EAST LONDON PRESS report
1255 Hrs London Saturday 16 May 2009
EAST LONDON PRESS is doing this to draw attention to the fact that the various allegations against the "Baroness" have been linked in the media to the "Baroness" being allegedly a representative of the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets.
We have noticed that the Tower Hamlets Council and the East London Advertiser have not published anything about the "Baroness", except reluctantly repeating in the sketchiest way possible, parts only of what had appeared in the Sunday Times and subsequently in some other parts of the media.
EAST LONDON PRESS is of the view that the 'news' events surrounding the alleged Baroness are far too important for the whole community, Bangladeshi and other, in the East End to be allowed to 'fade away’.
Saturday, 16 May 2009
The strange and loudly telling silence of the sleazed ethnic post-holders - Keith Vaz, "Baroness of Bethnal Green" Pola Uddin and Shahid Malik - 1
The strange and loudly telling silence of the sleazed ethnic post-holders - Keith Vaz, "Baroness of Bethnal Green" Pola Uddin and Shahid Malik - Part
EAST LONDON PRESS
0910 Hrs
London Saturday 16 May 2009
Baroness of Bethnal Green is very silent this weekend. Not even agreeing a prepared script to be put on the BBC in her name! Unlike 8 years ago when she did exactly that.
To aid Keith Vaz.
She said he was a victim of racist press coverage.
Why?
Because the press was reporting on Keith Vaz and his very own sleaze.
And how did ‘Baroness of Bethnal Green’ get involved with Keith Vaz?
What was he to her?
How had they met?
They could not have met by natural circumstances.
Those must have been arranged for them.
Both belong to the same British party. Both owed their presence in the British Parliament to their claims that they were approved ethnics.
And the rest as they say, is sleaze.
But how many ethnic people have any real say on what their alleged representatives in Britain get up to?
Clearly the ‘baroness’ - or Keith Vaz for that matter - and other tokens of ethnic ‘fulfillment and achievement ‘keeping themselves very quiet this weekend.
Not even the very remarkable departure from office of Shahid Malik yesterday [Friday 15 May 2009] produced a single byte of sound from either ‘Baroness Uddin’ of Keith Vaz.
But then would they ever have done?
Would any of them have really solidarised with Shahid Malik at the hour of his personal need?
And would Shahidf Malik himself have solidarised with any other allegedly fellow ethnic feeling the pressure of racist prejudice?
Who would have answered Shahid Malik’s double-edged question - ‘why are the media outside my house?’ he put to Carrie Gracie of BBC News where he was treated to the full interview not long before he was forced to ‘stand aside’?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5332099/Shahid-Maliks-fate-sealed-by-growing-dismay-in-Downing-St-MPs-expenses.html
Shahid Malik’s fate sealed by growing dismay in Downing St : MPs' expenses
The fate of Shahid Malik was sealed just after 10pm on Thursday night. That was when officials in Downing Street started digesting, via the Telegraph website, the full allegations levelled at the Justice Minister.
By Andrew Porter, Political Editor
Last Updated: 9:36PM BST 15 May 2009
In the words of one of those present: “The alarm bells started ringing immediately.”
Television screens in Downing Street were showing the late evening news bulletins, which were detailing the demise of two senior politicians.
Related Articles
Shahid Malik steps down as Brown orders inquiry into his rent
Shahid Malik, his house and the slum landlord
MPs' expenses investigation in full
MPs' expenses: the story that changed politics
MPs' expenses: Now we can start again - with a clean House
MPs? expenses: Shahid Malik stands down as Justice Minister over rental arrangements
The expenses investigation had claimed its first scalps in former Labour minister Elliot Morley and Andrew Mackay, a close aide to David Cameron.
But the latest revelations were to eclipse them both. Mr Malik, the MP for Dewsbury, was about to become the first ministerial casualty of The Daily Telegraph’s exhaustive investigation into MPs’ expenses.
The problem lay with the three-bedroom house in Dewsbury which Mr Malik, who is Jack Straw’s deputy at the Ministry of Justice, had designated as his main home.
By claiming that his main home was in his constituency he was able to nominate his London home as his second home, allowing him to use expenses – the maximum of £66,827 over the three years he has been an MP – to furnish and keep it. Among the items that he had claimed for was a £2,600 home cinema system, including a 40-inch flat screen television. The Commons fees office agreed to pay half. He also claimed for a £730 massage chair.
Meanwhile, he was renting the Dewsbury house from Tahir Zaman, a businessman who lived next door, and who had in 2005 been convicted of renting out a building to a family of five which was “uninhabitable.” He was fined £450 and ordered to pay costs.
There was another problem obvious to most people in Number 10, but clearly not Mr Malik. The landlord had told The Telegraph that Mr Malik paid a discounted rent, understood to be under £100 a week.
It meant that while the taxpayer was funding his London existence with payments of £443 a week, the minister was paying a minimal amount for his rent, risking a breach of the ministerial code, which states that no minister should accept “gifts or hospitality” which could place them under an “obligation” to someone else. Before Gordon Brown went to bed he was alerted to the latest problem. One person who was not going to bed was Mr Malik. He had been contacted by Sky News and was asked for a reaction to the revelations. This was to be the start of an astonishing round of television appearances in which he would defend vigorously his expenses claims. Mr Malik told Sky News that he had acted within the rules and denied that his job was on the line.
He added: “I think this is a bit of a non-story to be honest.”
Labour Party sources had also – prematurely and seemingly without reference to Downing Street – let it be known that they did not think there was a problem. This must have emboldened Mr Malik as he went to bed. He had agreed to allow the Sky cameras into his home first thing in the morning to further defend his position. In the Cabinet Office at 7am Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, and the most powerful civil servant in the land, was starting to immerse himself in the Malik case.
By 8am he had spoken to the Prime Minister and given his initial thoughts on Mr Malik’s position. It was not positive. Meanwhile, Mr Straw had also spoken to Mr Malik, as had the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. The ministerial code was the issue.
Some in Number 10 were aghast when they saw Mr Malik popping up on the morning’s various television news channels. He told Sky, the BBC and GMTV that he was innocent. He said: “I’m going one million per cent by the book. It’s a non-story in the sense that I could have been one of 500 MPs. I don’t know why the Telegraph focused on me. Of course I feel that my reputation is tarnished, but my integrity is intact. I’m not in it to make money, I’m here to make a difference.”
And what of the “£800 massage chair?” How did that fit in, he was politely asked by an interviewer. He replied: “You see, I’d have more respect for you if you were honest about the figures. You know full well it is £730.”
But his career prospects were getting bleaker by the minute.
Sir Gus told the Prime Minister that it was serious enough to ask Sir Philip Mawer, the independent adviser on the ministerial code, to rule on a possible breach.
Mr Malik was told that he would have to stand down until the inquiry reached its conclusions. Last night no one in Number 10 expected him to return as a Justice Minister.
EAST LONDON PRESS
0910 Hrs
London Saturday 16 May 2009
Baroness of Bethnal Green is very silent this weekend. Not even agreeing a prepared script to be put on the BBC in her name! Unlike 8 years ago when she did exactly that.
To aid Keith Vaz.
She said he was a victim of racist press coverage.
Why?
Because the press was reporting on Keith Vaz and his very own sleaze.
And how did ‘Baroness of Bethnal Green’ get involved with Keith Vaz?
What was he to her?
How had they met?
They could not have met by natural circumstances.
Those must have been arranged for them.
Both belong to the same British party. Both owed their presence in the British Parliament to their claims that they were approved ethnics.
And the rest as they say, is sleaze.
But how many ethnic people have any real say on what their alleged representatives in Britain get up to?
Clearly the ‘baroness’ - or Keith Vaz for that matter - and other tokens of ethnic ‘fulfillment and achievement ‘keeping themselves very quiet this weekend.
Not even the very remarkable departure from office of Shahid Malik yesterday [Friday 15 May 2009] produced a single byte of sound from either ‘Baroness Uddin’ of Keith Vaz.
But then would they ever have done?
Would any of them have really solidarised with Shahid Malik at the hour of his personal need?
And would Shahidf Malik himself have solidarised with any other allegedly fellow ethnic feeling the pressure of racist prejudice?
Who would have answered Shahid Malik’s double-edged question - ‘why are the media outside my house?’ he put to Carrie Gracie of BBC News where he was treated to the full interview not long before he was forced to ‘stand aside’?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5332099/Shahid-Maliks-fate-sealed-by-growing-dismay-in-Downing-St-MPs-expenses.html
Shahid Malik’s fate sealed by growing dismay in Downing St : MPs' expenses
The fate of Shahid Malik was sealed just after 10pm on Thursday night. That was when officials in Downing Street started digesting, via the Telegraph website, the full allegations levelled at the Justice Minister.
By Andrew Porter, Political Editor
Last Updated: 9:36PM BST 15 May 2009
In the words of one of those present: “The alarm bells started ringing immediately.”
Television screens in Downing Street were showing the late evening news bulletins, which were detailing the demise of two senior politicians.
Related Articles
Shahid Malik steps down as Brown orders inquiry into his rent
Shahid Malik, his house and the slum landlord
MPs' expenses investigation in full
MPs' expenses: the story that changed politics
MPs' expenses: Now we can start again - with a clean House
MPs? expenses: Shahid Malik stands down as Justice Minister over rental arrangements
The expenses investigation had claimed its first scalps in former Labour minister Elliot Morley and Andrew Mackay, a close aide to David Cameron.
But the latest revelations were to eclipse them both. Mr Malik, the MP for Dewsbury, was about to become the first ministerial casualty of The Daily Telegraph’s exhaustive investigation into MPs’ expenses.
The problem lay with the three-bedroom house in Dewsbury which Mr Malik, who is Jack Straw’s deputy at the Ministry of Justice, had designated as his main home.
By claiming that his main home was in his constituency he was able to nominate his London home as his second home, allowing him to use expenses – the maximum of £66,827 over the three years he has been an MP – to furnish and keep it. Among the items that he had claimed for was a £2,600 home cinema system, including a 40-inch flat screen television. The Commons fees office agreed to pay half. He also claimed for a £730 massage chair.
Meanwhile, he was renting the Dewsbury house from Tahir Zaman, a businessman who lived next door, and who had in 2005 been convicted of renting out a building to a family of five which was “uninhabitable.” He was fined £450 and ordered to pay costs.
There was another problem obvious to most people in Number 10, but clearly not Mr Malik. The landlord had told The Telegraph that Mr Malik paid a discounted rent, understood to be under £100 a week.
It meant that while the taxpayer was funding his London existence with payments of £443 a week, the minister was paying a minimal amount for his rent, risking a breach of the ministerial code, which states that no minister should accept “gifts or hospitality” which could place them under an “obligation” to someone else. Before Gordon Brown went to bed he was alerted to the latest problem. One person who was not going to bed was Mr Malik. He had been contacted by Sky News and was asked for a reaction to the revelations. This was to be the start of an astonishing round of television appearances in which he would defend vigorously his expenses claims. Mr Malik told Sky News that he had acted within the rules and denied that his job was on the line.
He added: “I think this is a bit of a non-story to be honest.”
Labour Party sources had also – prematurely and seemingly without reference to Downing Street – let it be known that they did not think there was a problem. This must have emboldened Mr Malik as he went to bed. He had agreed to allow the Sky cameras into his home first thing in the morning to further defend his position. In the Cabinet Office at 7am Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, and the most powerful civil servant in the land, was starting to immerse himself in the Malik case.
By 8am he had spoken to the Prime Minister and given his initial thoughts on Mr Malik’s position. It was not positive. Meanwhile, Mr Straw had also spoken to Mr Malik, as had the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. The ministerial code was the issue.
Some in Number 10 were aghast when they saw Mr Malik popping up on the morning’s various television news channels. He told Sky, the BBC and GMTV that he was innocent. He said: “I’m going one million per cent by the book. It’s a non-story in the sense that I could have been one of 500 MPs. I don’t know why the Telegraph focused on me. Of course I feel that my reputation is tarnished, but my integrity is intact. I’m not in it to make money, I’m here to make a difference.”
And what of the “£800 massage chair?” How did that fit in, he was politely asked by an interviewer. He replied: “You see, I’d have more respect for you if you were honest about the figures. You know full well it is £730.”
But his career prospects were getting bleaker by the minute.
Sir Gus told the Prime Minister that it was serious enough to ask Sir Philip Mawer, the independent adviser on the ministerial code, to rule on a possible breach.
Mr Malik was told that he would have to stand down until the inquiry reached its conclusions. Last night no one in Number 10 expected him to return as a Justice Minister.
Sunday, 10 May 2009
"Baroness of Bethnal Green": a 'nephew' was reportedly employed by the Sunday Times.
"Baroness of Bethnal Green": a 'nephew' was reportedly employed by the Sunday Times.
Friday, 8 May 2009
An EASTENDER comment about Spitalfields Housing Association is published by INSIDE HOUSING
0750 Hrs Friday 8 May 2009
An EASTENDER comment about Spitalfields Housing Association is published by INSIDE HOUSING
Housing association probes Baroness Uddin’s second home status
Labour peer faces eviction
08/05/2009 | By Clara Story
Print
Email
Share
Comments (1)
Save
A Labour peer is being investigated and could face eviction after naming her housing association property as her second home.
Baroness Uddin, a tenant of Spitalfields Housing Association in east London, claimed in her House of Lords expenses for 2007/08 that her main residence was a flat in Kent.
She claimed £29,675 a year for overnight subsistence - the allowance for residency at a second home in London - in the same year.
But legally a tenant with an assured or secure tenancy must live in the social home as their ‘only or principal home’, meaning she could have breached her tenancy. Baroness Uddin is understood to share a joint tenancy on the home with her husband.
Although last year’s claim was the first in which she named the location of her main residence, Baroness Uddin has been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 each year for overnight subsistence since 2001.
Asked whether Baroness Uddin faced eviction Omar Mapara, chief executive of Spitalfields Housing Association, said the association ‘is investigating this matter which it takes very seriously’.
‘We have written to her requesting that she confirms that she and her husband continue to occupy our property as their only or principal home and we await a response,’ he added.
Avril Smith, senior lawyer at Lawrence Graham, said: ‘If she maintains that the Maidstone property is her principal residence, she could fall into difficulty with her tenancy.’
Ms Smith confirmed the ultimate sanction available for the breach of a tenancy agreement could be the loss of the tenancy.
If the tenancy is joint with her husband, she could claim it was his main residence only, which could comply with the rules, Ms Smith added.
The baroness became the first Muslim woman life peer in 1998. She is named as a company director of business and management consultancy Manzil Associates.
Baroness Uddin said she welcomed the review of her expenses that will be carried out by the clerk of Parliament. She said she had not broken the rules of the House of Lords and would not comment further until the review was finished.
Readers' comments (1)
EastEnder | Fri, 8 May 2009 05:50 GMT
Your headline does not match the contents. From what you quote of the statement by the Spitalfields Housing Association it is not clear what codes of conduct that organisation itself has in place. Also, you do not suggest anything about the Spitalfields Housing Association itself. Did they in any way aid the behaviour by the particular individual? What is the record of the Housing Association in these matters. Has the media bothered to report on this and other so-called social landlords? What has been their role? And how if any are the management personnel of the Spitalfields Housing Association related to the Baroness of Bethnal Green politically?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
An EASTENDER comment about Spitalfields Housing Association is published by INSIDE HOUSING
Housing association probes Baroness Uddin’s second home status
Labour peer faces eviction
08/05/2009 | By Clara Story
Share
Comments (1)
Save
A Labour peer is being investigated and could face eviction after naming her housing association property as her second home.
Baroness Uddin, a tenant of Spitalfields Housing Association in east London, claimed in her House of Lords expenses for 2007/08 that her main residence was a flat in Kent.
She claimed £29,675 a year for overnight subsistence - the allowance for residency at a second home in London - in the same year.
But legally a tenant with an assured or secure tenancy must live in the social home as their ‘only or principal home’, meaning she could have breached her tenancy. Baroness Uddin is understood to share a joint tenancy on the home with her husband.
Although last year’s claim was the first in which she named the location of her main residence, Baroness Uddin has been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 each year for overnight subsistence since 2001.
Asked whether Baroness Uddin faced eviction Omar Mapara, chief executive of Spitalfields Housing Association, said the association ‘is investigating this matter which it takes very seriously’.
‘We have written to her requesting that she confirms that she and her husband continue to occupy our property as their only or principal home and we await a response,’ he added.
Avril Smith, senior lawyer at Lawrence Graham, said: ‘If she maintains that the Maidstone property is her principal residence, she could fall into difficulty with her tenancy.’
Ms Smith confirmed the ultimate sanction available for the breach of a tenancy agreement could be the loss of the tenancy.
If the tenancy is joint with her husband, she could claim it was his main residence only, which could comply with the rules, Ms Smith added.
The baroness became the first Muslim woman life peer in 1998. She is named as a company director of business and management consultancy Manzil Associates.
Baroness Uddin said she welcomed the review of her expenses that will be carried out by the clerk of Parliament. She said she had not broken the rules of the House of Lords and would not comment further until the review was finished.
Readers' comments (1)
EastEnder | Fri, 8 May 2009 05:50 GMT
Your headline does not match the contents. From what you quote of the statement by the Spitalfields Housing Association it is not clear what codes of conduct that organisation itself has in place. Also, you do not suggest anything about the Spitalfields Housing Association itself. Did they in any way aid the behaviour by the particular individual? What is the record of the Housing Association in these matters. Has the media bothered to report on this and other so-called social landlords? What has been their role? And how if any are the management personnel of the Spitalfields Housing Association related to the Baroness of Bethnal Green politically?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
"Baroness of Bethnal Green" is featured in a new report published by the Times newspaper HERE
0620 Hrs UK London Friday 8 May 2009
EAST LONDON PRESS report
An EASTENDER has just posted a commnet on the web site of INSIDE HOUSING concerning their report about the Spitalfieds Hosusing Association:
Your headline does not match the contents. From what you quote of the statement by the Spitalfields Housing Association it is not clear what codes of conduct that organisation itself has in place. Also, you do not suggest anything about the Spitalfields Housing Association itself. Did they in any way aid the behaviour by the particular individual? What is the record of the Housing Association in these matters. Has the media bothered to report on this and other so-called social landlords? What has been their role? And how if any are the management personnel of the Spitalfields Housing Association related to the Baroness of Bethnal Green politically?
EAST LONDON PRESS report
An EASTENDER has just posted a commnet on the web site of INSIDE HOUSING concerning their report about the Spitalfieds Hosusing Association:
Your headline does not match the contents. From what you quote of the statement by the Spitalfields Housing Association it is not clear what codes of conduct that organisation itself has in place. Also, you do not suggest anything about the Spitalfields Housing Association itself. Did they in any way aid the behaviour by the particular individual? What is the record of the Housing Association in these matters. Has the media bothered to report on this and other so-called social landlords? What has been their role? And how if any are the management personnel of the Spitalfields Housing Association related to the Baroness of Bethnal Green politically?
EAST LONDON PRESS launches THE FRIDAY LECTURE 8 May 2009
EAST LONDON PRESS launches THE FRIDAY LECTURE 8 May 2009
Why a Friday lecture?
Because in East London, Friday is observed by significant numbers of people at congregational prayers held at mosques.
One main part of the prayers is the Friday Sermon delivered inside the mosques and before the full formal congregational prayers are said on Friday at lunchtimes.
The EAST LONDON PRESS is launching the Friday lecture to report on the implications of those sermons on the people in East London.
One question we shall be seeking to find answers to is this:
What is really going on in East London today?
Do the people know what is going on?
We intend to help the people get to find out what is going on about their community.
Their estates. Their streets. And about their lives.
Things that may be of relevance to all in East London.
Of course people know what they see and feel.
But how much is there to know that is of so much relevance to our lives that we don’t know.
About the mosques themselves, for instance.
Why are the mosques so much in the Govt. news?
Why do the Police keep talking about the mosques so much?
Do the Police know something about the mosques that we don’t know?
And if so, what is that they do know and have not told us?
How about the other religious sections in the population and their places of prayers and worship?
What are they doing for the community?
Why are the Govt. and the Police silent about the churches, the synagogues and the temples
Why a Friday lecture?
Because in East London, Friday is observed by significant numbers of people at congregational prayers held at mosques.
One main part of the prayers is the Friday Sermon delivered inside the mosques and before the full formal congregational prayers are said on Friday at lunchtimes.
The EAST LONDON PRESS is launching the Friday lecture to report on the implications of those sermons on the people in East London.
One question we shall be seeking to find answers to is this:
What is really going on in East London today?
Do the people know what is going on?
We intend to help the people get to find out what is going on about their community.
Their estates. Their streets. And about their lives.
Things that may be of relevance to all in East London.
Of course people know what they see and feel.
But how much is there to know that is of so much relevance to our lives that we don’t know.
About the mosques themselves, for instance.
Why are the mosques so much in the Govt. news?
Why do the Police keep talking about the mosques so much?
Do the Police know something about the mosques that we don’t know?
And if so, what is that they do know and have not told us?
How about the other religious sections in the population and their places of prayers and worship?
What are they doing for the community?
Why are the Govt. and the Police silent about the churches, the synagogues and the temples
"Baroness of Bethnal Green" is helped by the useful prevarication of the 'Spitalfields Housing Association'
0525 UK London Friday 8 May 2009
The following headline [“Labour peer faces eviction”] to a story published this week by INSIDE HOUSING is inaccurate. A read of the contents exposes the truth.
That the Spitalfields Housing Association that owns the Wapping House is not all that bothered about any of the 'deeds' of Pola Uddin.
We produce the item as a reference here and we promise to answer all the questions that have arisen about Pola Uddin's achievements.
Labour peer faces eviction
Labour peer faces eviction
08/05/2009 | By Clara Story
Print
Email
Share
Save
Housing association probes Baroness Uddin’s second home status over possible breach of tenancy
A Labour peer is being investigated and could face eviction after naming her housing association property as her second home.
Baroness Uddin, a tenant of Spitalfields Housing Association in east London, claimed in her House of Lords expenses for 2007/08 that her main residence was a flat in Kent.
She claimed £29,675 a year for overnight subsistence - the allowance for residency at a second home in London - in the same year.
But legally a tenant with an assured or secure tenancy must live in the social home as their ‘only or principal home’, meaning she could have breached her tenancy. Baroness Uddin is understood to share a joint tenancy on the home with her husband.
Although last year’s claim was the first in which she named the location of her main residence, Baroness Uddin has been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 each year for overnight subsistence since 2001.
Asked whether Baroness Uddin faced eviction Omar Mapara, chief executive of Spitalfields Housing Association, said the association ‘is investigating this matter which it takes very seriously’.
‘We have written to her requesting that she confirms that she and her husband continue to occupy our property as their only or principal home and we await a response,’ he added.
Avril Smith, senior lawyer at Lawrence Graham, said: ‘If she maintains that the Maidstone property is her principal residence, she could fall into difficulty with her tenancy.’
Ms Smith confirmed the ultimate sanction available for the breach of a tenancy agreement could be the loss of the tenancy.
If the tenancy is joint with her husband, she could claim it was his main residence only, which could comply with the rules, Ms Smith added.
The baroness became the first Muslim woman life peer in 1998. She is named as a company director of business and management consultancy Manzil Associates.
Baroness Uddin said she welcomed the review of her expenses that will be carried out by the clerk of Parliament. She said she had not broken the rules of the House of Lords and would not comment further until the review was finished.
Have your say
Required fields | Terms and conditions
Please do not complete the following form field for security reasons.
Name
E-mail
Comment
Your name will display with your comment, but feel free to use a pseudonym. Email addresses are not displayed.
Comments are moderated before they appear on the site, so there may be a delay between a comment being posted and it going live.
I have read and agree to the terms and conditions
Print
Email
Share
The following headline [“Labour peer faces eviction”] to a story published this week by INSIDE HOUSING is inaccurate. A read of the contents exposes the truth.
That the Spitalfields Housing Association that owns the Wapping House is not all that bothered about any of the 'deeds' of Pola Uddin.
We produce the item as a reference here and we promise to answer all the questions that have arisen about Pola Uddin's achievements.
Labour peer faces eviction
Labour peer faces eviction
08/05/2009 | By Clara Story
Share
Save
Housing association probes Baroness Uddin’s second home status over possible breach of tenancy
A Labour peer is being investigated and could face eviction after naming her housing association property as her second home.
Baroness Uddin, a tenant of Spitalfields Housing Association in east London, claimed in her House of Lords expenses for 2007/08 that her main residence was a flat in Kent.
She claimed £29,675 a year for overnight subsistence - the allowance for residency at a second home in London - in the same year.
But legally a tenant with an assured or secure tenancy must live in the social home as their ‘only or principal home’, meaning she could have breached her tenancy. Baroness Uddin is understood to share a joint tenancy on the home with her husband.
Although last year’s claim was the first in which she named the location of her main residence, Baroness Uddin has been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 each year for overnight subsistence since 2001.
Asked whether Baroness Uddin faced eviction Omar Mapara, chief executive of Spitalfields Housing Association, said the association ‘is investigating this matter which it takes very seriously’.
‘We have written to her requesting that she confirms that she and her husband continue to occupy our property as their only or principal home and we await a response,’ he added.
Avril Smith, senior lawyer at Lawrence Graham, said: ‘If she maintains that the Maidstone property is her principal residence, she could fall into difficulty with her tenancy.’
Ms Smith confirmed the ultimate sanction available for the breach of a tenancy agreement could be the loss of the tenancy.
If the tenancy is joint with her husband, she could claim it was his main residence only, which could comply with the rules, Ms Smith added.
The baroness became the first Muslim woman life peer in 1998. She is named as a company director of business and management consultancy Manzil Associates.
Baroness Uddin said she welcomed the review of her expenses that will be carried out by the clerk of Parliament. She said she had not broken the rules of the House of Lords and would not comment further until the review was finished.
Have your say
Required fields | Terms and conditions
Please do not complete the following form field for security reasons.
Name
Comment
Your name will display with your comment, but feel free to use a pseudonym. Email addresses are not displayed.
Comments are moderated before they appear on the site, so there may be a delay between a comment being posted and it going live.
I have read and agree to the terms and conditions
Share
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Poverty of the MPs is in the grotesque shamelessness... and petty greed
EAST LONDON PRESS says at 0510 Hrs on Tuesday 31 March 2009: It is not just Harry Cohen, the east London MP who used to flaunt a faker beard and spout strings of calculated socialistic confections... Having lost BOTH in order to stay on the bandwagon, Cohen seems to have also lost any sense of rationality. And dignity. How else could he be saying those things, comparing himself to Churchill in that way? There were indeed many flaws in Churchill’s life and character. But Harry Cohen is not remotely convincing as a comparable Member of Parliament...Or as a member of society... What Cohen’s banal boast tells us about him is that he belongs to a parliament of political, mental, moral pigmies with no evident shame...
