Forum Topic

Keens' Brentford house to be rented to council tenants?

From the Hounslow ChronicleJun 16 2009  By Ed SauntHounslow Council has threatened to take control of MPs Alan and Ann Keen's Brentford house if they continue to leave it empty.The council's empty property department wrote to the couple on Monday after one of their officers read in last week's Chronicle that the house had fallen into disrepair.They now have 28 days to respond to let the council know how and when they plan to bring it back into use. If they fail to comply, the local authority could take ownership of the property and rent it out to council tenants.The Chronicle revealed last week that Mr Keen, who represents Feltham and Heston, and Mrs Keen, a junior health minister who represents Brentford and Isleworth, have claimed £40,000 for a central London flat while their 'main home' in Brentford has been left empty. And now they have Hounslow Council to answer to.Keith Dickens, empty property officer for the council, said: “We have written to them asking them when they are intending to bring it back into use. They have to give us a timeframe of when the work's going to be done by, which we then monitor."If they fail to do that we will say 'you have not played ball' and we will use the powers to bring in a management order.”Officers were at the Brook Road South house taking photos on Monday and will be visiting the property regularly to see if any work is being done.Alan Keen said last week that the house was empty due to a dispute with builders and that they intended to recommence work on it soon.However, under the Housing Act 2004, which came in in 2007, the council is obliged to monitor any work on a property that they believe has been unoccupied for six months.Mr Dickens said: “If they confirm that [they intend to bring it back into use] to me then we will put that on the books but we will still go round there and see if it's being sorted. We would expect it to be sorted within three to six months.”

Stuart Parrott ● 6189d128 Comments

It was a very good-natured hearing, delayed by some 25 minutes (the Keen's counsel in that time instructed to don robe and wig) during which time the Legal Occupiers entertained a standing-room only court no. 1 with choruses to the tune of Ringo's masterpiece:"we all live where the Keens are never seen, Keens are never seen, Keens are never seen".There was an air of inevitability of the outcome with the Legal Occupiers relying on the claim of procedural defect in that the order was made against unknown persons, despite the disclosed identities being conveyed on the day of the constabulary's first appearance. There was some precedent in LB Hackney in 1994, but legislation had superseded that event.With scenes reminiscent of Spartacus, Judge Plaskow in calling the hearing named a defendant and explained the consequences with regard to any costs order of being named, followed with a number of the Legal Occupiers standing one by one to be added to the action, until a further 11  were named as defendants.One of the number, Mark Felix, was asked by the judge if he was considering a career in the law after a novel and 'interesting' line about them having beneficial ownership as the taxpayer had paid for the home and the concept of whether the Keens had acquired the equity of the home with  'clean hands'  and reference was made to the breaking news that they were to be investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Committee. The judge wisely said that he could not go behind Parliament in this matter.Almost to express disgust specifically at Robin Taylor, one of the number recounted how bemused they were at being referred to as right-wing protestors and there was certainly no indication in their diction or enunciation to indicate any background of privilege.The bewigged counsel stated that the Keens had not been in residence since August 2008 and it may be semantic but only Mr. Keen was mentioned as the owner during one exchange, raising the question of how Mrs. Keen was claiming a second home allowance.As judgment was made, there was a rousing cheer from the defendants who filed out to the assembled media pack, for audio interviews and also, it appeared, to a German film crew.One final poignant moment was provided by the soon to be ex-Legal Occupiers playing Barber's Adagio for Strings on their mobile loudspeakers. The writer declined an invitation to an "all nighter" and made his excuses and left.

Colin Murphy ● 6165d

Actually Vanessa I sort of agree with you but I think the locals supported the squatters because it actually seemed as though they had finally found a voice over the expenses scandal.  As far as this forum is concerned, it seems the local labour party activists still support the Keens.  Personally I think this is foolish and shameful.  I do not believe Ann Keen will be re-elected and it could be a very costly mistake to leave her in situ as the local MP.  The squatters raised awareness inasmuch as it made the tv, radio and national newspapers.  Anyone in the borough who was not aware of the Keens previously (and I am sure there are plenty) may now have had matters brought to their attention.Actually I say well done squatters whilst at the same time sympathising with the fact that I would not want squatters in my home.  That said, it appears it's currently not much like anyone's home.  There is evidently absolutely nothing personal in the place.  No clothes or furniture apart from a piano in the basement and a train set.  To all intents and purposes this is a derelect house that no-one has lived in for a very long time and bearing in mind that most rooms don't even have flooboards, no-one but squatters are likely to want to live in it for a very long time to come.  The squatters are currently local heroes it remains to be seen whether that will continue to be the case.  It's a poke in the eye for the Keens who are quite unpopular these days except in the eyes of labour activitists.  The mind boggles!

Bernadette Paul ● 6173d

The Telegraph comment column "MPs Expenses - tell us what you have spotted" includes the following contribution from a Mr Glen Bertram :Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) and Alan Keen (Feltham & Heston) appear to be claiming for a second home within London and associated food allowances etc as their main residence is in Brentford - and they work in Westminster (may be the odd hotel and taxi would be cheaper?). Therefore, they need to have a second home in London and all the associated costs are then covered by the 'rules'. This in its self is disgusting but then it appears that their main residence is not used and that the local council have requested that the 'main residence' is maintained correctly. Therefore, they do not live at their main residence and their only home is the one being paid for by the tax payer. Their food is not additional it is their only food. Therefore it appears that the tax payer is paying for their life as well as their salary. I would love to hear from them to explain and I do not want to hear the words 'it is within the rules' or 'I haven't told a lie' I want to hear about morals, fair play, honesty. I also want to hear what the leader of their party and local party thinks of what seems to be a morally bankrupt pair. I hope they are dealt with by their party first and that we are offered different candidates for the next election. I know that they will receive a huge pay off but better that then them living a style in the name of their constituencies who can only dream of the life style they lead in our name.Glen Bertramon June 20, 2009at 08:55 AMhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5568064/MPs-expenses-What-have-you-spotted.html

Tim Henderson ● 6182d