• I SYMPATHISE with the council tenant experiencing harassment from leaseholders because of the unprofessional way they sub-let their homes to anti-social people in temporary lets (‘Temporary’ tenants who are making our lives hell, August 10).

The “right to buy” policy where tenants can lease their council homes could be one of the causes of gentrification, division and social cleansing in the borough.

Camden Council is leasing to tenants who no longer see their properties as homes but who treat them as business investments. If you look at any estate agent’s window in Camden these days and you are familiar with the location of council properties you will see numerous council flats for sale at current market prices.

The council house I live in is a “street property” divided into four flats, three of which are owned by leaseholders. Mine is the only remaining flat let as social housing.

One leaseholder is a third-time purchaser (meaning they were never a council tenant) and have no allegiance to the area. They operate as a property developer, living abroad, while managing the flat “long-distance” with no agent, just an email address.

A local agent supplies them with tenants, but the leaseholder does not pay the agency for tenancy services, so if an emergency arises, such as flood or fire, there is no one to contact. I have reason to believe the council does not even know where the leaseholder lives.

The other two flats are periodically rented out. But because the house is in a wealthier part of Camden, with rents higher than average, the sub-tenants are usually single business people who (since the recession) do not generally cause any disturbance.

Nevertheless the leaseholders frequently complain about the council even though they were able to purchase their homes at a substantial discount. They also avoid reporting communal repairs or will use their own builders who are usually friends, relatives or others working to a low standard.

The council has allowed division to develop between tenants and leaseholders by not supporting tenants adequately and lacking enforcement of leaseholders’ tenancy agreements.

Leaseholders are given the impression that they have the green light to do whatever they like. Some even give the impression that they own the property freehold. It is scandalous that the council tenant whose letter you published on August 10 has been harassed by leaseholders for over a decade.

It should have been dealt with by the council straight away as they would do with any other form of anti-social behaviour. But it seems they have more respect for leaseholders who exploit social housing than for tenants who care about their homes and the surroundings they live in.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED