LEWISHAM COUNCIL AND MEZE MANGAL: NOTICE WITHDRAWN DISCOVERY

From extractor fan to existential fight

How Lewisham Council’s prosecution of Meze Mangal spiralled from a planning notice into a multimillion-pound Proceeds of Crime case — and how our discovery of one forgotten court document may change everything for the Gök brothers.
The Big Retort…

In chess, a pawn captures by moving diagonally one square into the space the enemy piece once held. In this analogy, Lewisham Council is the queen: powerful, overreaching, convinced of its own invincibility. We — the citizens, the pawns — advance carefully, one square at a time, playing by the rules. But when the board is blocked and process bends, there remains one move the powerful in their Catford tower never anticipate: The quiet capture. 

We recently reported the Meze Mangal case — following two Turkish brothers, Ahmet and Sahin, hard-working British citizens, whose passports have been seized. Persecuted by officialdom and juggling day-to-day restaurant life under a white-hot media glare, the phone at Meze now rings off the hook with bookings… from journalists.

While cameras flash on the faces of Ahmet and Şahin Gök, we in Room 300 have kept digging — quietly, methodically. What we found made us exhale — long and hard.

How did we get here?

It begins, absurdly enough, with a fan — an extractor fan.

Installed at Meze Mangal to disperse cooking odours after a single complaint, it should have been a straightforward planning issue.

Instead, it became the opening move in an escalation that turned two restaurateurs into criminal defendants: passports seized, livelihoods frozen, reputations ground through the bureaucratic machinery of what some now call the Soviet state of Lewisham.

At every turn, the council appeared less interested in resolving a minor planning breach than in testing the outer limits of its enforcement powers.

What began as a question of ventilation became, over time, a test case in how far a local authority might stretch the Proceeds of Crime Act — POCA — a law written to catch gangsters, not grill chefs.

Then, long buried among the files of successive lawyers, we uncovered a document that had lain undiscovered — until now. A Notification of Withdrawn Offences, issued by Bromley Magistrates’ Court on 10 January 2020.

It helps explain why the Gök brothers reasonably believed the matter had been concluded — until Lewisham later revived enforcement and escalated it into confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

What follows is the paper trail that turned a withdrawn case into a criminal prosecution — a bureaucratic sleight of hand spanning years, a sequence of notices and letters, and one devastating misunderstanding. This is disturbing evidence of neglect and misinformation by council officers.

Extract from Bromley Magistrates’ Court “Notification of Withdrawn Offences”, dated 10 January 2020 — confirming four enforcement charges were withdrawn and that “no further action will be taken.”

That single court notice — never clarified, then forgotten, became the foundation of a misunderstanding with life-changing consequences for Ahmet and Şahin Gök. Pursued by a council machine apparently determined to test POCA on a planning dispute, they found themselves caught in a net meant for sharks — when they were, at most, small fry.

Whether this crucial document will find its way into open court remains to be seen.

---

Legal note

The confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act remain before Woolwich Crown Court.
Nothing here comments on the merits of that ongoing case or seeks to influence its outcome.
The Notification of Withdrawn Offences is a historic court document that formally states four earlier charges were withdrawn and that “no further action will be taken.”
This evidence — photographed directly by The Big Retort — goes solely to questions of procedure, transparency, and accountability, not guilt or innocence in any pending matter.

THE BIG RETORT

Lewisham Council POCA Prosecution: Job Ad Reveals Mandate To 'Maximise Income'

From Borough of Sanctuary to dystopian world — Lewisham Council places landmark restaurant on the POCA grill. THE BIG RETORT…

Some days, when I pass the grimy windows at Laurence House in Catford, I swear I can hear the sound of someone desperately singing from the floors above: “You’ve gotta pick a POCA or two, boys…”

Lewisham once styled itself a Borough of Sanctuary. But today it feels more like a borough for bounty hunters — where local businesses and good neighbours aren’t nurtured, but criminalised for profit. The game is called POCA.

In plain English, the Proceeds of Crime Act works like this: after a criminal conviction is secured, a prosecuting authority can ask the court to treat unexplained money or assets as “criminal benefit” unless proved otherwise. 

The trawl through the person’s past can prove costly, both mentally and financially, as it stretches back six years from when proceedings commence. 

The court then sets a “benefit” figure and an amount it says the person must pay; if you can’t pay (or won’t), a default prison term awaits. 

A powerful tool against drug barons — but misused, it seems, against a much-loved local family restaurant for having a new flue at the rear of the premises without the benefit of planning permission.

This time Ahmet and Şahin Gök, the brothers behind Meze Mangal — the award-winning, much-loved Turkish restaurant at 245 Lewisham Way — are in the council’s crosshairs. 

Their so-called “crime”? Installing an extractor fan to deal with cooking odours after a single alleged complaint. What should have been a routine planning matter has escalated into persecution and harassment of two long-standing British citizens born in Turkey.

Somehow, Lewisham secured a conviction against the Gök brothers — in their absence.
Now the council has escalated the case to Crown Court and, at the last count, is demanding more than £2.5 million under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA).

The question you may ask is this: wasn’t POCA introduced to seize the ill-gotten gains of drug barons, money launderers and corrupt officials — not to crush a family restaurant over a flue?

Yet Lewisham Council, working with Brent Council, is deploying this draconian tool against two highly respected restaurateurs. Even if the figure is reduced, the accumulated legal costs and risk of confiscation could bankrupt the Gök family and erase a community institution. 

The message to the public is clear: stay silent while power is over-applied.

But silence isn’t an option. This is just one example of a wider enforcement culture — telegraphed even in Lewisham Council’s own job adverts — that prioritises prosecution over proportion. It's very telling.

"...to ensure prosecutions are successful and maximise income for the borough in respect of proceeds of crime."

As if that weren’t enough, at the request of Lewisham’s prosecutor, the Gok brothers’ passports have been seized - treating them as 'immigrant' flight risks. It's truly unbelievable! It is also racist. 

The Gok brothers have lived here for decades, have family and property here, and take pride in both nations that they love. They are NOT flight risks. 

However, if they can’t pay, they face the terrifying threat of up to 14 years in prison. All for an extractor fan.

The legal bills and mental pressure are mounting! 

But then, in the red corner, it’s only public money - your hard-earned money - being spent with wild abandon on expensive outsourced lawyers favoured by the council’s officers. 

And, in the immigrant corner of this Borough of Sanctuary, a Turkish family is penalised and placed in eternal penury, watching the profits of a lifetime swirl down the very streets left uncleaned by misspent tax revenues — misspent on what? Costly lawyers in the red corner.

In one shocking move, a Brent Council financial investigator (yes, Brent) — working on Lewisham’s behalf — even inadvertently (we hope) caused the banks to return Meze Mangal’s takings for an entire week to diners. 

Only one customer reportedly repaid their bill.

But this case isn’t about an  extractor. It’s about profit and precedent over decent Turkish people. Şahin Gök and his brother Ahmet and family. 

How many locals have experienced the “Şahin hug” and welcome?

Speaking with Şahin Gök this week, one thing became clear. The brothers are not asking for sympathy or financial rescue — that is our initiative, not theirs. What they want is simple and dignified: to stand up to a bullying council, and to have their passports returned - immediately.

“We’re not begging,” Şahin said. “We just want to be treated fairly — and to hold our heads high again. We also needed to attend the funerals of our family in Turkey, but that's too late now. That  means more to us than anything.”

Why this matters to you

If Lewisham Council succeeds, it sets a dangerous Orwellian example for others. They come for Meze Mangal today; tomorrow they come for you. 

These are the cards these faceless and heartless and unchecked officials hold:

• Planning disputes treated as criminal enterprises.

• POCA turned into a revenue stream against immigrants, used by councils to balance their nearly bankrupt books. Without your elected members' oversight.

• Ordinary people — immigrants, shopkeepers, carers, foster parents, restaurateurs — crushed with costs, stigma, and even 14-years prison. How outrageous!

Questions for the forthcoming ballot box

Would this happen in a council with real political balance? We think not.

Would it happen in a borough led by elected councillors, not faceless bureaucrats? We think not.

Would the Gök prosecution (and persecution) have happened with strong leadership that values fairness and proportionality? Well, evidently we think not.

A campaign to SAVE MEZE MANGAL

The Big Retort says: enough.

Councils cannot operate in darkness and so we must shine a light on this. NOW. 

Also, they cannot target proud British-Turks  in the hope that they will pay a POCA bounty because they do not seek the glare of publicity. It is this we seek to highlight.

How you can help — right now

• Make a donation — the Gok brothers' costs are already in the tens of thousands. This is not their request, but The Big Retort's. 

• Show your support — write “I support Meze Mangal” in the comments section below or directly to the Mayor and CEO.

• Pop into Meze Mangal and give them a hug in support, or dine there.

• Share this post with friends, neighbours, and anyone who has enjoyed Meze Mangal.

• Tell your story — have you been criminalised, threatened with POCA, or forced toward bankruptcy by Lewisham enforcement? Add your voice below.

Together we saved KJ. Together we can save Meze Mangal.  [Reported here in The Daily Mail.]

This isn’t just about one community restaurant. It’s about justice, fairness, and community in the face of a council that too often forgets its people — and why its members were elected in the first place.

Ask not what your council can do to you — but what you will do to this council at the next election.

Keep comments polite — this is not the judge’s doing but the faceless officials who drove this and the elected members who are too scared to control them. We will be doing more on this later.

---

💬 What do you think?
Share your thoughts below — no login required.
Your comment will appear once approved.

---

Court details (open to the public)

The first hearing on 24 October is what’s called a mention hearing. It isn’t the full trial. Instead, it’s when the judge checks in on the case, hears from both sides, and sets out the next steps in the court timetable.

If needed — full confiscation hearing: Woolwich Crown Court, 19–20 March 2026.

Lewisham Council: “One household” clause puts rentals at risk

The HMO trap: tenants in the crossfire

How a dormant lease clause, licensing whiplash and POCA risk are squeezing homes out of the market. The Big Retort…

An email from Lewisham’s Private Sector Housing Agency about an Additional HMO licence landed like a brick. More than a year after the council invited me to apply, it now says my application is rejected. It’s the freeholder’s doing. But—who’s the freeholder?

“Lewisham Council… have confirmed that renting your property as an HMO would put you in breach of your lease and therefore put your lease at risk which can lead to forfeiture.”

Then came the Hobson’s “choices”:

Option 1: Withdraw and apply for a Temporary Exemption Notice (TEN) to “regularise” matters—i.e., kick out the sharers—avoiding enforcement for an unlicensed HMO.

Option 2: Press on and risk forfeiture of the lease.

Wait—what? This is the same council that extended licensing to my area and invited me to pay £1,500 to license three sharers—whose only offence was being unrelated. Now I’m asked to evict good tenants or gamble the lease. Either route funnels landlords toward criminalisation risks and tenants toward homelessness.

A trap with two springs

Strip away the jargon and you see the trap. Withdraw, and the council can assert you operated without a licence—triggering a civil penalty of up to £30,000 and a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) for up to 12 months’ rent. Proceed, and you’re allegedly in breach of a “single household only” lease covenant—opening the door to forfeiture. Heads, the tenants go. Tails, the lease goes. In both scenarios, the council gets leverage.

This isn’t about fire safety, overcrowding or poor conditions. It’s about legal whiplash: one arm invites landlord licensing; another cites a lease clause to torpedo it. If that clause is now being applied across Lewisham’s portfolio—not just against me—it could obstruct licences for ordinary shared living, even a resident owner with two lodgers. That’s not sensible regulation; it’s a rental supply–shrinking machine.

Legal hindsight, retrofitted

When these leases were drafted, three sharers on one AST were commonly treated as one household for lease purposes. No one suggested that a shared kitchen and bathroom breached the covenant. The Housing Act 2004 later defined unrelated sharers as multiple “households” for public law licensing—rightly, to raise standards. Lewisham now appears to retrofit that public-law definition back into a private lease clause. The result is a hybrid: a licensing regime that lures you in, and a lease interpretation that pushes you back out—and all by the same body.

The rights implications aren’t theoretical. There’s Article 8 ECHR (respect for home), Article 14 (non-discrimination), and the Equality Act 2010 (indirect discrimination), because a neutral “single household only” rule bites hardest on those who rely on shared living—young workers, students, carers, low-income renters, new arrivals. Call it social cleansing by lease clause or, in my view, targeted leasing by Lewisham for reasons that need daylight.

A bigger market consequence

If Lewisham’s reading spreads, the shockwaves won’t stop at my front door. Since 1980, more than 2 million homes have been sold under Right to Buy. England has 4.77 million leasehold dwellings; about 1.82 million are in the private rented sector; and roughly 41% of ex-Right-to-Buy homes are now owned by private landlords. Apply “single household only” rigidly, and you strip out a chunk of shared housing overnight—the segment that props up affordability in high-cost cities. It deepens the very shortage licensing was meant to manage. (Let’s call it SHOO—Single Household Only: Out.)

From licensing and lease dispute to POCA

Here’s where it gets truly perverse. If enforcement is routed through the criminal courts—say for operating an unlicensed HMO or breaching a notice—a conviction can unlock the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). The numbers then pivot from fines to the “benefit” alleged from the offence. Prosecutors often argue that all rent received during the relevant period counts as “proceeds of crime.” Courts can impose confiscation orders up to the lower of that “benefit” or the defendant’s available assets. Fail to pay and you face further enforcement—even a default prison term.

So a technical licensing dispute mutates into asset and liberty risk. Not because the property is unsafe or overcrowded, but because criminalisation opens a lucrative recovery route. In my view, that’s a dangerous incentive structure: regulation by POCA, not by proportionality. It’s not the case of finding criminality, but making it criminal in order to profit.

The council’s two voices

One arm says “licence sharers.” Another says the lease forbids more than a single household and hints at forfeiture if you continue. The public message: “we’re bringing HMOs up to standard.” The private message: “we’ll refuse the licence and say you’re in breach.” Two huskies pulling in opposite directions—and the sled is the tenant’s home and the leaseholder’s asset.

If this is policy, it deserves an honest public justification. If it’s an error, fix it—and confirm publicly that lawful shared living (including lodgers and carefully managed HMOs) will not be retro-cast as a lease breach. Anything less caves in the very middle of the market we rely on to house working people—especially in London, where rents are through the roof.

What this looks like on the ground

I did what the council asked: applied, paid, cooperated, hosted three good tenants. Safety and standards were not the issue. Instead, I’m served a Hobson’s choice: evict to dodge criminal penalties, or carry on and face forfeiture—and, downstream, POCA exposure. That’s not regulation; it’s a pincer movement.

Meanwhile, tenants—who did nothing wrong—face displacement. Some will be nudged into worse conditions or further from work, education and care networks. Others will fall out of the sector altogether. Multiply that across a borough—or across councils that copy—and you shrink the rental base and harden the crisis.

A better path home

If councils want to raise standards, they should enforce standards: timely inspections, proportionate civil penalties for genuine non-compliance, and a clear pathway for bringing properties into the licensing net. Where lease covenants conflict with modern housing needs, there should be transparent guidance and—where appropriate—consent processes with reasonable conditions. Weaponising old covenants to nullify present licensing is a policy cul-de-sac.

Where I am now—and what I’m asking

I’ve filed a public Freedom of Information request for the internal correspondence, policies and risk assessments behind this decision, and for data on how many leaseholders have been warned, threatened, or steered into TENs.

Follow the FOI: (public link here)

Good. But please don’t use this as a strategy to criminalise me. Please don’t then reach for POCA. Please don’t move to forfeit the lease. The public—in the form of my tenants—deserves a fair hearing too.

If you’re a council leaseholder—anywhere—told that “one household only” blocks a lawful HMO or lodger arrangement, I’d like to hear from you. If you’re a tenant asked to leave because of this clause, tell me your story. This isn’t just about one flat. It’s about whether we regulate to keep homes safe and available—or regulate to shrink supply and flip housing disputes into criminal cash machines.

Until Lewisham (and any council tempted to follow) can show how this approach improves safety, protects tenants, and grows supply, the message to renters and leaseholders is bleak: the rules you followed yesterday can be turned against you tomorrow. And when housing policy is rewritten by the back door, the people on the doorstep pay the price. It’s them I care about.

The Prophecy: Mysterious Lewisham mosque roof death plunge

Death scene at Albaraka Mosque

 On 4 July 2025, Adam Rae Ursell, a 38-year-old actor, choreographer, and movement artist from South-East London, plunged from the roof of Albaraka Mosque in Lewisham. Despite the desperate efforts of ambulance crews, paramedics, and London’s Air Ambulance, he died at the scene. And since that day, a veil of silence has been drawn around the tragedy. TheBigRetort...

---

Silence at the Scene

It was a fine, sunny Friday afternoon when a body hit the pavement on a busy Lewisham Way. Despite the heavy police presence and paramedics battling to resuscitate the victim, it was all to no avail. 

Police officers at the scene discouraged filming of the tragedy — and bodycams, which are usually on by default, were not recording.

In the hours and days that followed, no media reported the death. The silence was almost total, as if a D-notice had been imposed.

The Metropolitan Police responded to The Big Retort:

“For clarity, we proactively announce murders so it was not an incident of this nature. We have located an incident. As this is not a criminal matter, we can’t comment.”

The London Ambulance Service:

“We were called at 2.31pm on 4 July to reports of a person who had fallen from height in Lewisham Way, SE14. Despite the best efforts of our teams to save his life, a man sadly died at the scene.”

But was that the whole story?

---

Albaraka Friday rooftop prayers

A prophecy foretold

Council records obtained through Freedom of Information show concerns about the building were raised as far back as 2017:

·         The property, originally a domestic dwelling, had been converted into a mosque — apparently without the council’s knowledge.

·         Attendance was reported at “over 200” people, with one inflated estimate of 500.

·         A council fire safety officer warned that overcrowding was putting the structure “at risk of collapse.”

Most alarming were warnings about the roof. Officials noted that the “flat roof is also used on these occasions” and that “children were also climbing the ledge to look down onto the road below.” 

There were no railing around the roof.

In August 2018, the same informant wrote bluntly to the council:

“It has been a while since my last email re: overcrowded mosque and the use of the roof… This is an accident waiting to happen. Your action might save this.”

---

Enforcement stalled

Lewisham Council attempted an inspection. Access was restricted by the mosque committee to narrow time slots — none of which included Friday, the main day of worship, when the roof was reportedly in use. The very day, and time, of Adam’s death.

On 30 July 2018, the council issued a Planning Contravention Notice, ordering the use of the mosque to cease by 17 December 2018.

And then — silence.

No further enforcement. No explanation in the council’s files. Nothing.

Seven years later, the very scenario repeatedly warned of by council officers tragically came to pass.

---

The Albaraka Committee responded:

“While we deeply value transparency and community dialogue, we must also respect the wishes and privacy of the grieving family and the broader community impacted by this loss. For this reason, we are unable to share specific details regarding the incident… What we can assure you is that the matter has been fully handled by the appropriate authorities.”

The committee failed to name the victim.

Disturbing footage of resuscitation attempts have since circulated online. Police at the scene were filmed asking a man to stop recording out of respect. He replied that he was “media.” 

Callous though he appears, perhaps he alone documented what officers — with their own cameras switched off — chose not to.

In the days following the tragedy, new metal fencing was erected around the roof.

In the aftermath of Adam Rae Ursell’s death, vital questions remain unanswered:

• Council enforcement: Why did Lewisham Council fail to act on its own 2018 Planning Contravention Notice?

• Safety warnings: Why were repeated alerts about roof use and overcrowding not followed up?

• Police conduct: Why were officers’ bodycams not recording at the scene of such a serious incident?

• Public transparency: Why was the victim’s name withheld for so long, despite confirmation of his death from the London Ambulance Service?

An inquest is scheduled for late 2026. It may establish how Mr Ursell died. But only then will we begin to learn whether years of warnings were ignored — and why.

Until those answers are given, one fact remains clear: the tragedy on Lewisham Way has left a community searching for accountability.

THE BIG RETORT

The Good Landlord driven out by a "Neat Trick" - Leonard Rigsby

When the council inspector first visited my tenanted property, they paid me the ultimate compliment. "You're just the sort of landlord we like," they told me. "This is the best property we have ever seen!" They even mentioned wanting to rent from me themselves.

This didn't surprise me. I've always believed in providing high-quality homes for my tenants. My rooms are so large that, by the council's own calculations, I could have housed as many as eight people. But I resisted, knowing it would erode the flat's condition, disturb my neighbours, and create an uncomfortable living situation. My priority was for my tenants to have a great place to call home.

This sometimes meant accepting a significant financial hit. When my previous tenants left, my new tenant was a family. The change in tenancy meant a considerable reduction in my potential income. My new tenant, a single mother, was struggling to afford the growing London rents and was facing the prospect of being banished from the city. I was happy to make it work. For me, providing a secure, stable, and happy home took precedence over maximising profit.

This is where the story takes a frustrating turn.

The council’s visit was part of a new policy. My property, which the council had made a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) due to the three unrelated tenants, was no longer. It now required a “selective license” because it was a home for a single family. Despite having been inspected just eight months prior, the council insisted on a new visit. They did not inform me about this and, unlike me, they did not even remove their shoes in my tenant’s home. They checked all the same things again, including the sizes of the rooms. Their official findings? A fire blanket was too close to the hob, and a light bulb had a missing keeper. They opened and closed the windows, and so on and so forth. Since that day, I have heard not a sausage. “Oh, Miss Jones!” my tenant heard me say in exasperation, only to have her respond with a knowing smile and say, “Mister Rigsby – that’s the council for you!”

My tenant, a lovely woman who had lived happily in a poorly maintained flat for 15 years with no inspections , felt invaded. She felt vulnerable and powerless. The inspectors were polite and professional, but that didn't matter. Her sense of privacy had been violated.

My tenant's experience is a microcosm of a much larger problem. The bureaucracy and regulation, particularly the new selective licensing schemes, are not just targeting "rogue landlords." They are making life so difficult and financially unviable for good landlords that many are now leaving the market. "Hurrah!" says Generation Rent.

Advocacy groups and even some of my friends argue that when a landlord sells a property, it remains on the market. This is a "neat trick" of an argument, but it is fundamentally incorrect. I have already sold my first property, and I cannot wait to offload the rest. My former tenant recently bought the two-bedroom flat. She now lives there with her boyfriend, with the second bedroom sitting empty.

A rental home is not just a house; it is a source of shelter for people who need it. When good landlords sell up, those homes are removed from the rental stock forever. My former flat no longer provides beds for two separate people; it now provides a home for a single couple. This scenario will be replicated throughout the country.

I believe the government, by expanding the definition of HMOs and piling on more bureaucracy, hopes landlords will be incentivised to cram more beds into their properties to meet demand. But this is a strategy fraught with difficulties. It's pushing out the very people—like me—who are willing to invest in high-quality housing.

The Labour government has been handed a poison chalice. The housing crisis is not just about a lack of new homes. It’s also about the slow, deliberate erosion of the private rented sector, driven by policies that punish responsible landlords and fail to understand the real-world impact on tenants.

I am a good landlord, and my tenants tell me this. Why do I believe them? Because they are good tenants whom I like to think I am assisting through life, and so they have no need to lie. But I am also a person who can no longer justify the financial and personal cost of staying in a market that seems intent on forcing people like me out, while painting me as some kind of Rachman. The price of this will be paid by tenants, in the form of higher rents and fewer quality homes. Section 21 framers, please note.

THE BIG RETORT

Convicted: How Councils prosecute for profit

What’s happening in Labour-run Lewisham today has left me thinking. I once believed in the ideals of the Labour party: justice, fairness, and accountability – but, not now. These are just the empty sloganeering of an elite few in Lewisham's town hall and Parliament.

In truth, Lewisham is not a borough of sanctuary but a place for Pocaneering. Ordinary residents—entrepreneurs, good Samaritans, and hardworking immigrants—are being treated not as part of the community, but as financial targets. All in the name of planning enforcement. All under the guise of legality. And all tied to the toxic incentives of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA).

The sand and cement storefront scandal – Criminalised

Let’s begin with local DIY shop owner Kevin Bottomley, reported here under KJ Building Supplies and our successful campaign Save KJs. He was selling small quantities of sand and cement from his shop's driveway – the kind of side hustle long part of Lewisham life, helping neighbours avoid a trip to large retailers. The council prosecuted Kevin under planning law.

Following our findings on this case, the POCA incentive was dropped. But they still left Kevin, in the twilight of his years, with a criminal record. What for? Drugs, prostitution, slavery? No. For selling building materials from the side of his shop without a change of use approval. Something he had been doing for years. 

The council prosecution was expensive. Readers will be keen to note that they lost over £30,000 in taxpayer funds in bringing the trial. Much of the cost appears due to their employment of expensive outside law firms (more on which later) and the actions of enforcement officers whose approach some might consider overzealous. However, Kevin wasn’t an immigrant. Neither did he have his passport seized.

The foster carers - Criminalised

Then there’s the couple who took in troubled teenagers—young people that Lewisham itself had failed to care for. Their thank-you from the council? Prosecution—because their loft had one skylight too many. One extra pane of glass in a conservation area was enough for Lewisham to drag them through the courts. They were given criminal convictions for a single skylight too many. There was no POCA incentive in this case. Neither was an immigrant. Neither did they have their passports seized.

However, these cases do serve as a stark reminder that planning enforcement notices should not be ignored, because they may become the gateway to potential abuses of a power in search of profit.

Lewisham puts Meze through the mangle

We’ve heard what happened to the DIY merchant and the foster carers. Now, consider what is happening to Turkish restaurateurs, the “Meze Mangal” Goks in Lewisham Way. 

Most shockingly, I present the case of Ahmet and Sahin Gok to show a stark disparity in the treatment of British citizens who are also immigrants. Both born in Turkey, owners of the beloved, award-winning restaurant Meze Mangal, which lies at 245 Lewisham Way. Known across London for its hospitality and food, the restaurant was a local landmark and community hub. Until the council saw it as something else.

Following a complaint about cooking odours and noise, the Gok brothers installed a support platform for a ventilation system. A small planning matter, handled informally in many boroughs. However, in Lewisham, it became an opportunity of a different kind. Known as "a POCA".

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) was introduced by the Labour Government. It gives authorities powers to investigate, seize, and confiscate assets believed to be the proceeds of criminal conduct. Its aim is to prevent criminals from benefiting from their crimes. Critics argue, myself included, it can be applied disproportionately, especially when near-bankrupt local authorities directly benefit financially from confiscation orders. And especially when bounty may be found in criminalising those most vulnerable.

It's worth noting that Lewisham Council's Planning Enforcement Manager,  a Future London Leaders' candidate, states that after a restructuring of the team and a string of successful prosecutions, they are now undertaking their first POCA case. The manager wrote Lewisham's Planning Enforcement Policy. This suggests a new, aggressive strategic direction for the planning enforcement team. Is the Gok case Lewisham's inaugural POCA venture?

If so, here's what happened to the Goks:

• Their nightmare began with a complaint about their kitchen extraction system. They spent considerably to adjust it. The council then invited a retrospective planning application, but turned it down. The Goks appealed, and lost.

• What followed was confusing. Lewisham Council issued three enforcement notices, then withdrew the prosecution in January 2020. The Goks believed the ordeal was over. But it wasn't.

• COVID struck. Months later, Lewisham's enforcement team re-engaged, revealing the prosecution was still active. Weeks later, their mother died, adding to their grief.

• Then, in March 2023, whilst caring for their ill father, a guilty plea was entered in court in their absence. This appears to have given the council a windfall.

• Having acquired criminal convictions, Lewisham shunted the case up to Woolwich Crown Court. It now seeks £544,388 in "profits" from the hard-working Gok brothers, for  what it claims was a criminal enterprise – simply for an unapproved extractor. (Councils increasingly use the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) for financial gain in planning breaches, with as much as 37.5% going directly to the council.)

• Sadly, their father then died. At their trial, 10 months later, the prosecution was sceptical about their reasons for stalling, even claiming they were being evasive or fabricating their reasons. They then took the drastic step of seizing their British passports, treating them as flight risks. This prevented them from dealing with family matters, including funerals, and from living their lives as all British citizens should.

• If that wasn't enough, Lewisham Council also froze their business bank account, strangling their livelihood and resulting in the bank being unable to process payments, forcing them to return money to diners.

Whilst Lewisham's planning enforcement manager boasts about leadership, the Goks are now in POCA purgatory. Their business is strangled. Their family endures unimaginable stress. All caused by Lewisham Council's punitive, disproportionate, and overzealous force, over an extractor fan.

Fortunately, with the aid of a defence barrister, Quentin Hunt, their passports have just been returned... for one month. Following which they must return them to Lewisham Police Station.

When planning law becomes a revenue stream for cash-strapped councils

Sometimes prosecution may not be about protecting the public or serving its interest. It may also be about profiting from prosecution. Under POCA, councils receive a slice of the recovered funds - up to 37.5%. A further 12.5% goes to the courts, and the remainder to Keir Starmer's government.

Cash-strapped Lewisham is treating its own residents as financial opportunities. When the law is bent to serve the budget, not the people, it’s not enforcement—it’s extortion in red tape.

Labour in name, authoritarian and Orwellian in practice

It beggars belief that this is happening under a Labour administration. Or does it?

• Where is the local accountability?

• Where are the ward meetings that once allowed residents to raise concerns about such things?

• Why are we criminalising the very people who support this borough—economically, socially, and morally?

Silence at the top

I have raised these concerns—in writing—with both Mayor Brenda Dacres and MP Vicky Foxcroft.  However, whilst the wheels of justice may move slowly, the silence surrounding this potential injustice is damning.

To be fair, the local ward member Councillor Stephen Penfold has now managed to obtain an audience with Mayor Dacres soon to dicuss this, and he is to be joined by MP Vicky Foxcroft. They should find that the roots of this problem trace back to a previous Lewisham mayor, Damien Egan. The prosecution of the Goks began during his mayoralty. He subsequently left his mayoral post to become an MP in Bristol North East, leaving complex cases behind in Lewisham.

What TheBigRetort can reveal is... that Meze Mangal was a venue frequented by many, including, ironically, members of Lewisham Council themselves, who held evenings out, Christmas parties, and even mounted campaigns on behalf of Labour there. Though it  is soon to shut its doors to all.

The perversity of this situation is stark. If the POCA judgement favours the very council that has benefited from Meze Mangal over the years, including its former Mayor Damien Egan, it would be a profound blow to democracy and to the trust of many of Lewisham's immigrants who sought refuge in what was once championed as a 'Borough of Sanctuary'. This outcome would contradict the very spirit of such a designation.

A Party that fails to listen will fail the People

This isn’t about a few planning enforcement cases. It’s about an unsafe culture. One where:

• Dissent is ignored.

• Participation is shut down.

• And residents are prosecuted to balance the books.

The seizure of passports from immigrant British citizens is appalling, as is the criminalisation of upstanding citizens.

If you are a Labour member, Lewisham resident, customer, or councillor reading this, I urge you to ask: Is this what we stand for?

Because if this continues, it won’t be the residents who need to answer for POCA—it’ll be the party that continues to let a national scandal happen of Post Office scandal-type proportions. Mark my words, this will be a national trend, one with dire consequences for truth and justice, and for all.

THE BIG RETORT