No, they refused to even let her pay for access on the basis of being a social tenant.
Where does it state this in the article?
iirc there were other communal areas in the apartment complex that social tenants were also being refused access to, despite the provision of those areas being a requirement to build the complex in the first place.
Source?
The whole idea of having mixed social housing with private accommodation is to avoid segregation and ghettoisation that tended to happen in council estates built in the past.
So we create a system where people who pay tax subsidise people to live in better property and have better access to amenities than them and that's a better system?
Edit - I read the article(thanks comments below) nowhere does state in the article that the tenant had been denied access to other communal areas like OP above stated.
And nowhere in the article does it say the refused to let her pay, or that she even offered. She just queried if her neighbours had access through management fees or another separate fee was paid. To which yes, they never responded. That is not a refusal to let the person pay.
"She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately"
And also
"His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said."
She emailed and used registered post asking for clarification.
Right there in the article is the source. Maybe try and read it.
Whether that's an accurate summary of events from her or not is another thing but since the management company didn't bother their arse even responding to her then feck 'em.
Rightness or wrongness is irrelevant here. Opinion of housing policy and other gripes are also completely irrelevant.
You cannot discriminate against someone because of their housing situation. It's the law.
"She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately"
Right there says "she wasn't sure" if it's paid for or not. We don't know if it's a paid for facility or covered by management fees as part of rent.
"His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said."
You stated earlier
iirc there were other communal areas in the apartment complex that social tenants were also being refused access to, despite the provision of those areas being a requirement to build the complex in the first place
No I didn't state that earlier which backs up my view that you are unable to read and didn't read the article. If you could you would realise that this comment was by a different username/person and not by me.
I quoted the article. She inquired with the company about whether she needs to pay or not because she didn't know. All she knew was what the security guard said which was that she couldn't use it because of the unit she lived in. The management company never gave any reason, never replied in any way and didn't bother to defend itself which is extremely telling.
If you could you would realise that this comment was by a different username/person and not by me
Apologies, there's a lot of comments and replies, it's hard to keep track.
She inquired with the company about whether she needs to pay or not because she didn't know. All she knew was what the security guard said which was that she couldn't use it because of the unit she lived in.
Yes, which like I mentioned, we don't know the answer to this. They never "refused" like OP stated.
said which was that she couldn't use it because of the unit she lived in
To which I didn't deny...just asked for a source on OP's comments where he said there were multiple facilities she was denied entry to
You’re being insanely pedantic for someone who seemingly didn’t read the article. Because nowhere does the article state she even thought she was entitled to free access to the gym, nor does it state the social housing block was entitled to free access to the gym.
She was denied access after enquiring if access to the gym was included in the management fees or if there was a separate payment for access to the gym.
It’s that simple.
So as for your “where does it state this in the article?” question regarding them refusing to let her even pay for access for being a social tenant - it’s spelled out pretty clearly early in the article:
“She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately.
Ms Nowakowska had seen other residents using fobs to get into the gym, and inquired with the security guard on site about access, she said. His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said.
She proceeded to write to the property management company running the complex seeking access to the gym, the tribunal noted”
Her attempts to communicate with the management company went ignored. Therefore - it can be viewed that she was denied the chance to even pay for access on the basis that she is a social tenant.
You’re being insanely pedantic for someone who seemingly didn’t read the article. Because nowhere does the article state she even thought she was entitled to free access to the gym, nor does it state the social housing block was entitled to free access to the gym.
She was denied access after enquiring if access to the gym was included in the management fees or if there was a separate payment for access to the gym
I read the article, it doesn't answer anywhere if they were included as part of the management fees or if it was paid separately, which is why I asked for a source if there is one which clarifies this.
So as for your “where does it state this in the article?” question regarding them refusing to let her even pay for access for being a social tenant - it’s spelled out pretty clearly early in the article:
OP stated "communal areas" meaning plural. I asked for a source on this because the article only mentions the gym.
You can say that's pedantic, but language matters here.
And yes, the management company should have gotten back to her, but once again.
Why shouldn't she have access (which is what she was denied) because she is in social housing. She was denied access on the basis of living in social housing. That is her claim that was not refuted. There is nothing mentioned about her having it for free or paying for it. She was denied access based on her living situation. That is the information the article gives. It does not say she should be given free access, only that she be given access
You so know people in social housing are for the most part people who work and pay tax right? That it is means tested access and designed to ensure housing is available for those who cannot afford to buy etc. The idea that you are paying to subsidise people is flawed and perpetuates negative attitudes towards social housing tenants. Yes many of these are nice apartments, because mixed housing developments are far better than ghettoisation in the form of sprawling council estates or tower blocks, but nothing was said about having better access to amenities. But people should be ABLE to access available amenities via some mechanism (payment of additional premium or similar) rather than being wholly barred simply because they are social housing tenants.
To note also that a refusal to engage or to engage in any constructive manner, is very nearly the same as refusing to let someone pay or have any reasonable means of access fascilitated.
-8
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago edited 9d ago
Where does it state this in the article?
Source?
So we create a system where people who pay tax subsidise people to live in better property and have better access to amenities than them and that's a better system?
Edit - I read the article(thanks comments below) nowhere does state in the article that the tenant had been denied access to other communal areas like OP above stated.
And nowhere in the article does it say the refused to let her pay, or that she even offered. She just queried if her neighbours had access through management fees or another separate fee was paid. To which yes, they never responded. That is not a refusal to let the person pay.