On the St. James estate in South Bermondsey, 172 households face unaffordable rent rises – de-facto eviction notices. 50 households have received actual Section 21 no-fault eviction notices; most were served at 8.30 pm on the day before no-fault evictions were outlawed.

The reason that residents are being forced out is that converting their homes into Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) would significantly increase the income for the owners. The intensity of the housing crisis means that the demand for temporary accommodation far outstrips supply, with the Home Office, councils and other agencies all competing for scarce temporary accommodations. HMOs are a state-funded cash machine.

If their business model of displacing long-term residents to convert their homes into HMOs is successful, the investors who came together under the name of BMR St. James Estate, who I estimate borrowed around £55m to buy the estate, stand to multiply their wealth. You can understand why someone looking at a spreadsheet, without giving any thought to human consequences, would find this an attractive business proposition. The investors behind BMR St. James Estate Ltd will make the profit, whilst the residents pay the human cost, and Southwark Council picks up the financial cost of supporting those households made homeless.

Ten conversions are already happening in properties from which residents have either left voluntarily or under pressure. Southwark’s planners say that they are powerless to intervene because the conversions fall within the wide definition of a ‘permitted development’.

There are interlocking directorships between the owners, BMR St. James Estate, and the property management company, Freshview, with whom residents interact. As a local ward councillor, I know of 10 residents who received phone calls from employees of Freshview telling them that they need to agree to a higher rent and sign a new tenancy agreement or they would be forced out. The local MP, Neil Coyle, has had to step in to tell Freshview that their action is illegal. The Tenants’ Association is compiling a list of residents who are living with health and safety disrepair issues.

Southwark Council has negotiated a temporary pause on Section 21 proceedings and rent rises, to allow its officers time to undertake the huge task of scoping the homelessness support that residents will need. I hope that an effective tenants’ campaign has also been a factor in the decision to give tenants a breathing space.

Deeply implicated in the devastation caused to residents’ lives is Notting Hill Genesis Housing Association, which owned the estate from 2011, before secretly selling it in October 2025 without asking for any assurances about security and rent levels for existing tenants. In an exchange of emails, CEO Patrick Franco has told me that the estate was sold to allow the money to be invested into their remaining stock. He reassured me that the appropriate governance process was followed. My question is why the governance process completely disregarded the interest of residents?

The first tenants moved onto the estate in the early 1990s. The demographics of the estate exemplify a national trend. Between the first tenants moving in and today the number of social homes has halved, whilst the number of households in the private rented sector has doubled. The consequence is that nationally hundreds of thousands of people who need the security of a social tenancy due to their age, ill-health or low income are now living in the precarious private rented sector. This is particularly the case on the St. James estate. The first owners, Quality Street, specialised in letting homes for families who could not afford to buy. As noted above, Notting Hill Genesis, a social landlord, owned the estate for 14 years. Southwark Council has increasingly discharged its homelessness prevention responsibilities by directing families at risk towards private sector renting. This has happened to a noticeable extent on this estate, with a number of tenants telling me that Southwark paid their initial deposit. A significant proportion of residents are past the retirement age or have long-term acute health conditions that prevent them from working, which means that any rent increase beyond the Local Housing Allowance will be unaffordable.

All three parties with councillors in Southwark, Labour, Greens and Lib Dems are united in their support for the tenants. Some issues are ‘bloody complicated’ – this one isn’t. On a local level, tenants, MP Neil Coyle, and the Council have a strategy to resist evictions, unreasonable rent rises and turning homes into HMOs. There are also national implications.

The Government needs to get a grip on the super-profitability of HMOs. In London, it could give the GLA the power to register and allocate HMOs. This would decelerate the bidding wars between the Home Office, councils and other providers that is driving up prices. In the medium term, the Government needs to fund councils and housing associations to build or acquire enough temporary accommodation to start to increase the supply and bring costs down.

This has been a traumatising experience for residents. They need the security of social ownership, setting aside their experience with Notting Hill Genesis. Whilst in opposition, Lisa Nandy, Shadow Housing Spokesperson, announced a proposal for properties owned by rogue landlords to be brought into social or community ownership through compulsory purchase. The proposal was dropped when Nandy moved on. What is happening to the residents on the St. James emphasises the importance of the idea being resurrected. For those interested in the practicalities of how this will work check out the excellent work being undertaken by the New Economics Foundation.

There continues to be a debate about whether some large housing associations remain true to their social purpose. There is a moral imperative for Notting Hill Genesis to give tenants the peace of mind of knowing that if they are made homeless, the housing association will re-house them locally.

Legal advice for private sector tenants has to be properly resourced. Rights are only meaningful if tenants have the support to enforce them. It has been a scramble to assemble the legal support that the tenants need, with Southwark’s Tenancy Sustainment Team, Southwark Law Centre, Citizens Advice and Shelter all pitching in. Tenants faced with eviction proceedings need straightforward access to expert individual advice.

Having read this blog, I would be very surprised if you would like your home to be owned by BMR St. James Estate. This is fight is highly personal for me; I know most of the households under threat. It is a fight that we have to win.

 

Andy Bates is a Labour Councillor in South Bermondsey and Compass member.

For more information about the campaign:  stjamestenants.org.uk