures. In 2002 they passed legislation containing a > bunch of rules to protect long leaseholders. One rule required a > landlord to notify a tenant between 30 and 60 days in advance of any > rent being due. That works fine for *annual* rents of £1 or a red > rose, but does not make sense for a tenant paying weekly on housing > benefit.
> Hence: totally ridiculous situation.
> Hence therefore my remark that there's are a few things that require > care when putting together a housing co-op.
> Please forgive my brain dump. I will let you get back to all the > wonderful things you do with real objects.
> I'll happily refer any hacker co-op groups to the appropriate
> people if needed.
> Excellent. If anyone wants to talk to one-click about it, Martin is > your man.
A collaboratively edited google map would be a good start, if you can you get a list of gmail emails of the people that you want added to the map then I will be happy to sort that out.
Re: space search, Russ has this data and I recall that they used it before in this kind of way as an experiment.
On Monday, 29 October 2012 02:30:44 UTC, mentar wrote:
> As it maybe a few weeks yet before we meet I've been thinking if maybe > it worthwhile making an quick geo location web app that puts interested > people on the map ("privacy" nazis aside). The reason for it is that we'll > need to restrict our search for properties that are that works for the > majority. The location could be where they work or where they'd like to be. > I'm thinking of making a basic algorithm that scores every new property on > the location.
> Thinking of doing something similar for the new space search as with our > current requirements estate agents aren't coming up with anything new, so > it would make sense to expand search area.
> Cheers
> Mentar
> On 21/10/12 23:17, Francis Davey wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 octobre 2012 17:55:44 UTC+1, Martin Dittus a écrit :
>> It's also worth mentioning that OneClickOrgs is now working with >> Cooperatives UK to set up an online tool for cooperatives.
> I wasn't sure if this was something I could mention, but now Martin has > said so, yes, we are putting together something which should have an > acceptable template constitution available from co-ops UK as a sponsoring > organisation that is compatible with oneclicks e-governance.
> I am of course doing none of the heavy lifting - even if I had time I'm > a python man really and the coding is in ruby - so I don't know how that > end is going.
> Just a quick remark about how co-op constitutions work. To get the > goodness out of being a housing co-op you should really incorporate as an > Industrial and Provident Society (oooer). They are regulated by the FSA > rather than Companies House. Registration of a society increases in price > the more variations you have from a model constitution sponsored by a > sponsoring organisation (like co-ops). Its different.
> The "goodness" above is that a fully mutual housing co-operative avoids > a lot of older housing legislation. The theory (not an unreasonable one) is > that if all the tenants "own" the landlord then you can rely on tenant > democracy to decide on things like eviction and can therefore not bother > with lots of modern tenant protection law (assured (whether or not > shorthold) tenancies don't exist for fully mutual housing co-ops for > instance).
> I say "older" because whoever it was in the relevant government > department who knew about co-ops must have retired or somehow legislative > drafters lost the plot, so some much more recent legislation doesn't have a > "but not co-ops" clause.
> This created a cunning trap. Many (most?) housing co-ops had a clause in > their tenancy agreements saying something along the lines of "we won't > evict you unless you are bad". Which expresses what most intended. So in > theory the co-op can evict at will, but in practice they won't, they'll go > through proper internal processes.
> Alas, as any landlord and tenant law geek will tell you, a tenancy > *must* have a fixed length. You can't have an indefinitely long tenancy. > That's a contradiction in terms. The fixed length can be lots of baby fixed > lengths (eg weekly) but you can't have a "forever unless you are bad" type > of tenancy. Error.
> But we've been doing property law for centuries, so a long time ago the > courts thought of a wheeze to get around this. An indefinite tenancy would > be assumed to be a tenancy "for life" (for the life of the tenant). It then > has a specific and certain end-point, but obviously you have to wait to see > when it will be. So its "fixed" but not certain. Life tenancies were often > used anyway because, obviously, you often want to say to someone "you can > live here as long as you live" with the understanding you get back the > property afterwards.
> But in 1925 eager reformers in Parliament were having none of this. They > wanted nice, fixed, length tenancies that you could always know, in > advance, exactly when they would end. They included in the massive 1925 > land law reform a rule that any tenancy for life auto-converted into a 90 > year tenancy (which was long for a life in 1925) plus a provision it could > be ended early if the tenant died.
> In theory that means that any "we won't evict you unless you are bad" > tenancy (such as a lot of co-ops had) would be "indefinite" and, under > ancient common law rules, be treated as a tenancy for life (rather than > just failing) and then auto-converted by the 1925 Act to 90 year tenancies. > So, secretly, even though they didn't know it, all those tenants of housing > co-ops actually had 90 year tenancies.
> So the Supreme Court found a couple of years ago.
> So that was very weird, but careful examination showed the weirdness was > worse than it seemed because of ignorant 21st century law makers - who > probably slept through Land Law at university, assuming they ever attended > the lectures. In 2002 they passed legislation containing a bunch of rules > to protect long leaseholders. One rule required a landlord to notify a > tenant between 30 and 60 days in advance of any rent being due. That works > fine for *annual* rents of £1 or a red rose, but does not make sense for a > tenant paying weekly on housing benefit.
> Hence: totally ridiculous situation.
> Hence therefore my remark that there's are a few things that require > care when putting together a housing co-op.
> Please forgive my brain dump. I will let you get back to all the > wonderful things you do with real objects.
>> I'll happily refer any hacker co-op groups to the appropriate people if >> needed.
> Excellent. If anyone wants to talk to one-click about it, Martin is your > man.
What a great idea for an app - not just for housing associations and
hackers - but potentially or any individual or family that is interested in
house sharing.
It could even be used to encourage house (and parental task) sharing for
families. An app that minimises commuting distance - as well as school run
and other regular journeys could potentially have huge environmental and
economic benefits if it was taken up widely.
Senake
On 29 October 2012 02:30, Eugene Nadyrshin <menta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As it maybe a few weeks yet before we meet I've been thinking if maybe
> it worthwhile making an quick geo location web app that puts interested
> people on the map ("privacy" nazis aside). The reason for it is that we'll
> need to restrict our search for properties that are that works for the
> majority. The location could be where they work or where they'd like to be.
> I'm thinking of making a basic algorithm that scores every new property on
> the location.
> Thinking of doing something similar for the new space search as with our
> current requirements estate agents aren't coming up with anything new, so
> it would make sense to expand search area.
> Cheers
> Mentar
> On 21/10/12 23:17, Francis Davey wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 octobre 2012 17:55:44 UTC+1, Martin Dittus a écrit :
>> It's also worth mentioning that OneClickOrgs is now working with
>> Cooperatives UK to set up an online tool for cooperatives.
> I wasn't sure if this was something I could mention, but now Martin has
> said so, yes, we are putting together something which should have an
> acceptable template constitution available from co-ops UK as a sponsoring
> organisation that is compatible with oneclicks e-governance.
> I am of course doing none of the heavy lifting - even if I had time I'm
> a python man really and the coding is in ruby - so I don't know how that
> end is going.
> Just a quick remark about how co-op constitutions work. To get the
> goodness out of being a housing co-op you should really incorporate as an
> Industrial and Provident Society (oooer). They are regulated by the FSA
> rather than Companies House. Registration of a society increases in price
> the more variations you have from a model constitution sponsored by a
> sponsoring organisation (like co-ops). Its different.
> The "goodness" above is that a fully mutual housing co-operative avoids
> a lot of older housing legislation. The theory (not an unreasonable one) is
> that if all the tenants "own" the landlord then you can rely on tenant
> democracy to decide on things like eviction and can therefore not bother
> with lots of modern tenant protection law (assured (whether or not
> shorthold) tenancies don't exist for fully mutual housing co-ops for
> instance).
> I say "older" because whoever it was in the relevant government
> department who knew about co-ops must have retired or somehow legislative
> drafters lost the plot, so some much more recent legislation doesn't have a
> "but not co-ops" clause.
> This created a cunning trap. Many (most?) housing co-ops had a clause in
> their tenancy agreements saying something along the lines of "we won't
> evict you unless you are bad". Which expresses what most intended. So in
> theory the co-op can evict at will, but in practice they won't, they'll go
> through proper internal processes.
> Alas, as any landlord and tenant law geek will tell you, a tenancy
> *must* have a fixed length. You can't have an indefinitely long tenancy.
> That's a contradiction in terms. The fixed length can be lots of baby fixed
> lengths (eg weekly) but you can't have a "forever unless you are bad" type
> of tenancy. Error.
> But we've been doing property law for centuries, so a long time ago the
> courts thought of a wheeze to get around this. An indefinite tenancy would
> be assumed to be a tenancy "for life" (for the life of the tenant). It then
> has a specific and certain end-point, but obviously you have to wait to see
> when it will be. So its "fixed" but not certain. Life tenancies were often
> used anyway because, obviously, you often want to say to someone "you can
> live here as long as you live" with the understanding you get back the
> property afterwards.
> But in 1925 eager reformers in Parliament were having none of this. They
> wanted nice, fixed, length tenancies that you could always know, in
> advance, exactly when they would end. They included in the massive 1925
> land law reform a rule that any tenancy for life auto-converted into a 90
> year tenancy (which was long for a life in 1925) plus a provision it could
> be ended early if the tenant died.
> In theory that means that any "we won't evict you unless you are bad"
> tenancy (such as a lot of co-ops had) would be "indefinite" and, under
> ancient common law rules, be treated as a tenancy for life (rather than
> just failing) and then auto-converted by the 1925 Act to 90 year tenancies.
> So, secretly, even though they didn't know it, all those tenants of housing
> co-ops actually had 90 year tenancies.
> So the Supreme Court found a couple of years ago.
> So that was very weird, but careful examination showed the weirdness was
> worse than it seemed because of ignorant 21st century law makers - who
> probably slept through Land Law at university, assuming they ever attended
> the lectures. In 2002 they passed legislation containing a bunch of rules
> to protect long leaseholders. One rule required a landlord to notify a
> tenant between 30 and 60 days in advance of any rent being due. That works
> fine for *annual* rents of £1 or a red rose, but does not make sense for a
> tenant paying weekly on housing benefit.
> Hence: totally ridiculous situation.
> Hence therefore my remark that there's are a few things that require
> care when putting together a housing co-op.
> Please forgive my brain dump. I will let you get back to all the
> wonderful things you do with real objects.
>> I'll happily refer any hacker co-op groups to the appropriate people if
>> needed.
> Excellent. If anyone wants to talk to one-click about it, Martin is your
> man.
I remember someone creating a map, pre-internet, that listed areas in
zones that were distances from central london in terms of time-to-get-
there-via-commuter-transport. It's also always been an issue for
residential properties farther out, where you'd have to include the
cost of a yearly season ticket into the house price...
There's only a few of us that's filled in the Doodle, though it's
looking like the weekend 10th/11th of November is most likely.
For anyone that's looking for instant housing, try contacting Andy
Danger, who's found at least one property above. It'll give a nice
"tour bus test", for whether you can share places in the short-to-
medium-term.
On 29 Oct, 12:56, Senake <sena...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> What a great idea for an app - not just for housing associations and
> hackers - but potentially or any individual or family that is interested in
> house sharing.
> It could even be used to encourage house (and parental task) sharing for
> families. An app that minimises commuting distance - as well as school run
> and other regular journeys could potentially have huge environmental and
> economic benefits if it was taken up widely.
> Senake
> On 29 October 2012 02:30, Eugene Nadyrshin <menta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As it maybe a few weeks yet before we meet I've been thinking if maybe
> > it worthwhile making an quick geo location web app that puts interested
> > people on the map ("privacy" nazis aside). The reason for it is that we'll
> > need to restrict our search for properties that are that works for the
> > majority. The location could be where they work or where they'd like to be.
> > I'm thinking of making a basic algorithm that scores every new property on
> > the location.
> > Thinking of doing something similar for the new space search as with our
> > current requirements estate agents aren't coming up with anything new, so
> > it would make sense to expand search area.
> > Cheers
> > Mentar
> > On 21/10/12 23:17, Francis Davey wrote:
> > Le dimanche 21 octobre 2012 17:55:44 UTC+1, Martin Dittus a écrit :
> >> It's also worth mentioning that OneClickOrgs is now working with
> >> Cooperatives UK to set up an online tool for cooperatives.
> > I wasn't sure if this was something I could mention, but now Martin has
> > said so, yes, we are putting together something which should have an
> > acceptable template constitution available from co-ops UK as a sponsoring
> > organisation that is compatible with oneclicks e-governance.
> > I am of course doing none of the heavy lifting - even if I had time I'm
> > a python man really and the coding is in ruby - so I don't know how that
> > end is going.
> > Just a quick remark about how co-op constitutions work. To get the
> > goodness out of being a housing co-op you should really incorporate as an
> > Industrial and Provident Society (oooer). They are regulated by the FSA
> > rather than Companies House. Registration of a society increases in price
> > the more variations you have from a model constitution sponsored by a
> > sponsoring organisation (like co-ops). Its different.
> > The "goodness" above is that a fully mutual housing co-operative avoids
> > a lot of older housing legislation. The theory (not an unreasonable one) is
> > that if all the tenants "own" the landlord then you can rely on tenant
> > democracy to decide on things like eviction and can therefore not bother
> > with lots of modern tenant protection law (assured (whether or not
> > shorthold) tenancies don't exist for fully mutual housing co-ops for
> > instance).
> > I say "older" because whoever it was in the relevant government
> > department who knew about co-ops must have retired or somehow legislative
> > drafters lost the plot, so some much more recent legislation doesn't have a
> > "but not co-ops" clause.
> > This created a cunning trap. Many (most?) housing co-ops had a clause in
> > their tenancy agreements saying something along the lines of "we won't
> > evict you unless you are bad". Which expresses what most intended. So in
> > theory the co-op can evict at will, but in practice they won't, they'll go
> > through proper internal processes.
> > Alas, as any landlord and tenant law geek will tell you, a tenancy
> > *must* have a fixed length. You can't have an indefinitely long tenancy.
> > That's a contradiction in terms. The fixed length can be lots of baby fixed
> > lengths (eg weekly) but you can't have a "forever unless you are bad" type
> > of tenancy. Error.
> > But we've been doing property law for centuries, so a long time ago the
> > courts thought of a wheeze to get around this. An indefinite tenancy would
> > be assumed to be a tenancy "for life" (for the life of the tenant). It then
> > has a specific and certain end-point, but obviously you have to wait to see
> > when it will be. So its "fixed" but not certain. Life tenancies were often
> > used anyway because, obviously, you often want to say to someone "you can
> > live here as long as you live" with the understanding you get back the
> > property afterwards.
> > But in 1925 eager reformers in Parliament were having none of this. They
> > wanted nice, fixed, length tenancies that you could always know, in
> > advance, exactly when they would end. They included in the massive 1925
> > land law reform a rule that any tenancy for life auto-converted into a 90
> > year tenancy (which was long for a life in 1925) plus a provision it could
> > be ended early if the tenant died.
> > In theory that means that any "we won't evict you unless you are bad"
> > tenancy (such as a lot of co-ops had) would be "indefinite" and, under
> > ancient common law rules, be treated as a tenancy for life (rather than
> > just failing) and then auto-converted by the 1925 Act to 90 year tenancies.
> > So, secretly, even though they didn't know it, all those tenants of housing
> > co-ops actually had 90 year tenancies.
> > So the Supreme Court found a couple of years ago.
> > So that was very weird, but careful examination showed the weirdness was
> > worse than it seemed because of ignorant 21st century law makers - who
> > probably slept through Land Law at university, assuming they ever attended
> > the lectures. In 2002 they passed legislation containing a bunch of rules
> > to protect long leaseholders. One rule required a landlord to notify a
> > tenant between 30 and 60 days in advance of any rent being due. That works
> > fine for *annual* rents of £1 or a red rose, but does not make sense for a
> > tenant paying weekly on housing benefit.
> > Hence: totally ridiculous situation.
> > Hence therefore my remark that there's are a few things that require
> > care when putting together a housing co-op.
> > Please forgive my brain dump. I will let you get back to all the
> > wonderful things you do with real objects.
> >> I'll happily refer any hacker co-op groups to the appropriate people if
> >> needed.
> > Excellent. If anyone wants to talk to one-click about it, Martin is your
> > man.
On 29 October 2012 15:23, Billy <bi...@billycomputersmith.com> wrote:
> I remember someone creating a map, pre-internet, that listed areas in
> zones that were distances from central london in terms of time-to-get-
> there-via-commuter-transport. It's also always been an issue for
> residential properties farther out, where you'd have to include the
> cost of a yearly season ticket into the house price...
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jon Fautley <jon.faut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 October 2012 15:23, Billy <bi...@billycomputersmith.com> wrote:
> > I remember someone creating a map, pre-internet, that listed areas in
> > zones that were distances from central london in terms of time-to-get-
> > there-via-commuter-transport. It's also always been an issue for
> > residential properties farther out, where you'd have to include the
> > cost of a yearly season ticket into the house price...
