Whilst Crossfields still awaits a reply to emails sent in May on queries made in relation to April's charges and feels no inclination to chase them up having spent a whole year getting nowhere, Sydenham Hill continues to remind our landlords of their duties...
Dear Mr Barrett,
As Chairman of the Sydenham Hill Tra ( SYTRA) I am disappointed to say the least that you have failed to respond to my letter of 6th July 2010.
I hope you are not underestimating the severity of the issue.
By all accounts there have been but TWO full time Caretakers on the Estate.
The residents, tenants and Leaseholders have, according to the workings of our Secretary been charged approximately £134,000 per annum for the privilege.
In simplest terms we respectively ask you to declare annually, exactly:
- how much is being spent on Caretaking
- how much is being billed for Caretaking
The 08/09 was reconciled by a reduction of some 70% after we challenged the charges and Janet Senior conducted an audit on behalf of Lewisham Council.
The level of Caretaking has not been improved nor the number of Caretakers.
Sad to say that the Caretakers Supervisor has been on perpetual sick leave for most of the period in question.
As a matter of urgency can you now come forward with a response.
Failing which we reserve the right to escalate this to the external adjudicator or Ombudsman.
Thanking you,
M.Quereshi
Chair SYTRA
See SYTRA Chair's letter to Adam Barrett, 6 July 2010 here.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Why it is crap
These are the notes we gave the Audit Commission:
Notes for Meeting with Audit Commission 29 June 2010
a) Charges increased enormously last year and since Lewisham Homes took over
Notes for Meeting with Audit Commission 29 June 2010
a) Charges increased enormously last year and since Lewisham Homes took over
- We are told this is because we were undercharged before, except for Caretaking charges where we are told the increased costs are to buy more equipment which we haven’t seen used.
- Large increases are based on estimates which are later seen to be over-estimates, thereby causing unnecessary financial hardship by increasing monthly payments by 100% one year and reducing them by 30% the next year, making it impossible to budget.
- Bills are full of errors due either to typing errors or because of charges for work that wasn’t done.
- Bills are accompanied by a letter that says bills are audited (when they are not), a misleading and fraudulent statement.
- Leaseholders are charged differing amounts for the same item, eg changing a light bulb
- Communal repairs, caretaking and grounds maintenance are often charged more to smaller blocks, and charged differently to same sized blocks.
- With only 6% inspection of repairs, Lewisham Homes do not know whether a job is done or not, nor satisfactorily, and leaseholders know even less.
- Until Repairs can tell us what they’re repairing when they repair it and allow us to comment on its satisfactory completion or indeed whether it has been done at all, leaseholders do not know what they’re paying for up to 18 months later. (Highlighted by us for years, and now also by Scrutiny Committee. Persistently denied by Leaseholder Team, but now being considered by Potter)
- Due to lack of monitoring, we are charged for work that is re-done many times – there is no planning or understanding of persistent problems, eg no plans available for drainage networks.
- At Leaseholder Improvement Group Meetings, issues that a clear majority want to discuss affecting whole estates are described as ‘individual’ problems and not minuted.
- Managers in Repairs and Caretaking have suggested ways forward but are then ‘silenced’ by their seniors – recommendations they make ‘in the field’ are not put into place.
- Meeting agendas are set by LH, and taken up with presentations rather than discussion
- Minutes are inaccurate if unfavourable comments are made, and are later not rectified.
- Changes to charges are made with claims that consultation with residents has taken place, when less than 0.5% have attended meetings where changes are presented.
- Details of repairs only available by requesting a breakdown which are full of jargon with no glossary provided and are supplied variously in either date order or Repair Number, or a mixture of both, so are hard to decipher. Also sometimes supplied as Excel files.
- Anomalies become apparent when Repair Breakdowns for different blocks are compared. The average leaseholder has no means of comparison since no benchmark figures are available (eg average tariffs).
- Requests to see supplier’s invoices and queries on charges are unfulfilled.
- Photographic evidence provided by leaseholders has been persistently ignored.
- Procedures are so poor in many cases that dirt and grime have built up to unacceptable levels. Persistent complaints about these procedures have been ignored.
- Charges for caretaking have increased for all leaseholders by as much as 300% with no visible increase in standards.
- On smaller estates charges are applied regardless of far lesser requirements
- On large estates, smaller blocks may pay more than larger blocks
- There is still no contract in place for cleaning bins, resulting in flies on all balconies on estates with bin chambers
- Pest Control: infestations do not get sorted until there are enough infested flats to do a block treatment, and we are charged whether it is successful or not.
- Inspections adhere to low standards and are marked high.
- If a resident attends an inspection they may point out repairs required that are otherwise missed. These are marked up to be actioned then recorded as done when they are not.
- Reports are not available to view on website as claimed.
- A charge for sweeping was removed from Caretaking to be added to Grounds Maintenance – Caretaking charge went up anyway, as did Grounds Maintenance
- No provision of maps telling us where work is to take place. Work is now done according to need (eg grass height) – breaches of contract have already taken place. Leasehold Services said Estate Maps would be online by April. They are not.
- No effective monitoring of grounds maintenance contract, no inspecting during winter months (no contract was in place this past Winter)
- Leaseholders must pay their own building insurance as well as a charge to Lewisham. Residents often asked to claim on their own insurance because Lewisham don’t want to claim on theirs when it is usually their fault that a claim must be made.
- Antisocial Behaviour charged to Leaseholders on estates and not to those on street properties. The Scrutiny Committee recommends its removal as a charge. It Is totally ineffective (as proved by a recent focus group).
- Too much money spent on Lewisham Homes branding. A proliferation of institutional signs bearing the logo and Homes magazine are perceived by many as propaganda, serving no useful purpose.
- The website is difficult to use (the search facility is poor)
- Enquiries are only responded to when a councillor is copied in.
- Letters to Andrew Potter, Adam Barratt, and other senior managers are rarely replied to (also letters to the Mayor). A letter from Joan Ruddock to Potter was replied to by the Council’s PR Head.
- Complaints via the Complaints Team about service levels are forwarded to Leasehold Services who spend so long ‘investigating’ that the complainant gives up and the Complaint is deemed closed.
- Leasehold Services hinder rather than help to obtain information about services and do not want us to talk to other services.
- These meetings with the Audit Commission were not publicised until one day before via Homes magazine. A handful of residents were contacted directly. Those wanting to attend who are awaiting transfer to L&Q whilst experiencing an abysmal level of service were denied access.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Would you pay more for a 'proper' service?
A small group of leaseholders from Crossfields, St John's Vale and Sydenham Hill, met with the Audit Commission on Tuesday 29th June. The AC had already met the night before with a handpicked group who we suspect had been personally invited by Lewisham Homes two weeks before.
We were there because I had received Homes magazine on Friday 18th June, and had actually read it. On page 7 was an announcement that we could meet with the Audit Commission to have our say. I called the number in the afternoon, wary of not being able to get on the list if I wasn't quick enough. Adele Stevens, Communications Manager, took my name down for a leaseholders' meeting with the Audit Commission on Monday 28th. Tenants were to meet them the week before this, which seemed very short notice.
Over that weekend I emailed leaseholders in St John's Vale and Sydenham. The guys in Sydenham couldn't go (my main contact was off on holiday), but the St John's Vale team called Adele on Monday and were told the meeting was full. Rather audaciously they wrote to the Audit Commission and asked if they could meet somehow. Another meeting was arranged for them through Adele for Tuesday 29th. They were asked for names and in addition to their own team, they put forward myself and Crossfields Repairs rep Raphael.
So we went on Tuesday. We were joined by one of the guys from Sydenham. He had decided to foregoe a special family event to attend but when he'd called to add himself to the list, he'd been told he couldn't attend because his estate was due to be transferred to London & Quadrant Housing Association in October (in the meantime, his estate has been run into the ground)...He decided to turn up anyway.
The meeting started 20 minutes late (because the two chaps from the AC were stuck in another meeting), was supposed to last an hour, and ran on by 20 minutes....
--------------
Near the end of a very tense meeting (due to time limits more than anything), the Audit guys asked us if we would be prepared to pay more for a better service.
We were baffled by this question. Lewisham Homes keep telling us that we are getting a 'great' service...and we keep having to pay more for it with no visible improvements...and we were meeting with the Audit Commission that evening to tell them that we were paying too much for a third rate service. If services were as First Rate as Lewisham Homes claim, why would we want to pay more?
Was there a Triple Gold Standard about to be introduced that everyone including tenants would benefit from but that only leaseholders would pay for? Or would tenant's rents go up proportionally? What a strange question. What was wrong with just plain old Silver, a good enough standard for everyone, rather than the bit of old tin for council house scum everyone's getting now?
The leaseholder from Sydenham pointed out that Glendales had promised to maintain our grounds to the same standards as our local parks. If we paid more, would we get a better service than that? Rose gardens on every estate? Flowerbeds bursting with colour? Fountains in courtyards? (steady on)...
In Caretaking, Programmed Inspections rate the quality of service as almost 100% every time despite the grime, dirt, cobwebs, flies and stains (which are often noted, and have to be rectified within a week or two, but still there is a great score because, well, basically, there's no litter about). (Search Caretaking Standards on LH website and see what you get)...
It should be noted that at St John's Vale they are happy with the level of caretaking – they only have 16 flats and there is little to do. They wanted to know why they were paying for three hours' work a week when a perfectly adequate job was presently being done in half an hour.
Their attempts to raise queries like that over the past couple of years only to be met with lies and obfuscation means that their experience serves as a microcosmic version of our own – where we have 365 flats and similar problems are amplified massively. The problems experienced on a tiny estate reverberate across the borough.
The Audit Commission guys didn't seem to be very puzzled by their own observation that at the meeting the night before, participants were scoring Lewisham Homes quite high...(mostly 8 out of 10, apparently, as opposed to our own average 3/10). We too were puzzled, although I knew from a couple of those people (who voted 5/10) that they had been personally invited to the meeting by Lewisham Homes...The AC guys said it must be that some estates are better than others. (Oi MATE! Our estate is one of the best, considering its location in the middle of Deptford, and it's not thanks to Lewisham Homes!!!)
The problem with the question "Would we pay more for a better service?" is that last year we were asked to pay around £800 in advance for a totally crap service. This year we were asked to pay much less in advance for a service we're still not getting, but my bill has gone up 44% overall in three years, but the only difference I've seen is the branding of the delivery.
Why is it crap? See my next post...
We were there because I had received Homes magazine on Friday 18th June, and had actually read it. On page 7 was an announcement that we could meet with the Audit Commission to have our say. I called the number in the afternoon, wary of not being able to get on the list if I wasn't quick enough. Adele Stevens, Communications Manager, took my name down for a leaseholders' meeting with the Audit Commission on Monday 28th. Tenants were to meet them the week before this, which seemed very short notice.
Over that weekend I emailed leaseholders in St John's Vale and Sydenham. The guys in Sydenham couldn't go (my main contact was off on holiday), but the St John's Vale team called Adele on Monday and were told the meeting was full. Rather audaciously they wrote to the Audit Commission and asked if they could meet somehow. Another meeting was arranged for them through Adele for Tuesday 29th. They were asked for names and in addition to their own team, they put forward myself and Crossfields Repairs rep Raphael.
So we went on Tuesday. We were joined by one of the guys from Sydenham. He had decided to foregoe a special family event to attend but when he'd called to add himself to the list, he'd been told he couldn't attend because his estate was due to be transferred to London & Quadrant Housing Association in October (in the meantime, his estate has been run into the ground)...He decided to turn up anyway.
The meeting started 20 minutes late (because the two chaps from the AC were stuck in another meeting), was supposed to last an hour, and ran on by 20 minutes....
--------------
Near the end of a very tense meeting (due to time limits more than anything), the Audit guys asked us if we would be prepared to pay more for a better service.
We were baffled by this question. Lewisham Homes keep telling us that we are getting a 'great' service...and we keep having to pay more for it with no visible improvements...and we were meeting with the Audit Commission that evening to tell them that we were paying too much for a third rate service. If services were as First Rate as Lewisham Homes claim, why would we want to pay more?
Was there a Triple Gold Standard about to be introduced that everyone including tenants would benefit from but that only leaseholders would pay for? Or would tenant's rents go up proportionally? What a strange question. What was wrong with just plain old Silver, a good enough standard for everyone, rather than the bit of old tin for council house scum everyone's getting now?
The leaseholder from Sydenham pointed out that Glendales had promised to maintain our grounds to the same standards as our local parks. If we paid more, would we get a better service than that? Rose gardens on every estate? Flowerbeds bursting with colour? Fountains in courtyards? (steady on)...
In Caretaking, Programmed Inspections rate the quality of service as almost 100% every time despite the grime, dirt, cobwebs, flies and stains (which are often noted, and have to be rectified within a week or two, but still there is a great score because, well, basically, there's no litter about). (Search Caretaking Standards on LH website and see what you get)...
It should be noted that at St John's Vale they are happy with the level of caretaking – they only have 16 flats and there is little to do. They wanted to know why they were paying for three hours' work a week when a perfectly adequate job was presently being done in half an hour.
Their attempts to raise queries like that over the past couple of years only to be met with lies and obfuscation means that their experience serves as a microcosmic version of our own – where we have 365 flats and similar problems are amplified massively. The problems experienced on a tiny estate reverberate across the borough.
The Audit Commission guys didn't seem to be very puzzled by their own observation that at the meeting the night before, participants were scoring Lewisham Homes quite high...(mostly 8 out of 10, apparently, as opposed to our own average 3/10). We too were puzzled, although I knew from a couple of those people (who voted 5/10) that they had been personally invited to the meeting by Lewisham Homes...The AC guys said it must be that some estates are better than others. (Oi MATE! Our estate is one of the best, considering its location in the middle of Deptford, and it's not thanks to Lewisham Homes!!!)
The problem with the question "Would we pay more for a better service?" is that last year we were asked to pay around £800 in advance for a totally crap service. This year we were asked to pay much less in advance for a service we're still not getting, but my bill has gone up 44% overall in three years, but the only difference I've seen is the branding of the delivery.
Why is it crap? See my next post...
Glendales working overtime
The Audit Commission are in town (see previous post).
That is probably why our estate is not looking so bad at the moment. They're here today – both the Audit Commission AND Glendales. A guy from Glendales told a resident that they don't know what they're supposed to be doing since they don't have any Estate Plans to tell them which areas they're supposed to cut and work on.
We were told in March at a Leaseholder Improvement Group Meeting: "Good news! A contract has been signed with Glendales to take over Grounds Maintenance. Residents will be able to view Estate Plans online on the Lewisham Homes website next month to see where they are supposed to be working on your estate!" Hurrah!
Nothing to view on the website to date though. It also appears Glendales have nothing to look at either. Anyway, they've been pruning the bushes like crazy this week.
They were last here just over a week before, on 17th June, cutting grass – to within an inch of its life, since only two weeks before on 3rd June they had cut the same grass (although they left out the Holden lawn that time).
That was just a week after an Estate Inspection on 27th May when we showed the inspector the height of the grass.
FRONT OF HOLDEN 25th May 2010: Normally they would cut around the spring daffodils, but in this picture above you can see these daffs are well past their sell-by date. They have completely died.
BACK OF HOLDEN 25th May 2010: the grass has reached a height of 17 inches (also measured by the inspector on 27th May) – we understand the maximum height should be 2.5 inches. Glendales' new contract allows them to work on the basis of 'need' rather than frequency, ie, when grass gets to a certain height, it must be cut.
The last time Glendales were here before that was 8th March when they did a bit of leaf blowing...The Glendales guys love their tools, but the leaf blowing machine is a pointless waste of time much of the time when it is windy. I've seen them blowing a load of leaves to one area and then the wind blow it back and then they do it again.
The boys justified their use this time because the daffs were coming through quite high and a rake would be less clever, though actually they went on about the 0-60mph effect of the leaf blowing machine more than anything else. As I said, the Glendales team love their powertools and can't wait to use 'em, especially at 8am in the morning so that they can wake up and spite the lazy doleys on the estate – and the shift workers they never conceived of.
There were a helluva lot of leaves. But then the team hadn't been seen for months.
We still don't have specifications or estate plans, but it appears, neither do Glendales.
(At least we have dated pictures, which, to their shame, neither Glendales, nor Lewisham Homes have)
Stair Cleaning History
This week the Audit Commission have been inspecting Lewisham Homes.
For the past two weeks the caretakers seem to have been working overtime to clean things up a bit.
And a special caretaking team came in at the end of May and spent the week cleaning the stairs...
Who for? Not for us!!!
We wish the Audit Commission came every year, then perhaps we'd have and environment to be proud of.
Last Monday and Tuesday the Holden House caretaker was out on both days cleaning the stairs. The normal cleaning day is Wednesday, but on the Monday he did the normal perfunctory routine with the mop and bucket of cold water. The next day he was accompanied by another guy in white overalls who watched while our guy used a plastic bristled broom to really scrub our filthy old stairs. This was the result:
The stairs didn't look much better, and the caretaker was unable to get to the areas between the bannister uprights with his six inch broom. Also, having worked up a bit of a dirty lather, much of it was spread to the unpainted concrete surfaces of the balconies, which are now quite badly stained on all floors.
The dirty lather also dripped down the sides and stained the paintwork there.
Today, more caretaking operatives were working on the stairs, attempting to clean the areas between the bannister uprights. They were at it all day and I spoke to one of the guys, Jim, who explained that first they were using a scrubbing brush with a special cleaner that would lift the dirt.
Then another guy was a couple of flights behind him with a vacuum cleaner...
Both were critical of the surface, which was laid over ten years ago. Jim suggested it was Health & Safety gone mad that had led to a paint surface mixed with grit to prevent slipping. Such a surface was impossible to keep clean, he said, and he thought the best thing to do would be to remove it, but he wasn't sure how. He later set about some already chipped areas with a knife and removed quite a bit from the first mezzanine landing, in an attempt to see how easily it might come off.
I suggested that their cleaning operation was just a precurser to the stairs being painted again because last October Leasehold Services told us they wanted to trial a new paint surface, but we'd said the stairs were too filthy to take any sort of paint...(they didn't go ahead with it and actually blamed us for holding them up). He said he'd seen some new paint surfaces over at Honor Oak and that they were no better and would not last. But he knew nothing of any plans to paint our stairs.
This exercise, which is apparently going to be done on all the blocks that have painted stairs, must surely be in advance of the AUDIT COMMISSION's visit next month, when Lewisham Homes will be tested on whether they have done enough to qualify for Decent Homes government money – if any is still available.
27 APRIL 2009 (http://crossfields.blogspot.com/p/wall-of-shame.html - SCROLL DOWN)
Just after cleaning...with one bucket of cold water and a mop...These photos are dated January, February and March 2010, taken at Holden, Wilshaw and Farrer. The important thing to note here is that the unpainted stairs are just as badly stained.
For the past two weeks the caretakers seem to have been working overtime to clean things up a bit.
And a special caretaking team came in at the end of May and spent the week cleaning the stairs...
Who for? Not for us!!!
We wish the Audit Commission came every year, then perhaps we'd have and environment to be proud of.
Stairs finally get a bit of a clean
Last Monday and Tuesday the Holden House caretaker was out on both days cleaning the stairs. The normal cleaning day is Wednesday, but on the Monday he did the normal perfunctory routine with the mop and bucket of cold water. The next day he was accompanied by another guy in white overalls who watched while our guy used a plastic bristled broom to really scrub our filthy old stairs. This was the result:
The stairs didn't look much better, and the caretaker was unable to get to the areas between the bannister uprights with his six inch broom. Also, having worked up a bit of a dirty lather, much of it was spread to the unpainted concrete surfaces of the balconies, which are now quite badly stained on all floors.
The dirty lather also dripped down the sides and stained the paintwork there.
Today, more caretaking operatives were working on the stairs, attempting to clean the areas between the bannister uprights. They were at it all day and I spoke to one of the guys, Jim, who explained that first they were using a scrubbing brush with a special cleaner that would lift the dirt.
Then another guy was a couple of flights behind him with a vacuum cleaner...
Both were critical of the surface, which was laid over ten years ago. Jim suggested it was Health & Safety gone mad that had led to a paint surface mixed with grit to prevent slipping. Such a surface was impossible to keep clean, he said, and he thought the best thing to do would be to remove it, but he wasn't sure how. He later set about some already chipped areas with a knife and removed quite a bit from the first mezzanine landing, in an attempt to see how easily it might come off.
I suggested that their cleaning operation was just a precurser to the stairs being painted again because last October Leasehold Services told us they wanted to trial a new paint surface, but we'd said the stairs were too filthy to take any sort of paint...(they didn't go ahead with it and actually blamed us for holding them up). He said he'd seen some new paint surfaces over at Honor Oak and that they were no better and would not last. But he knew nothing of any plans to paint our stairs.
This exercise, which is apparently going to be done on all the blocks that have painted stairs, must surely be in advance of the AUDIT COMMISSION's visit next month, when Lewisham Homes will be tested on whether they have done enough to qualify for Decent Homes government money – if any is still available.
27 APRIL 2009 (http://crossfields.blogspot.com/p/wall-of-shame.html - SCROLL DOWN)
Just after cleaning...with one bucket of cold water and a mop...These photos are dated January, February and March 2010, taken at Holden, Wilshaw and Farrer. The important thing to note here is that the unpainted stairs are just as badly stained.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Lewisham Homes and the Audit Commission
On page 7 of the latest Homes magazine, tenants and leaseholders are invited to give the Audit Commission our views on the services provided by Lewisham Homes, via three focus groups to take place over the next two weeks. Please ring Adele Stevens on 020 8613 7651 if you want to take part.
I did. Apparently there are only two focus groups, one for tenants and one for leaseholders, and the leaseholder one is at the Town Hall on 28th June...the tenant's one is probably next week – not much notice, eh?
Number Crunching
Meanwhile I was interested to read on page 9 the results of a National Housing Federation survey of residents, carried out on Lewisham Homes' behalf. "The results show that we are seeing results..."
At the end of this article it says "See more performance information online, or register to take part in surveys and have your say!" But if you go to the Lewisham Homes website, you will be hard put to find where on the site you can do this.
Meanwhile, the Council's Housing Select Committee found a less rosy picture in an independent survey on the service provided to leaseholders:
71% were dissatisfied with the standard of major works carried out
74% were dissatisfied with the standard of repairs
67% felt charges for repairs and maintenance were unfair
82% felt charges for major works were unfair
70% were dissatisfied with the billing process
64% felt their housing manager did not keep them informed about repairs and maintenance
Perhaps leaseholders are a more whingeing bunch!
(The Committee's report can be downloaded here)
I did. Apparently there are only two focus groups, one for tenants and one for leaseholders, and the leaseholder one is at the Town Hall on 28th June...the tenant's one is probably next week – not much notice, eh?
Number Crunching
Meanwhile I was interested to read on page 9 the results of a National Housing Federation survey of residents, carried out on Lewisham Homes' behalf. "The results show that we are seeing results..."
At the end of this article it says "See more performance information online, or register to take part in surveys and have your say!" But if you go to the Lewisham Homes website, you will be hard put to find where on the site you can do this.
Meanwhile, the Council's Housing Select Committee found a less rosy picture in an independent survey on the service provided to leaseholders:
71% were dissatisfied with the standard of major works carried out
74% were dissatisfied with the standard of repairs
67% felt charges for repairs and maintenance were unfair
82% felt charges for major works were unfair
70% were dissatisfied with the billing process
64% felt their housing manager did not keep them informed about repairs and maintenance
Perhaps leaseholders are a more whingeing bunch!
(The Committee's report can be downloaded here)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Dear Lewisham Homes...(letters from Sydenham Hill)
The following emails were sent over the past three weeks by representatives of Sydenham Hill TRA to Lewisham Homes (copied to various officers), and to the Mayor and councillors. They reflect our own efforts to get an answer out of Lewisham Homes...
Dear Lewisham Homes,
The Sydenham Hill TRA would like to schedule a meeting asap ( but no later than 18 June 2010) with Adam Barrett and the Heads of Caretaking Services, Repairs and Grounds Maintenance to discuss a way forward with regards to on-going unresolved issues of Estate Management and Service Charges to Leaseholders and Tenants.
Some of these issues are as follows:
1. Inadequate and insufficient Caretaking Services and Unjustifiable High Charges for the service
2. Disrepair on the estate with particular reference to Health andSafety concerns – Silbury Lights, a case in point
3. High charges for the provision of an insufficient Grounds Maintenance Service
4. Extremely poor Supervision and Quality Control of the Services provided leading to very poor Value for Money delivery of the Services which SHOULD NOT be passed on to the Clients – us.
The need for this meeting is urgent and overwhelmingly important.
Kind regards,
Peggy, Sydenham Hill TRA
Subject: Charges for services (4 June 2010)
Dear Lewisham Homes,
I sent you a letter back on 11th March with numerous items raised regarding poor cleaning standards, items gone un repaired even though reported by myself many years prior and raised again and again since that time, poor management of our estate services.
I am still awaiting a reply from you (and/or your supervisor).
The other day I had a final reminder for paying my service charges.
As I have stated in the past, I have no problem in paying the service charges if work is actually carried out. I have no intention of going to court over these payments. As such, as soon as I receive your response to my letter, I shall make arrangements to pay the outstanding bill by monthly direct debit.
To get a bit more information about this, please see the email (above) from Peggy Amoako (TRA secretary). You can see that we have actively been pursuing Lewisham Homes regarding service charges and poor standards.
You can also view our SyTRA website: www.sydenhamhill.blogspot.com
There are photos and reports plus other information. I hope you can see that we have been proactive in chasing the levels of service we deserve/pay for!
I look forward to your response.
Matt
Dear Steve Bullock,
I have been advised to bring the issue of poor standards and overcharging in Sydenham Hill estate (managed by Lewisham Homes) to your attention.
I am an active resident, taking much of my free time pursuing Lewisham Homes, Lewisham Council and attending meetings for the TRA, Leaseholders Improvement meetings, ASB forums and also on the L&Q Shadow board prior to the stock transfer which will be in full swing by Autumn.
To give you a brief back ground: I have lived on Sydenham Hill Estate since 2006. During which time I have repeatedly written to the numerous management agencies we have had for our estate. I have also written to my councillor (Alex Feakes, who just to note has not replied to any emails sent regarding these issues for more than 2 years!), my MP, Lewisham Homes Leasehold Services Dept, Technical repairs dept,Caretaking dept and our estate rep, to name but a few!
I have never received an adequate response to my complaints about the extremely poor standards in caretaking and maintenance we all receive, despite being charged exorbitantly each year (more than a 400% increase since 2006, and standards have actually slipped since then!).
We tried our hardest to combat this injustice, within the SyTRA and other focus groups, but as you can see from the emails above, we are still pursuing the issues.
What we all want, as residents, are three main changes to current arrangements:
1) Fair and accountable pricing of services provided. Completely transparent access to these records, of charges and works carried out.
2) We require that cleaning and maintenance be carried out to the standards set out in Lewisham Homes own documentation. That there be enough cleaners, with enough time to actually be able to provide the services we PAY FOR.
3) For repairs and maintenance to be carried out in a timely fashion, for clear safety hazards to be noted by the caretakers (weekly) and reported by them (e.g. potholes, broken glass, communal lights not working etc).
I wonder if you can help our cause? Email can be sent to me at this email address, you can also check out SyTRA website (blog): www.sydenhamhill.blogspot.com where all recent info and photos are posted.
I look forward to your response.
Matt
Lets face it we are flogging a dead horse.
Lewisham homes do not have the Will nor the desire to provide the level of service being charged for. What little they are visibly doing is to help them in achieving the 2* Rating from the audit Commission. We should be entitled to a 50% rebate on Caretaking, repairs, ground maintenance and management charges for at least the last three years.
The charges have been excessive, unreasonable and unjustifiable.
If in doubt please attend the next "Walkabout" and Smell the coffee!!!!!
Regards,
M. Quereshi
Chair SYTRA
Dear Cllr Feakes,
After checking the status of the lights at Silbury House last night, I feel we should at this stage seriously consider getting an external contractor to fix the lights.
They are still not all working, some don't have fittings at all, and little or no activity by Lewisham Homes has been noted of late. Despite some recent help from Alex Slattery and his team, it seems they are not able to complete the work.
The lights were reported as faulty 6 years ago be me (and no doubt other residents as well), the issue has been raised again and again repeatedly with Genevieve Emanuel (leaseholder services) and many other departments dealing with repairs and technical issues since 2006.
It seems, at this stage, that no further effort by us can make Lewisham Homes complete a satisfactory job, so I feel we should get an external contractor in.
On top of the lights, there are of course many other issues still not up to standard. Namely the cleaning standards (worse than ever), safety issues: pot holes (countless and real hazards), broken glass pains, the poor quality of tenants put here by Lewisham Homes and Council (dumping, fly-tipping and general antisocial behaviour) and of course the general state of disrepair of the whole estate. I for one am not happy to be paying £800 per annum for the services we receive, I believe I can speak for the whole estate with these sentiments.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Kind regards
Matt
Cllr Feakes replied (14th June 2010):
I've escalated the problems on the estate with the Head of Housing at the town hall. I hope that the additional focus that this should give on to the managers of the estate will yield some better results.
I know that that you have had Lewisham Homes come down and do a walk about on the estate and in Silbury House. It may be worthwhile getting the Head of Housing down as well soon to see the problems for themselves - please let me know if this is something you would like me to organise.
Kind regards
Alex
.................................................................................................................................................
Subject: Sydenham Hill Request TRA Meeting with Adam Barrett (4 June 2010)
Dear Lewisham Homes,
The Sydenham Hill TRA would like to schedule a meeting asap ( but no later than 18 June 2010) with Adam Barrett and the Heads of Caretaking Services, Repairs and Grounds Maintenance to discuss a way forward with regards to on-going unresolved issues of Estate Management and Service Charges to Leaseholders and Tenants.
Some of these issues are as follows:
1. Inadequate and insufficient Caretaking Services and Unjustifiable High Charges for the service
2. Disrepair on the estate with particular reference to Health andSafety concerns – Silbury Lights, a case in point
3. High charges for the provision of an insufficient Grounds Maintenance Service
4. Extremely poor Supervision and Quality Control of the Services provided leading to very poor Value for Money delivery of the Services which SHOULD NOT be passed on to the Clients – us.
The need for this meeting is urgent and overwhelmingly important.
Kind regards,
Peggy, Sydenham Hill TRA
.................................................................................................................................................
Dear Lewisham Homes,
I sent you a letter back on 11th March with numerous items raised regarding poor cleaning standards, items gone un repaired even though reported by myself many years prior and raised again and again since that time, poor management of our estate services.
I am still awaiting a reply from you (and/or your supervisor).
The other day I had a final reminder for paying my service charges.
As I have stated in the past, I have no problem in paying the service charges if work is actually carried out. I have no intention of going to court over these payments. As such, as soon as I receive your response to my letter, I shall make arrangements to pay the outstanding bill by monthly direct debit.
To get a bit more information about this, please see the email (above) from Peggy Amoako (TRA secretary). You can see that we have actively been pursuing Lewisham Homes regarding service charges and poor standards.
You can also view our SyTRA website: www.sydenhamhill.blogspot.com
There are photos and reports plus other information. I hope you can see that we have been proactive in chasing the levels of service we deserve/pay for!
I look forward to your response.
Matt
.................................................................................................................................................
Subject: Charges for services (7 June 2010)
Dear Steve Bullock,
I have been advised to bring the issue of poor standards and overcharging in Sydenham Hill estate (managed by Lewisham Homes) to your attention.
I am an active resident, taking much of my free time pursuing Lewisham Homes, Lewisham Council and attending meetings for the TRA, Leaseholders Improvement meetings, ASB forums and also on the L&Q Shadow board prior to the stock transfer which will be in full swing by Autumn.
To give you a brief back ground: I have lived on Sydenham Hill Estate since 2006. During which time I have repeatedly written to the numerous management agencies we have had for our estate. I have also written to my councillor (Alex Feakes, who just to note has not replied to any emails sent regarding these issues for more than 2 years!), my MP, Lewisham Homes Leasehold Services Dept, Technical repairs dept,Caretaking dept and our estate rep, to name but a few!
I have never received an adequate response to my complaints about the extremely poor standards in caretaking and maintenance we all receive, despite being charged exorbitantly each year (more than a 400% increase since 2006, and standards have actually slipped since then!).
We tried our hardest to combat this injustice, within the SyTRA and other focus groups, but as you can see from the emails above, we are still pursuing the issues.
What we all want, as residents, are three main changes to current arrangements:
1) Fair and accountable pricing of services provided. Completely transparent access to these records, of charges and works carried out.
2) We require that cleaning and maintenance be carried out to the standards set out in Lewisham Homes own documentation. That there be enough cleaners, with enough time to actually be able to provide the services we PAY FOR.
3) For repairs and maintenance to be carried out in a timely fashion, for clear safety hazards to be noted by the caretakers (weekly) and reported by them (e.g. potholes, broken glass, communal lights not working etc).
I wonder if you can help our cause? Email can be sent to me at this email address, you can also check out SyTRA website (blog): www.sydenhamhill.blogspot.com where all recent info and photos are posted.
I look forward to your response.
Matt
.................................................................................................................................................
Cllr Feakes – who had been copied into the above email – replied on June 11th, promising to chase Lewisham Homes about the outstanding works. He asked if Sydenham Hill leaseholders had received a copy of the REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL'S OBLIGATIONS TO LEASEHOLDERS, that the Scrutiny Committee that he chairs had published in January. (They hadn't...)
................................................................................................................................................. Subject: Charges for Services 12 June 2010
Dear all (leaseholders),
Lets face it we are flogging a dead horse.
Lewisham homes do not have the Will nor the desire to provide the level of service being charged for. What little they are visibly doing is to help them in achieving the 2* Rating from the audit Commission. We should be entitled to a 50% rebate on Caretaking, repairs, ground maintenance and management charges for at least the last three years.
The charges have been excessive, unreasonable and unjustifiable.
If in doubt please attend the next "Walkabout" and Smell the coffee!!!!!
Regards,
M. Quereshi
Chair SYTRA
.................................................................................................................................................
Subject: Sydenham Hill Estate (12 June 2010)
After checking the status of the lights at Silbury House last night, I feel we should at this stage seriously consider getting an external contractor to fix the lights.
They are still not all working, some don't have fittings at all, and little or no activity by Lewisham Homes has been noted of late. Despite some recent help from Alex Slattery and his team, it seems they are not able to complete the work.
The lights were reported as faulty 6 years ago be me (and no doubt other residents as well), the issue has been raised again and again repeatedly with Genevieve Emanuel (leaseholder services) and many other departments dealing with repairs and technical issues since 2006.
It seems, at this stage, that no further effort by us can make Lewisham Homes complete a satisfactory job, so I feel we should get an external contractor in.
On top of the lights, there are of course many other issues still not up to standard. Namely the cleaning standards (worse than ever), safety issues: pot holes (countless and real hazards), broken glass pains, the poor quality of tenants put here by Lewisham Homes and Council (dumping, fly-tipping and general antisocial behaviour) and of course the general state of disrepair of the whole estate. I for one am not happy to be paying £800 per annum for the services we receive, I believe I can speak for the whole estate with these sentiments.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Kind regards
Matt
.................................................................................................................................................
I've escalated the problems on the estate with the Head of Housing at the town hall. I hope that the additional focus that this should give on to the managers of the estate will yield some better results.
I know that that you have had Lewisham Homes come down and do a walk about on the estate and in Silbury House. It may be worthwhile getting the Head of Housing down as well soon to see the problems for themselves - please let me know if this is something you would like me to organise.
Kind regards
Alex
.................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Leaseholder's Rights Seminar - 13 July 2010
This invitation came to me via a rep on Pepys Estate. Unfortunately News on the Block's last reference to Social Housing was in 2007. Oh well...
Leaseholders and residents' associations seminar: Your rights explained - Thursday 13 July 2010
Trowers & Hamlins LLP would like to invite you to the above seminar, held in conjunction with News on the Block on Tuesday 13 July 2010 at our London office, Sceptre Court, 40 Tower Hill, London EC3N 4DX.
The seminar will focus upon the rights granted to leaseholders and leaseholder groups by law. You will hear from speakers including: Nic Shulman of News on the Block (Chair), Geneviève Mariner of Strettons and Director of LEASE, Peter Ward, Michael Donnellan and Leigh Shapiro of Trowers & Hamlins LLP.
Our presentations will cover the following topics:
• Legal rights available to leaseholders
• How to make your rights work for you
• How premiums payable by leaseholders are arrived at
• Practical issues and case studies
Registration will start at 4.30pm for an 5.00pm start. The seminar will end at approximately 6.15pm, and will be followed by drinks, where you will have the opportunity to talk with the speakers and delegates.
For more information about this seminar, please see attached flyer. Please note there is no charge for this seminar.
If you would like to attend please email events@trowers.com no later than Monday 5 July 2010.
Leaseholders and residents' associations seminar: Your rights explained - Thursday 13 July 2010
Trowers & Hamlins LLP would like to invite you to the above seminar, held in conjunction with News on the Block on Tuesday 13 July 2010 at our London office, Sceptre Court, 40 Tower Hill, London EC3N 4DX.
The seminar will focus upon the rights granted to leaseholders and leaseholder groups by law. You will hear from speakers including: Nic Shulman of News on the Block (Chair), Geneviève Mariner of Strettons and Director of LEASE, Peter Ward, Michael Donnellan and Leigh Shapiro of Trowers & Hamlins LLP.
Our presentations will cover the following topics:
• Legal rights available to leaseholders
• How to make your rights work for you
• How premiums payable by leaseholders are arrived at
• Practical issues and case studies
Registration will start at 4.30pm for an 5.00pm start. The seminar will end at approximately 6.15pm, and will be followed by drinks, where you will have the opportunity to talk with the speakers and delegates.
For more information about this seminar, please see attached flyer. Please note there is no charge for this seminar.
If you would like to attend please email events@trowers.com no later than Monday 5 July 2010.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Unanswered queries on Leaseholder Bills (2)
On 20th May I wrote to the Complaints Team regarding unanswered queries to Leasehold Services (one query to Sandra Canham had not even been acknowledged). See previous post.
I had copied the Complaint to Cllr Padmore. Cllr Padmore wrote to Sandra Canham asking for a response. She replied to him and he forwarded her reply to me.
Dear Cllr Padmore,
my apologies for not acknowledging your e-mail. We are still investigating some of the repairs queries raised by Sue Lawes, I am sorry this is taking some time but we do want to provide information in the detail that Sue has requested. We are working with our Repairs Service to achieve this.
regards
Sandy Canham
Head of Leasehold Services
So, is Cllr Padmore my secretary? No, he is not.
I have not had a reply from the Complaints Team to acknowledge the Complaint.
I have not had a reply from anyone.
I had copied the Complaint to Cllr Padmore. Cllr Padmore wrote to Sandra Canham asking for a response. She replied to him and he forwarded her reply to me.
Dear Cllr Padmore,
my apologies for not acknowledging your e-mail. We are still investigating some of the repairs queries raised by Sue Lawes, I am sorry this is taking some time but we do want to provide information in the detail that Sue has requested. We are working with our Repairs Service to achieve this.
regards
Sandy Canham
Head of Leasehold Services
So, is Cllr Padmore my secretary? No, he is not.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Combined Area Panel Meeting, 3 June 2010
Raphael asked me to accompany him to the Combined Area Panel meeting. He is our rep on the Deptford Area Panel, and this meeting held at Goldsmiths was for the three area panels from across the borough (made up of both tenants and leaseholders) to get together with various officers from Lewisham Homes.
As an observer, I didn't have a vote and was discouraged from speaking, but it was very hard to keep my trap shut. It was also the first time I had ever seen the CEO Andrew Potter in person. When Joan Ruddock wrote to him on our behalf last year, the reply came not from him, but from Lesley Seary, Customer Relations Chief for Lewisham Council – so this man has yet to earn my respect.
The meeting was convened by an independent chair, who announced there was a heavy schedule of presentations to get through, so comments on them would be restricted due to time. Subjects could be followed up at the end of the meeting. This was so bloody typical of Lewisham Homes' strategy of strangulating the views of residents that I almost walked out there and then. These meetings are not for us to discuss anything, but are simply a one-way channel for LH to pass down information: not consultation at all.
Matters Arising began with what appears to be a continual occurrence at these meetings, judging from the last minutes – a question on why councillors do not attend. It turns out that LH had only extended the invitation to councillors the day before – although they insisted that councillors have the calendar of dates provided in advance as much as we do. A brand new Labour councillor from Telegraph Hill, Paul Bell, was present however.
Raphael wanted it noted that he had spoken at length at the meeting before last but none of his points had been noted in the minutes. His attempt to have the minutes amended to include his points by going to the Holbeach office with a short write-up of what he had said, had met with failure. Another resident pointed out that requests made at the last meeting for certain items to be on the next agenda had not been met either.
The first presentation was from the Warden Service, explaining how it works. There are only 8 wardens to cover the whole of Deptford and New Cross, which might explain why they're rarely seen (which seemed to be the experience of many of the residents at the meeting). Their hours are 10-6 in winter and 10-10 in summer. A resident asked why not the same hours in winter, and the logic appears to be that wardens' chief job is to be visible (which they wouldn't be in the dark of winter). They are not trained in fitness (as pointed out by a resident) and are not expected to act as law enforcers – that's the job of the police. Raphael asked about duplication of this service with our very own ASB Service, which, he reported, had been roundly condemned as totally ineffectual at a recent Focus Group specifically about the service. Potter explained that there are six ASB Officers, who chief job is to enforce tenancy agreements and they spend most of their time on building cases. Perhaps we would like a presentation on the ASB Service at the next meeting in August? (Oh God, no, not another back-slapping presentation, please).
Presentation on Resident Involvement
Adele Stevens gave a presentation on Resident Involvement. She's a very nice woman, but quite honestly I'm not surprised to hear there are 3000 people on the database (out of a potential 20,000?) but that hardly anyone turned up to the Fun Day. I started to feel like the day dreaming soldier learning about guns in the World War 2 poem by Henry Reed, Naming of Parts, as I gazed out the window at the brilliant blue sky and could vaguely hear the chitter chatter and clink of glasses from the outdoor balcony area of Goldsmiths Union Bar. "Today we have the naming of parts, yesterday we had daily cleaning, and tomorrow we have what to do after firing. But today we have the naming of parts. Japonica glistens like coral in all the neighbouring gardens, and today we have the naming of parts"...
I was awoken from my reverie by the announcement of the next item, which was a presentation by the Head of Estate Services, ex-caretaker, Dave Tutt.
Presentation on Estate Services
Apparently we have 96 caretakers, 2 estate team managers, 8 estate team supervisors, 2 mobile team supervisors and 2 others whose jobs disappeared off the powerpoint presentation before I could write them down. All this lot manage 740 blocks, and are responsible for caretaking and some aspects of the Council's Environment team's work (ie sweeping and bulk household waste removal). I would've thought regular attendees at these meetings already knew all this, as the slide show went through 'WHAT THEY DO!' (which is all available on the website anyway, apparently).
If you didn't know, caretakers' hours are 8-4 Mon-Fri, 8-1 Saturday and 8-12 on Bank Holidays. There will be a new extended service by the 'mobile' staff until 8pm soon, since it had finally been recognised that a lot goes on after 4pm and many residents who go to work often felt like there was no caretaking going on at all since any tidying up done during the day could be completely undone again later in the day...He made it sound like looking after council house residents was like clearing up after a load of toddlers in a nursery. Which is probably true.
I wrote this stuff down because it was information not provided with the meeting Info Pack (which, this month, is 59 pages long and contains most of the presentations in written form, with the inevitable graphs and statistics that LH are so good at, usually with no explanatory keys...not only are these posted out to panel members but an equal tonnage of paper is also used in providing a similar number for the meetings, but there appeared to be about another 30 left over since most folk bring their own copies)...
Tutt talked about Inspections (his 8 estate team supervisors conduct 10 inspections a week...er, I don't think he said whether that was 10 each or between them). Questionnaires had been sent to TRAs about inspections. I've not seen one, though. They were looking at extending inspection times to later in the day so that more residents could attend, and Saturday inspections are available on request. Yeah, yeah, yeah...not happened yet, though, has it.
Tutt sounded agreeable and cuddly when doing his presentation but soon became his usual disagreeable self when it came to questions from the floor. One resident commented on the Bulk Household Waste Removal scheme not working very well in his area. In fact they seemed to have more waste hanging about than ever before, and suspect flytipping. Mr Tutt refuted the idea that the scheme wasn't working and suggested this might be a local minor problem peculiar to the gentleman – the usual old chestnut pulled by Sandra Canham: 'see me at the end of the meeting about your peculiar little localised problem'. When other residents concurred it was happening elsewhere, we were more or less told to shut up. Before the Chair hastily stepped in to get another question from the floor, Tutt conceded there might be a problem with local tradesmen knowing they could dump stuff and that the council would clean it up. They had advertised the service widely, he said (but one panel member said she had never heard of it). I was going to mention that there were no details about it in the last newsletter (that came with the service charge bills) but the Chair moved on.
Raphael wanted to know if Mr Tutt could explain what was meant by 'cleaning', and got short shrift from Tutt, who has been asked this question many times before by Raphael, although perhaps not in front of this particular audience. Raphael was referring to cleaning 65 stairs with a mop and a bucket of cold water, and began waving photocopied images of filthy stairs at other panel members, but Tutt got nasty. "I don't hear complaints from other people on your estate about the cleaning, it's just you going on about it." When I chipped in to support Raphael, the Chair, sensing discord, rapidly moved on and we were silenced.
Next up was a presentation on Repairs that was supposed to come from Chris Cuttleton, but Andrew Potter delivered it himself, since Chris couldn't be there "and I've been with him all day, so I know the stuff." Although he doesn't look like either, he sounds a lot like a cross between Peter Mandelson and David Cameron. A consumate politician. Anyway, his presentation was short and mainly referred to the new texting service available to tenants who report repairs in their homes, and that this service will be extended to caretakers reporting communal repairs.
Raphael weighed in with our perennial leasehold question about NOT KNOWING WHAT WE PAY FOR because we don't know what repairs are being done and it's not good enough that only caretakers are told when jobs are being done (and then only if they report them). Whilst Raphael was building up a head of steam on the subject, Potter was laughing and saying "I can answer that, and I think it will be an answer you like" (you can imagine Mandelson saying the same thing to Jeremy Paxman)...
POTTER MAKES AN ANNOUNCEMENT. HUSHED SILENCE PLEASE...
Potter said:
- if we want to know what repairs are going on, this information can be provided on request.
- very soon, we will be able to view all repair orders online.
I pointed out that only a couple of weeks ago Sandra Canham had told us this was IMPOSSIBLE, and that she'd been saying this forever. Raphael said we'd always been told this would be TOO EXPENSIVE to implement. Potter laughed and said OF COURSE it has cost implications. The Chair stepped in and silenced us again so we didn't get to ask, for instance, what was the timeline on the latter, since 'very soon' in Lewisham Homes World usually means 2 or 3 years? (And anyway, hadn't they been ordered to do this by the Council's Scrutiny Committee in its Recommendations for Leasehold Services?). Also, if I'm going to start emailing Mick Duncan or Alex Slattery once a week to find out what repairs are going on on my estate, wouldn't it make sense for them to just formalise the procedure and send me (or the TRA) weekly reports?
The meeting came to an end with a couple of pertinent comments from two panel members:
A North West Area Panelist (a leaseholder) commented that it should be noted that when we make requests for things to be on the agenda, that these requests are met in full. The panel had asked for Green Team to do a presentation at this meeting, but this hadn't happened. He also wanted it noted that the Lumber Collection Scheme doesn't seem to be working and that it was wrong to have assumed that the gentlemen who raised a question about it was told it was a local problem to him only.
A Deptford Area Panelist (a tenant) commented that LH should reconsider the purpose of these meetings. She understood they might work in the same way as the Complaints Procedure. For instance, when you make a complaint, if it is not sorted, it proceeds to a 2nd stage, and then to a 3rd if it is still not sorted and where it must be resolved. Likewise, as she saw it, one might bring a problem to a TRA meeting, and if the LH officer present (or not present she seemed to infer) did not get the problem sorted by the next meeting, you took this problem on to Special Interest groups, and finally the Area Panel meetings. But if these meetings continued to be congested with too many (sometimes pointless) presentations with no time for discussion and comments among members then problems had no chance of ever being resolved. Panel members should be respected as having the sense not to waste the meeting's time on highly localised issues, so it should not be assumed that when a panel member brings up a local problem that it was not widespread across the borough.
I could've kissed that woman. Crossfields Leaseholders will recall how when we tried to meet with Lewisham Homes back in June 2009 to resolve issues of overcharging, Lewisham Homes set the agenda with an astonishing time wasting hour and a half devoted to a presentation on Antisocial Behaviour. They have been using this technique to silence residents for far too long.
By the way, I may have missed something out in this account. I have made no mention of the buffet provided, most of which was left behind, although I think Raphael snaffled a salmon sandwich for his tea later. Also, Adam Barrett, Head of Resources, was present at the meeting but I can't remember if he actually gave a presentation or said very much at all. Apologies if his unremarkable contribution has gone unreported. No doubt all the highly paid staff present had the next day off (time off in lieu) for a conveniently long weekend.
And this you can see is the bolt. The purpose of this is to open the breech, as you see. We can slide it rapidly backwards and forwards: we call this Easing the spring. And rapidly backwards and forwards the early bees are assaulting and fumbling the flowers: they call it easing the Spring.
The whole procedure is flabberghasting. How are we doing? they ask. You said, we did, they say. Any fool could predict many of the things residents come up with at these meetings, most of them are common sense ideas that a manager with half a brain should be able to foresee when planning a service. Perhaps instead of wasting all our unpaid time in endless unproductive meetings, they should be made to come and live on one of our estates for three months and find out for themselves...
As an observer, I didn't have a vote and was discouraged from speaking, but it was very hard to keep my trap shut. It was also the first time I had ever seen the CEO Andrew Potter in person. When Joan Ruddock wrote to him on our behalf last year, the reply came not from him, but from Lesley Seary, Customer Relations Chief for Lewisham Council – so this man has yet to earn my respect.
The meeting was convened by an independent chair, who announced there was a heavy schedule of presentations to get through, so comments on them would be restricted due to time. Subjects could be followed up at the end of the meeting. This was so bloody typical of Lewisham Homes' strategy of strangulating the views of residents that I almost walked out there and then. These meetings are not for us to discuss anything, but are simply a one-way channel for LH to pass down information: not consultation at all.
Where are the councillors and what is not minuted?
Matters Arising began with what appears to be a continual occurrence at these meetings, judging from the last minutes – a question on why councillors do not attend. It turns out that LH had only extended the invitation to councillors the day before – although they insisted that councillors have the calendar of dates provided in advance as much as we do. A brand new Labour councillor from Telegraph Hill, Paul Bell, was present however.
Raphael wanted it noted that he had spoken at length at the meeting before last but none of his points had been noted in the minutes. His attempt to have the minutes amended to include his points by going to the Holbeach office with a short write-up of what he had said, had met with failure. Another resident pointed out that requests made at the last meeting for certain items to be on the next agenda had not been met either.
Presentation from the Warden Service
The first presentation was from the Warden Service, explaining how it works. There are only 8 wardens to cover the whole of Deptford and New Cross, which might explain why they're rarely seen (which seemed to be the experience of many of the residents at the meeting). Their hours are 10-6 in winter and 10-10 in summer. A resident asked why not the same hours in winter, and the logic appears to be that wardens' chief job is to be visible (which they wouldn't be in the dark of winter). They are not trained in fitness (as pointed out by a resident) and are not expected to act as law enforcers – that's the job of the police. Raphael asked about duplication of this service with our very own ASB Service, which, he reported, had been roundly condemned as totally ineffectual at a recent Focus Group specifically about the service. Potter explained that there are six ASB Officers, who chief job is to enforce tenancy agreements and they spend most of their time on building cases. Perhaps we would like a presentation on the ASB Service at the next meeting in August? (Oh God, no, not another back-slapping presentation, please).
Presentation on Resident Involvement
Adele Stevens gave a presentation on Resident Involvement. She's a very nice woman, but quite honestly I'm not surprised to hear there are 3000 people on the database (out of a potential 20,000?) but that hardly anyone turned up to the Fun Day. I started to feel like the day dreaming soldier learning about guns in the World War 2 poem by Henry Reed, Naming of Parts, as I gazed out the window at the brilliant blue sky and could vaguely hear the chitter chatter and clink of glasses from the outdoor balcony area of Goldsmiths Union Bar. "Today we have the naming of parts, yesterday we had daily cleaning, and tomorrow we have what to do after firing. But today we have the naming of parts. Japonica glistens like coral in all the neighbouring gardens, and today we have the naming of parts"...
I was awoken from my reverie by the announcement of the next item, which was a presentation by the Head of Estate Services, ex-caretaker, Dave Tutt.
Presentation on Estate Services
Apparently we have 96 caretakers, 2 estate team managers, 8 estate team supervisors, 2 mobile team supervisors and 2 others whose jobs disappeared off the powerpoint presentation before I could write them down. All this lot manage 740 blocks, and are responsible for caretaking and some aspects of the Council's Environment team's work (ie sweeping and bulk household waste removal). I would've thought regular attendees at these meetings already knew all this, as the slide show went through 'WHAT THEY DO!' (which is all available on the website anyway, apparently).
If you didn't know, caretakers' hours are 8-4 Mon-Fri, 8-1 Saturday and 8-12 on Bank Holidays. There will be a new extended service by the 'mobile' staff until 8pm soon, since it had finally been recognised that a lot goes on after 4pm and many residents who go to work often felt like there was no caretaking going on at all since any tidying up done during the day could be completely undone again later in the day...He made it sound like looking after council house residents was like clearing up after a load of toddlers in a nursery. Which is probably true.
I wrote this stuff down because it was information not provided with the meeting Info Pack (which, this month, is 59 pages long and contains most of the presentations in written form, with the inevitable graphs and statistics that LH are so good at, usually with no explanatory keys...not only are these posted out to panel members but an equal tonnage of paper is also used in providing a similar number for the meetings, but there appeared to be about another 30 left over since most folk bring their own copies)...
Tutt talked about Inspections (his 8 estate team supervisors conduct 10 inspections a week...er, I don't think he said whether that was 10 each or between them). Questionnaires had been sent to TRAs about inspections. I've not seen one, though. They were looking at extending inspection times to later in the day so that more residents could attend, and Saturday inspections are available on request. Yeah, yeah, yeah...not happened yet, though, has it.
Tutt sounded agreeable and cuddly when doing his presentation but soon became his usual disagreeable self when it came to questions from the floor. One resident commented on the Bulk Household Waste Removal scheme not working very well in his area. In fact they seemed to have more waste hanging about than ever before, and suspect flytipping. Mr Tutt refuted the idea that the scheme wasn't working and suggested this might be a local minor problem peculiar to the gentleman – the usual old chestnut pulled by Sandra Canham: 'see me at the end of the meeting about your peculiar little localised problem'. When other residents concurred it was happening elsewhere, we were more or less told to shut up. Before the Chair hastily stepped in to get another question from the floor, Tutt conceded there might be a problem with local tradesmen knowing they could dump stuff and that the council would clean it up. They had advertised the service widely, he said (but one panel member said she had never heard of it). I was going to mention that there were no details about it in the last newsletter (that came with the service charge bills) but the Chair moved on.
Raphael wanted to know if Mr Tutt could explain what was meant by 'cleaning', and got short shrift from Tutt, who has been asked this question many times before by Raphael, although perhaps not in front of this particular audience. Raphael was referring to cleaning 65 stairs with a mop and a bucket of cold water, and began waving photocopied images of filthy stairs at other panel members, but Tutt got nasty. "I don't hear complaints from other people on your estate about the cleaning, it's just you going on about it." When I chipped in to support Raphael, the Chair, sensing discord, rapidly moved on and we were silenced.
Presentation on Repairs
Next up was a presentation on Repairs that was supposed to come from Chris Cuttleton, but Andrew Potter delivered it himself, since Chris couldn't be there "and I've been with him all day, so I know the stuff." Although he doesn't look like either, he sounds a lot like a cross between Peter Mandelson and David Cameron. A consumate politician. Anyway, his presentation was short and mainly referred to the new texting service available to tenants who report repairs in their homes, and that this service will be extended to caretakers reporting communal repairs.
Raphael weighed in with our perennial leasehold question about NOT KNOWING WHAT WE PAY FOR because we don't know what repairs are being done and it's not good enough that only caretakers are told when jobs are being done (and then only if they report them). Whilst Raphael was building up a head of steam on the subject, Potter was laughing and saying "I can answer that, and I think it will be an answer you like" (you can imagine Mandelson saying the same thing to Jeremy Paxman)...
POTTER MAKES AN ANNOUNCEMENT. HUSHED SILENCE PLEASE...
Potter said:
- if we want to know what repairs are going on, this information can be provided on request.
- very soon, we will be able to view all repair orders online.
I pointed out that only a couple of weeks ago Sandra Canham had told us this was IMPOSSIBLE, and that she'd been saying this forever. Raphael said we'd always been told this would be TOO EXPENSIVE to implement. Potter laughed and said OF COURSE it has cost implications. The Chair stepped in and silenced us again so we didn't get to ask, for instance, what was the timeline on the latter, since 'very soon' in Lewisham Homes World usually means 2 or 3 years? (And anyway, hadn't they been ordered to do this by the Council's Scrutiny Committee in its Recommendations for Leasehold Services?). Also, if I'm going to start emailing Mick Duncan or Alex Slattery once a week to find out what repairs are going on on my estate, wouldn't it make sense for them to just formalise the procedure and send me (or the TRA) weekly reports?
Finally, some common sense...
The meeting came to an end with a couple of pertinent comments from two panel members:
A North West Area Panelist (a leaseholder) commented that it should be noted that when we make requests for things to be on the agenda, that these requests are met in full. The panel had asked for Green Team to do a presentation at this meeting, but this hadn't happened. He also wanted it noted that the Lumber Collection Scheme doesn't seem to be working and that it was wrong to have assumed that the gentlemen who raised a question about it was told it was a local problem to him only.
A Deptford Area Panelist (a tenant) commented that LH should reconsider the purpose of these meetings. She understood they might work in the same way as the Complaints Procedure. For instance, when you make a complaint, if it is not sorted, it proceeds to a 2nd stage, and then to a 3rd if it is still not sorted and where it must be resolved. Likewise, as she saw it, one might bring a problem to a TRA meeting, and if the LH officer present (or not present she seemed to infer) did not get the problem sorted by the next meeting, you took this problem on to Special Interest groups, and finally the Area Panel meetings. But if these meetings continued to be congested with too many (sometimes pointless) presentations with no time for discussion and comments among members then problems had no chance of ever being resolved. Panel members should be respected as having the sense not to waste the meeting's time on highly localised issues, so it should not be assumed that when a panel member brings up a local problem that it was not widespread across the borough.
I could've kissed that woman. Crossfields Leaseholders will recall how when we tried to meet with Lewisham Homes back in June 2009 to resolve issues of overcharging, Lewisham Homes set the agenda with an astonishing time wasting hour and a half devoted to a presentation on Antisocial Behaviour. They have been using this technique to silence residents for far too long.
By the way, I may have missed something out in this account. I have made no mention of the buffet provided, most of which was left behind, although I think Raphael snaffled a salmon sandwich for his tea later. Also, Adam Barrett, Head of Resources, was present at the meeting but I can't remember if he actually gave a presentation or said very much at all. Apologies if his unremarkable contribution has gone unreported. No doubt all the highly paid staff present had the next day off (time off in lieu) for a conveniently long weekend.
And this you can see is the bolt. The purpose of this is to open the breech, as you see. We can slide it rapidly backwards and forwards: we call this Easing the spring. And rapidly backwards and forwards the early bees are assaulting and fumbling the flowers: they call it easing the Spring.
The whole procedure is flabberghasting. How are we doing? they ask. You said, we did, they say. Any fool could predict many of the things residents come up with at these meetings, most of them are common sense ideas that a manager with half a brain should be able to foresee when planning a service. Perhaps instead of wasting all our unpaid time in endless unproductive meetings, they should be made to come and live on one of our estates for three months and find out for themselves...
Friday, May 28, 2010
Leaseholder Improvement Group (LIG) 20th May 2010
Silbury House writes on the Sydenham Hill blog:
I managed to attend the first hour of the meeting, held at the Civic Suite in Catford, missing the last part relating to help for leaseholders in paying their major works bills.The only Lewisham Homes official present was Sandy Canham, who took a bit of a roasting from the attendees over costs of services being unreasonable, also that numerous paragraphs were left off the minutes of the previous meeting: especially those of particular embarrassment to Lewisham Homes.
It was noted that the minutes of the meeting held on 20th May, when available, will be complete.
The general feeling in the room was one of frustration and disbelief. The residents felt that they did not have the forum with this meeting to actually bring their concerns to Lewisham Homes. The agenda is rigged and all the issues, specifically relating to costs and standards of services repeatedly raised, are either left off the minutes or not remedied by Lewisham Homes at all.
Crosswhatfields writes:
How very true, Silbury House. Unfortunately the minutes written by Ann Fitzgerald are not provided digitally, and I am not about to spend time scanning and OCRing them.
On the whole I thought the minutes of the last meeting had recorded all salient points. The problem being that all salient points require further discussion and this is never allowed for, especially if someone's point has been treated with the classic "Ms Canham will see you at the end of the meeting" (about your pointless and pathetic little personal vendetta that has nothing to do with the wholly fictional picture we want to present)...
Especially notable how Mr Griffiths of St John's Vale is treated. This elderly gentleman makes his points quite eloquently and forcefully but is accused by Canham as only speaking for himself. Fortunately his neighbours were there to back him up and point out that he spoke on behalf of all of them, many of whom were not at the meeting.
We spent the first 45 minutes just on Matters Arising from the Last Minutes and could have spent the entire meeting discussing the various points raised at the last meeting (which was about Repairs, Caretaking, Estate Inspections and Pest Control, all too much in one meeting)....The inadequate service in those areas are our main concerns and the reasons we attend these meetings.
I wanted to follow up on items recorded in the minutes such as:
- Estate maps showing which areas on everyone's estate the Green Team (ie Glendales) would be working were reported as being available to view online by April (they were not, doh!)
- Mick Duncan from Repairs had said he'd look into the possibility of providing monthly reports to TRAs of logged repairs
Sandra Canham was pleased to announce that any leaseholder or tenant who reported the requirement for a communal repair would now be texted about the progress of this repair following their report. You can just see the headlines in Home magazine now: "TEXTING GOES LIVE IN TWO WEEKS TIME"...Yes, Sandra, but only the reportee of this repair will know what's happening. No one else will. And many of these repairs are reported by the caretakers, so what will we know about that?
I suggested that TRA Reps were also texted, but what about those estates that did not have TRAs? Nothing here to celebrate regarding TRANSPARENCY.
Much to Sandra Canham's annoyance, this latter item was discussed at length, with many attendees agreeing it was desirable that EVERYONE gets to know when a repair is taking place. Canham said we could come anytime to her office and find out this information. Someone said why do we have to come to her office in Holbeach and take time out of our working week? Canham mentioned there had been special Saturday surgeries held at Holbeach for leaseholders to come and discuss their concerns over their service charges after the bills went out, but these opportunities had not been taken up. An attendee remarked that it must therefore be obvious how pointless these were.
Another attendee suggested that if that information was available why couldn't we just have it emailed to us, to our TRA Reps or put on the web? Canham then backtracked and said the information she would provide would be retrospective since the figures were only produced quarterly. We had to point out to her that we weren't after figures and costs to leaseholders, but just wanted to know EXACTLY WHAT BLOODY REPAIRS ARE TAKING PLACE.
Without even ending the discussion, Canham steered the meeting onto her first agenda item, which was providing low cost loans to people who can't afford Major Repairs. The Council had decided that these mainly favourable loan terms were not available to leaseholders who did not live in their homes (ie, rented them out). The Council considers these leaseholders to be commercial owners, not in need of financial help. They can simply raise their rental charges to cover the costs, or remortgage.
Whilst I can't help agreeing, I can see in this decision the remnants of the Council's discrimination and hatred against leaseholders who took up the Right To Buy that has been prevalent from the beginning. It's probably the only Old Labour trait of this New Labour Council that's still recognisable. It accounts for a certain attitude towards leaseholders (leaseholders = cash cow) that doesn't work for those who have bought without the RTB, or for those who did whose incomes haven't risen above the national minimum wage or are now on negligible pensions not quite low enough for benefits. Nevertheless, those with equity have means...
I then got a coughing fit and missed most of the rest of the meeting. Gas Servicing was on the agenda but I might have missed it. The idea was to make it a compulsory and legally binding part of the lease.
Ms Canham closed the meeting, thanking us for our contributions. But were you listening, Sandra?
(Written from memory in absence of notes left elsewhere so may be added to)...
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Audit Commission Inspects Lewisham Homes in June
The following is taken from Lewisham Homes' website. You can download the Audit Commission's Draft Report on Lewisham's Housing 2007 on our Appendix page here.
Introduction
Lewisham Homes was set up as an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) on 22 January 2007. It is responsible for managing Council housing services on behalf of Lewisham Council. The Council is still the landlord.
Lewisham Homes is being inspected by the Audit Commission in June 2010 and we are aiming to achieve a two star rating or good service rating.
Who are the Audit Commission?
The Audit Commission is an independent organisation set up to drive efficiency and effectiveness in local public services. They work across local government, health, housing, community safety and fire and rescue service. For more information visit the Audit Commission website.
When will the inspection take place?
The on-site inspection will take place over two weeks beginning on Monday, 21 June through to Friday 2 July.
What does the inspection involve?
Inspectors from the Audit Commission will meet with Lewisham Homes staff, our Residents, the Council and our contractors to assess the quality of housing services being provided. They will also assess whether there is potential for services to continue to improve for residents.
How does the Audit Commission score the service?
The Audit Commission makes 2 judgements:
1. ‘How good is the service?’ (also known as Judgement One)
2. ‘What are the prospects for improvement?’ (also known as Judgement Two).
The first judgement is scored by a three star rating system. Stars are awarded depending on how well the housing service perform.
0 star rating = poor service
1 star rating = fair service
2 star rating = good service
3 star rating = excellent service
The second judgement is an indication of how well we are set up to provide continuous improvement:
* Poor
* Uncertain
* Promising
* Excellent
What is the Audit Commission's current star rating of Lewisham Homes?
This will be Lewisham Homes first inspection since it was set up in 2007. In November 2008 we invited the Audit Commission to carry out a voluntary mock inspection in preparations for the real inspection in June 2010. This inspection was not rated. The Mock Inspection report is available to download from our website. (It is pretty damning - Crosswhatfields)
What will the inspection mean for Lewisham Homes residents?
We are aiming for a two star rating which will enable us to access funding which will be used to bring all homes up to the Decent Homes Standard (DHS). A guide to the Decent Homes Standard is available from the Communities and Local Government website.
The Government has advised all Arms Length Management Organisations making applications in Round 6, including Lewisham Homes, which had not yet got a two star rating by the Audit Commission, that they would not be able to access Decent Homes funding until 2011/12. This announcement means a delay in the commencement of work in Lewisham by about six months. To access this funding we must get two stars in our inspection in June 2010.
When will Lewisham Homes know the result of the inspection?
Following the inspection, the Audit Commission will write a report that highlights the strengths of the services we provide and will make recommendations of the areas we need to make further improvements. The report is expected to be available by the end of August 2010 and will be published on our website and in our resident magazine.
Your views on the services provided by Lewisham Homes are welcome on the Crosswhatfields website.
Stair cleaning
This news was first posted on Crosswhatfields main site, so apologies for the duplication, but it should be of particular interest to leaseholders, so needs to be on this page.
Last Monday and Tuesday the Holden House caretaker was out on both days cleaning the stairs. The normal cleaning day is Wednesday, but on the Monday he did the normal perfunctory routine with the mop and bucket of cold water. The next day he was accompanied by another guy in white overalls who watched while our guy used a plastic bristled broom to really scrub our filthy old stairs. This was the result:
The stairs didn't look much better, and the caretaker was unable to get to the areas between the bannister uprights with his six inch broom. Also, having worked up a bit of a dirty lather, much of it was spread to the unpainted concrete surfaces of the balconies, which are now quite badly stained on all floors.
The dirty lather also dripped down the sides and stained the paintwork there.
The following week, on May 24th 2010, more caretaking operatives were working on the stairs, attempting to clean the areas between the bannister uprights. They were at it all day and I spoke to one of the guys, Jim, who explained that first they were using a scrubbing brush with a special cleaner that would lift the dirt.
Then another guy was a couple of flights behind him with a vacuum cleaner...
Both were critical of the surface, which was laid over ten years ago. Jim suggested it was Health & Safety gone mad that had led to a paint surface mixed with grit to prevent slipping. Such a surface was impossible to keep clean, he said, and he thought the best thing to do would be to remove it, but he wasn't sure how. He later set about some already chipped areas with a knife and removed quite a bit from the first mezzanine landing, in an attempt to see how easily it might come off.
I suggested that their cleaning operation was just a precurser to the stairs being painted again and that last October we had been told estate services wanted to trail a new paint surface, but didn't go ahead with it. He said he'd seen some new paint surfaces over at Honor Oak and that they were no better and would not last. But he knew nothing of any plans to paint our stairs.
This exercise, which is apparently going to be done on all the blocks that have painted stairs, must surely be in advance of the AUDIT COMMISSION's visit next month, when Lewisham Homes will be tested on whether they have done enough to qualify for Decent Homes government money – if any is still available.
What WALL are you paying for?
We have been trying to find out what wall leaseholders in Congers, Finch and Farrer have been asked to pay for in this year's bills. Apparently a wall was rebuilt in June 2008, but its exact location remains a mystery. The repair breakdown lists: REBUILD WALL BY NATURE PARK FRONT OF CONGERS.
The TRA thinks there is only one place where a wall needed rebuilding, and it was something the Repairs Officer had been chasing for some time. That particular wall was situated near the ballcourt and between Farrer House and Congers, and next to the bikesheds by Sue Godfrey Garden. It had been knocked down and remained as a pile of rubble for a couple of years.
It was pointed out in the impromtu "Programmed Estate Walkabout" that took place in July last year, and duly recorded in that report. As a result, the debris of bricks was removed. A later version of the report recorded that the wall had been 'made good'.
This is where that broken wall ended up – round the side of the bike sheds, about twenty feet away...
The TRA thinks there is only one place where a wall needed rebuilding, and it was something the Repairs Officer had been chasing for some time. That particular wall was situated near the ballcourt and between Farrer House and Congers, and next to the bikesheds by Sue Godfrey Garden. It had been knocked down and remained as a pile of rubble for a couple of years.
It was pointed out in the impromtu "Programmed Estate Walkabout" that took place in July last year, and duly recorded in that report. As a result, the debris of bricks was removed. A later version of the report recorded that the wall had been 'made good'.
This is where that broken wall ended up – round the side of the bike sheds, about twenty feet away...
The total charge for rebuilding the mystery wall was £1184.54, and it is three months since we asked what wall is being charged for. Still no answer.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Unanswered queries on Leaseholder Bills
We have sent a complaint to Lewisham Homes regarding the delay in answering our queries on specific items in this year's Leaseholder Bills.
Dear Complaints Team,
We wish to complain that the following queries to Leasehold Services about Charges for Repairs on Crossfields Estate have been made over the past 4 months and remain unanswered:
1. 19th February 2010 (13 weeks ago): Queries on Leaseholder Bills
Acknowledged but not answered
What location exactly is the wall that was rebuilt ?
REBUILD WALL BY NATURE PARK FRONT OF CONGERS 17/06/08
Finch House: £282.14
Farrer House: £451.20
Congers House: £451.20
What is the exact location of this fence?
REAR/SIDE OF BLOCK REPLACE MISSING SECTION OF FENCING 17/06/08
Farrer: £375.00
Where are these 'gullies' situated?
RENEW GULLY COVERS
Castell: x2@£14.41 each, Finch: x6@£14.42 each, Wilshaw: x10@£16.28 each, Holden: x11@£31.50 each, Farrer: x6@£14.36 each, Farrer: x2@£14.86 each, Farrer: x1@£29.72 each, Congers: x3@£28.84 each.
2. 19th February 2010 (13 weeks ago) : Query on Unresolved repairs from Programmed Estate Inspection (14/5/09)
Acknowledged but not answered
3. 5th March 2010 (11 weeks ago): Request for copy of Supplier's Invoice for Communal Lighting
Acknowledged but not answered.
Regarding 900% overcharge to Frankham & Castell House. Leaseholder accounts have been credited but a full explanation of how this mistake occurred has not been forthcoming.
4. 26 March 2010 (8 weeks ago): Reminder of queries on wall, fence and gullies and request for supplier's invoice
Acknowledged but not answered.
5. 9th April 2010 (6 weeks ago): New queries on Leaseholder Bills
Neither acknowledged or answered
Bulk Household Waste charge: please clarify exactly what this new charge is for? There is nothing in the accompanying newsletter that came with the bills to explain it.
Farrer House roof: charges made to Farrer House for persistent repairs above Flats 32 &33, yet structure on roof above these flats has unglazed window open to the elements. Please investigate. (photo supplied).
All these queries were addressed to Head of Leaseholder Services, Sandra Canham, who, with the exception of Query 5 which she did not even acknowledge, promised to field to other officers. To date, no answers have been received. This is an unacceptable delay.
Dear Complaints Team,
We wish to complain that the following queries to Leasehold Services about Charges for Repairs on Crossfields Estate have been made over the past 4 months and remain unanswered:
1. 19th February 2010 (13 weeks ago): Queries on Leaseholder Bills
Acknowledged but not answered
What location exactly is the wall that was rebuilt ?
REBUILD WALL BY NATURE PARK FRONT OF CONGERS 17/06/08
Finch House: £282.14
Farrer House: £451.20
Congers House: £451.20
What is the exact location of this fence?
REAR/SIDE OF BLOCK REPLACE MISSING SECTION OF FENCING 17/06/08
Farrer: £375.00
Where are these 'gullies' situated?
RENEW GULLY COVERS
Castell: x2@£14.41 each, Finch: x6@£14.42 each, Wilshaw: x10@£16.28 each, Holden: x11@£31.50 each, Farrer: x6@£14.36 each, Farrer: x2@£14.86 each, Farrer: x1@£29.72 each, Congers: x3@£28.84 each.
2. 19th February 2010 (13 weeks ago) : Query on Unresolved repairs from Programmed Estate Inspection (14/5/09)
Acknowledged but not answered
3. 5th March 2010 (11 weeks ago): Request for copy of Supplier's Invoice for Communal Lighting
Acknowledged but not answered.
Regarding 900% overcharge to Frankham & Castell House. Leaseholder accounts have been credited but a full explanation of how this mistake occurred has not been forthcoming.
4. 26 March 2010 (8 weeks ago): Reminder of queries on wall, fence and gullies and request for supplier's invoice
Acknowledged but not answered.
5. 9th April 2010 (6 weeks ago): New queries on Leaseholder Bills
Neither acknowledged or answered
Bulk Household Waste charge: please clarify exactly what this new charge is for? There is nothing in the accompanying newsletter that came with the bills to explain it.
Farrer House roof: charges made to Farrer House for persistent repairs above Flats 32 &33, yet structure on roof above these flats has unglazed window open to the elements. Please investigate. (photo supplied).
All these queries were addressed to Head of Leaseholder Services, Sandra Canham, who, with the exception of Query 5 which she did not even acknowledge, promised to field to other officers. To date, no answers have been received. This is an unacceptable delay.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Antisocial Behaviour Review
Resident Involvement held a Focus Group on Antisocial Behaviour on 22 April 2010.
The invite went out a week before and by the time I came to reply I was told it was full. Our Repairs Rep was also told this but went anyway. (Apparently, the room was huge).
When I wrote to suggest they get a bigger room, Meechele Bowes (Projects Officer, Service Development Team) wrote to explain:
'This forum is feeding into the review of our ASB service as a whole in the context of our organisations remit and scope, the local area we work in, and agencies our service works alongside. This information will in turn feed into our overall future strategy, which we will also discuss and agree with our partner agencies.
Perhaps without going into too much detail, you could give me a general impression of what is being expected and not delivered by the service or its partners. We are also looking at what aspects of the service locally people feel is going right, or agree with and would like to see kept or strengthened or possibly resourced more in the future.'
So I did:
1. We do not know of one example where the ASB service has been of any assistance whatsoever.
2. Problems with noise have been dealt with by Envirocall. Many problems are already dealt with by services provided by the council. Where the ASB has intervened in police matters, there have been no follow up reports to the TRA.
3. The severe behaviourial problems of one tenant resulted in him attending court to be evicted after an entire year of witness statements, and then being let off. Witnesses were not kept up to date and the main witness was not told of the court date, despite all witnesses initially having been told that they might have to go to court. Furthermore, action is not taken where it might threaten the human rights of the perpetrator.
4. Dangerous dog problems have not been followed up properly by either ASB or Leasehold services.
5. Tenants have never been leafleted about the service and some do not know of its existence and therefore have not reported problems.
6. The process of keeping Incident Diaries, which are not acknowledged and sometimes lost, serves only to make the victim feel even more persecuted.
7. Only residents in flats in blocks are subjected to this service, and so must pay twice for a service which is duplicated by the Council. There is nothing exclusive to estate residents about the ASB service since there is no regular reporting made to the TRA.
8. There are no residents who want this service, and those who perpetrate ASB know it is ineffectual and that they can continue to get away with their behaviour.
To recap: nothing is being delivered, nothing is expected, nothing is going right, no aspects can be strengthened and no one wants to pay extra for it.
We hope this helps them in their review.
The invite went out a week before and by the time I came to reply I was told it was full. Our Repairs Rep was also told this but went anyway. (Apparently, the room was huge).
When I wrote to suggest they get a bigger room, Meechele Bowes (Projects Officer, Service Development Team) wrote to explain:
'This forum is feeding into the review of our ASB service as a whole in the context of our organisations remit and scope, the local area we work in, and agencies our service works alongside. This information will in turn feed into our overall future strategy, which we will also discuss and agree with our partner agencies.
Perhaps without going into too much detail, you could give me a general impression of what is being expected and not delivered by the service or its partners. We are also looking at what aspects of the service locally people feel is going right, or agree with and would like to see kept or strengthened or possibly resourced more in the future.'
So I did:
1. We do not know of one example where the ASB service has been of any assistance whatsoever.
2. Problems with noise have been dealt with by Envirocall. Many problems are already dealt with by services provided by the council. Where the ASB has intervened in police matters, there have been no follow up reports to the TRA.
3. The severe behaviourial problems of one tenant resulted in him attending court to be evicted after an entire year of witness statements, and then being let off. Witnesses were not kept up to date and the main witness was not told of the court date, despite all witnesses initially having been told that they might have to go to court. Furthermore, action is not taken where it might threaten the human rights of the perpetrator.
4. Dangerous dog problems have not been followed up properly by either ASB or Leasehold services.
5. Tenants have never been leafleted about the service and some do not know of its existence and therefore have not reported problems.
6. The process of keeping Incident Diaries, which are not acknowledged and sometimes lost, serves only to make the victim feel even more persecuted.
7. Only residents in flats in blocks are subjected to this service, and so must pay twice for a service which is duplicated by the Council. There is nothing exclusive to estate residents about the ASB service since there is no regular reporting made to the TRA.
8. There are no residents who want this service, and those who perpetrate ASB know it is ineffectual and that they can continue to get away with their behaviour.
To recap: nothing is being delivered, nothing is expected, nothing is going right, no aspects can be strengthened and no one wants to pay extra for it.
We hope this helps them in their review.
Leasehold Services - Sydenham Hill Estate
Guest author Silbury House writes:
Background:
Sydenham Hill Estate looks like a real 'problem estate', which is a shame because it's a lovely place to live: Right on the edge of Dulwich Woods it's leafy, green and quiet and the residents are (mostly) considerate and pleasant.
After buying a flat there I soon discovered the reason it looked the way it did. I got involved with Leasehold Services as soon as I moved in (2005) to enquire about the seemingly obvious defects to the estate, all of which 'should' be repaired, replaced and/or cleaned within the leasehold contract. The one I'm paying for, the one that states: I pay, they do what they promise.
Well as you can probably guess, that's not quite how it works. I've been writing to my leasehold officer (the same one) since 2005 and none of my complaints or reportings have been actioned. Not one. I hasten to add that the list of complaints is long and tedious, so won't go into details here (see future posts), but you'd think they might do something with the money we've all been paying?
It's not cheap after-all. In 2005/6 my actual charges were £448.89. This year they are estimated at £747.36: that's bearing in mind that Lewisham Homes will lose the estate to L&Q by October 2010! It was £882.90 last year (actual).
It's a big rise since 2005, it's doubled, and I can tell you there is no difference to the level of service we receive (picking up crisp packets and, well, that's about it really). And these figures don't take Major Works into account either; another 'grey area' in services provided (see future posts).
Why, oh why do our complaints and critisisms go unheard? I've been told it's not all Lewisham Homes fault, that it's been a long term of neglect by a whole host of management agencies(Dunlop Harwards, Pinnacle, Lewisham Council and Lewisham Homes etc.), but why should this make a difference if we've always been talking to the same 'physical person', a person who has always been very well informed of every instance of neglect reported by us.
It seems it doesn't matter how many letters we write, or complaints we make, the bottom line is there is no accountability for anything. Surely the Leasehold Team should be accountable? Or someone? PLEASE? (not that's it's their contractual obligation of anything...)
Let's hope L&Q can make a better job of it, let's hope they will make a difference. Let's hope our leaseholder services team will action the complaints we make. After 6 years of waiting, I can say I'm dubious, yet allowing myself a little hope...
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Leasehold Charges 2010/2011 - YO YO charges
So, this year's charge is lower than last year's. That just means you paid too much last year. Remember you couldn't afford a holiday last year? This year you might pay off a bit of the overdraft and take two weeks off rather than just one. Is this fair?
The point is, no one can budget sensibly. Tax operates in a similar way, backdated and paid in advance, though you wouldn't notice the similarity if you weren't self employed or running a business. Many leaseholders will be on a fixed income, and some are now pensioners. Not knowing what they will be asked to pay from one year to the next is unreasonable. At least they know where they are with Council Tax. It will go up or stay the same.
Other bills, such as Utilities, rarely yo-yo in this way. When they go up, you try to cut back on your useage. If you have paid too much you can reclaim it at any time. No such facility with Lewisham Homes. You can't control their spending.
This is Holden charges over 10 years (yours may well have a different pattern depending on what dodgy repairs they did on your block):
2000 * (Management up 7%, Caretaking up 7%, Grounds Maintenance no change)
* can't find figures from 1999 to compare.
The point is, no one can budget sensibly. Tax operates in a similar way, backdated and paid in advance, though you wouldn't notice the similarity if you weren't self employed or running a business. Many leaseholders will be on a fixed income, and some are now pensioners. Not knowing what they will be asked to pay from one year to the next is unreasonable. At least they know where they are with Council Tax. It will go up or stay the same.
Other bills, such as Utilities, rarely yo-yo in this way. When they go up, you try to cut back on your useage. If you have paid too much you can reclaim it at any time. No such facility with Lewisham Homes. You can't control their spending.
This is Holden charges over 10 years (yours may well have a different pattern depending on what dodgy repairs they did on your block):
2000 * (Management up 7%, Caretaking up 7%, Grounds Maintenance no change)
2001 – 18% (Management no change, Caretaking up 10%, Grounds down 43%)
2002 + 12% (Management up 13%, Caretaking up 6%, Grounds up 61%)
2003 – 14% (Management down 23%, Caretaking down 20%, Grounds down 22%)
2004 + 7% (Management up 19%, Caretaking up 6%, Grounds up 10%)
2005 + 78% (Management up 11%, Caretaking up 30%, Grounds up 15%)
2006 + 1% (Management up 10%, Caretaking up 6%, Grounds up 14%)
------------------Lewisham Homes takes over Jan 2007 ---------------------
2007 + 30% (Management up 19%, Caretaking up 4%, Grounds up 14%)
2008 – 2% (Management up 30%, Caretaking up 6%, Grounds up 45%)
-------Lewisham Homes introduces Flat Rate management charge--------
2009 + 41% (Management up 86%, Caretaking down 11%, Grounds up 224%)
2010 – 25% (Management up 2%, Caretaking no change, Grounds down 8%)Down 25%? Compared to 2006 (before Lewisham Homes) this is a bearable 6% increase. But it's meaningless. In between they have creamed off 14%, and raised the stakes by 41% in 2009. And by applying varying rates to every block that should be charged the same for everything (except building repairs perhaps), we will all tell different stories. Smaller blocks have a worse story to tell.
Now they predict spending the same in 2010-11 on our block as they do Farrer House (£2500), smaller by 28 flats, yet they predict only spending £1350 on Castell, smaller by only 23 flats. What is wrong with Farrer? Surely they should be told what is wrong with their building? Could it be based on roof and drain spending which they have failed to solve by being completely useless or have the figures been plucked from thin air yet again?
* can't find figures from 1999 to compare.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Anomalies in Repair Breakdowns 08/09 for all blocks....
The following data is compiled from the Repair Breakdowns for all nine blocks on Crossfields, and makes reference to the Programmed Estate Report by Quality Officer Leif Law that took place last summer. This can be downloaded from the Appendix pages.
What is also apparent is that items in Repairs Breakdowns, apart from being unintelligible, are quite often not presented in date order, making it harder to see a pattern of repeat orders in problem areas. This may be deliberate. It certainly does not aid transparency.
This is a long list, but look for your block in each section.
...................................................................................................................................
The repairs listed here are covered by the Programmed Estate Report where it was agreed that they were not done properly and should not be paid for.
Cremer:
3697845 Repair paving in front of block £180.86 06/10/08
All the paving was requested to be repaired free of cost since previous repairs have never been done properly. (See 4.11 of Leif Law's report)
Castell:
3612292 Please clear drain to front of No.1 £125.44 07/03/08
3611826 Tnt rpts external drain at front of the block is blocked £40.40 06/03/08
Problems with these drains are due to a) pooling of water during heavy rain, due to poor laying of tarmac, and more importantly b) gulleys that were put in to filter leaves etc and lead to these drains have been blocked for years and have never been cleared. They were cleared in the summer as a result of the Walkabout. (See 4.2 of Lief Law report). Blockages in 2008 should not be paid for.
Castell:
3645819 Repair all cracks on grnd floor walkway facia from flats 1-9 £84.00 28/5/08
3728570 Pls rem cracked wall on grd floor £15.87 15/01/09
These repairs were done inadequately since wall was in dire need of repair by June 2009 (see 4.3 of Leif Law report) and should not be paid for.
Farrer:
3653779 Rear/side of block replace missing section of fencing £375.00 17/06/08
Could this be the same bit of fence referred to in 2.4 of Leif Law report, ie not done. Awaiting confirmation from Leasehold Services.
...................................................................................................................................
Wall by Nature Park front of Congers House (Finch, Congers, Farrer):
Finch 3653801 Rebuild wall by nature park front of Congers £282.14 17/06/08
Farrer 3653801 Rebuild wall by nature park front of Congers £451.20 17/06/08
Congers 3653801 Rebuild wall by nature park front of Congers Hse £451.20 17/06/08
TOTAL £1185.00
Which wall? If wall in front of Congers, why does Farrer have to pay more than Finch or even at all?
Possibly this is the broken wall next to the Memorial Garden by Farrer House. The one that was never rebuilt (see 3.2 in Lief Law report). We await confirmation from Leasehold Services' investigation.
...................................................................................................................................
Chute Shut Offs & Bin Chamber Doors (all done on 03/07/08):
Chute Shut offs are where the chute fans out into two funnels above the bins – either can be shut off to direct rubbish to either bin. The caretakers have said it makes no difference whether they work or not.
Cremer:
3661791 Blk1-14 Unable to close chute shut off £160.00 03/07/08
Finch:
3661784 Blk chute shut off will not close £320.00 03/07/08
Wilshaw:
3661800 Blk 1-20 unable to close chute shut off £160.00 03/07/08
3661801 Blk 21-40 repair bolt that needs to be fixed £160.00 03/07/08
3661804 Blk 41-60 unable to close chute shut off also fix bolt £160.00 03/07/08
Holden:
3661795 Blk unable to close chute shut off £160.00 03/07/08
3661796 Blk 21-40 unable to close chute shut off £160.00 03/07/08
3661799 Blk 41-60 Unable to close chute shut off £160.00 03/07/08
Congers:
3661785 Blk both chamb unable to lock nr no.2 unable to close chute £320.00 03/07/08
Castell:
3661788 Blk 1-22 Ease and adjust also chute shut off not closing £320.00 03/07/08
TOTAL (NB Browne, Frankham, Farrer excluded) £2080.00
This was a job lot all done on same day. Were Browne, Frankham and Farrer excluded because they didn't manage to fit them in or because they didn't need fixing?
How long had each been defective if at all? Each chute cost £160, NB in some cases the bolts were fixed as well or instead. The next month there were further repairs...Wilshaw got a double dose:
Wilshaw:
3577383 Pls fix lock on bin door that is broken as rptd by c/tkr £37.03 12/08/08
Which bin door? Previously done above (see 3661801)
3677027 Block 20-40. Pls ease and adjust bolt lock to bin chamber £117.60 11/08/08
This is a repeat of previous repair (above) 3661801 (£160.00) and should not be paid for
3702967 Lock to bin chamber faulty pls rem £27.98 21/10/08
Which bin door? Previously done above?
Why are locks being repaired on NEW DOORS (that we didn’t need) for which we only just paid for last year?
...................................................................................................................................
Roof Leaks / Repairs
Cremer:
3665117 Leak from Roof Area £163.01 14/07/08
3713636 Attn LDL flat nr13 Carry out roof repair £900.60 21/01/09
Finch:
3691550 Attn LDL C/Picker and roofing work above 21 as per quote. £850.25 16/09/08
Farrer:
3625125 Insp loft area for possible leak affecting flat 33 £171.14 09/04/08
3645122 As agreed several minor repairs to roof £356.25 27/05/08
See previous post re Farrer roof
Frankham:
3682040 Pls trace and rem leak from roof above no37 £703.01 22/08/08
Browne:
3646713 Repair all gutters blocked 5 storeys £259.54 30/05/08
3722085 Repair roof as it leaks into props 12-13-14 £163.01 19/12/08
3733737 Supply platform and carry out roof repairs £621.77 19/12/08
3722085 and 3733737 same job?
...................................................................................................................................
Gully covers
Where are these gullys? Why do Holden/Congers cost more per unit? Listed according to date:
Congers: 3608240 Renew 3 NO 6” gully covers (£28.84 ea) £86.53 26/02/08
Wilshaw: 3612918 Renew 10NO gully covers (£15.28 ea) £162.88 10/03/08
Holden: 3615103 Renew 11NO gully covers (£31.50 ea) £346.50 14/03/08
Farrer: 3655351 Renew 2NO gully covers (£14.86 ea) £29.73 20/06/08
Castell: 3608233 Supply & fit 2 5” gully plates (£14.41 ea) £28.82 26/12/08
Finch: 3608249 Renew 6NO 6” gully covers (£14.42 ea) £86.53 26/02/09
..................................................................................................................................
Drain Cleaning at Farrer House
There appears to be a lot of drain clearing at Farrer (these items are not provided in date order on the breakdowns).
3651102 9 rpts smelling blocked drains in front of flat £42.57 10/06/08
3651823 Planned jetting maintenance £249.52 12/06/08
3652517 Confirmation of planned jetting maintenance £265.39 13/06/08
3680661 15 rpts blocked main drains £36.22 22/08/08
3697172 Programmed jetting clear all drains/gullies £117.58 03/10/08
3697211 Programmed works clear 10 gullies £218.50 03/10/08
Why is this being done again, less than 3 months later? Were all drains cleared? How many gullies have Farrer got? On 12th & 13th June 2008 it cost £514.91. On 3rd October 2008 it cost another £336.08. What is the problem that cost £855.99 over 5 months?
..................................................................................................................................
Tank overflows at Wilshaw House
Wilshaw appears to have an excess of water problems (these items are not provided in date order on the breakdowns).
3629397 Investigate leak to main supply pipe to block £60.29 18/04/08
3662730 Communal tank o/flow dripping onto canopy 25-40 £29.72 07/07/08
3663497 No11 rpts leak from balcony above running along down £38.03 09/07/08
3700638 C/T repts leaking overflow pipe block 21-40 £32.84 14/10/08
What, again? See 3662730.
3704757 Attn Cliff Pankhurst as your MB1 Renew inch & halfball valve £36.49 27/10/08
3718530 Pls trace and rem water leak in the comm loft £34.54 08/12/08
3721940 Pls rem the water tank that is overflowing £37.54 18/12/08
3722065 Plz restore water to block no water in bathroom Block 21 to... £41.47 19/12/08
Block 21 to what? This is the same day as below, funnily enough, and the day after a pipe overflow problem is fixed.
3722251 45-65 oflow to MST leaking pls rem access from 4th flr £32.84 19/12/08
3723079 Insp loft area for possible leak affecting flat 39 £163.01 23/12/08
What the fuck is going on?
...................................................................................................................................
Miscellaneous
Finch:
3699507 Blk remove concrete step at back of bin chamber also take. £325.00 01/10/08
What concrete step at the back of bin chamber?
...................................................................................................................................
Pest Control
No repair number was provided and no dates or whereabouts. Leasehold Services provided these details after enquiry.
Holden House (Pram sheds): Rats (Baiting) 24/01/2009 £360.00
Browne House Tank Room: Squirrels 31/12/2008 £150.00
Wilshaw House: Baiting 09/09/2008 £75.00
Wilshaw House: Baiting 08/10/2008 £360.00
Security Lights
Finch:
3699507 Light to com area 2nd flr outside 10 faulty please rem £100.13 10/10/08
3712921 8 lights to block faulty pls rem 07736374616 £95.36 19/11/08
So one faulty light costs £100.13 but 8 lights only cost £95.36.
Wilshaw:
3660828 Trace and rem fault with light b/w top and 3rd flr. Rptd by. £127.09 01/07/08
3691508 C/taker rpts faulty light override using sensor £109.66 16/09/08
Holden:
3740684 Problem with all communal lights £36.49 22/05/08
3740503 Repair communal lights not working in Block 1-20 £114.43 25/02/09
Congers:
3736069 Trace fault(s) on communal lighting circuit and rectify £114.43 10/02/09
Frankham:
3707610 Repair defective security light o/s no 37 £50.38 04/11/08
3709054 C/t repts security light outside no 9 not working £100.13 10/11/08
3713194 Ground floor lights not working x4 outside 1-9 £237.61 20/11/08
3715903 Two security lights are missing from the side of Frankham £72.06 28/11/08
...................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)