General cleaning standards are extremely poor, resulting in a build up of grime and stains over the years that are now impossible to remove (see note 1 below). Our request for a full review of these procedures has fallen on deaf ears. The problem of the lack of proper cleaning has not been addressed, and no discussions on further improvement have taken place. We have seen no sign of the full review of Caretaking & Repairs that we requested. What does ‘Decent Homes’ mean if not this?
Dirty Stairs
Our stairs are now resembling those of a slum dwelling and this was noted by Leif Law in his inspection. In October 2009 we were presented at extremely short notice with a sudden proposal to resurface them by painting directly on top of the present deteriorating surface. The next day, a trial was to be conducted on one set of stairs with a paint that had been ‘successfully trialed in other parts of the borough’. It was claimed to be less expensive than removing the present unsatisfactory surface (the stairs in some blocks, but not all, had been last painted in 1995). We asked for more information on the product to be used and expressed our doubts that it would solve the problem since with the present cleaning regime any new surface would be filthy again with a year. The response was to immediately suspend the trial, with the comment that we didn’t have to be consulted but that the proposal would be submitted to a TRA meeting. This has not happened. (see note 2 below)
Deep Cleaning plans abandoned
Plans for deep cleaning, as a result of Ms Ruddock’s intervention in 2005, have since been abandoned. Last year, at a Focus Group with Lewisham Homes at the helm, reps were told by the new (although in effect the same) management that this had been suspended because it was ‘unworkable’ – the same excuse used in 2005 before Ms Ruddock’s involvement.
Charge Increase
Meanwhile caretaking charges have increased by 38% (see note 4 below) with claims that we have previously been undercharged, and that these increases are covering the purchase of new equipment. Ms Ruddock was told ‘the charge for caretaking has increased as LH is spending more on this service to improve standards. In addition the true cost of this service, including the functions that support the employment of caretakers and the delivery of the service such as finance, HR, training, payroll, insurance are now included in the charge.’ (Seary to Ruddock Aug 09). As previously stated, we see no improvement in the service whatsoever, and we were already paying for all these things in the previous charge. Documentation from ten years ago lists exactly the same things.
In addition, Ms Ruddock was told ‘We are having to replace some older equipment as it is beyond economic repair. We are also purchasing new equipment such as jet washers which will enable us to carry out a programme of jet cleaning to bin chambers.’ (Aug 09). We confirm that some bin chamber walls were jet washed in July 2009 with small portable jetwashers, but extremely badly and hurriedly, leaving grime and stains. The caretakers have informed us that there are some areas where they cannot use this equipment since there are no nearby power points.
The individual charge for caretaking (which varies from block to block for both leaseholders and tenants) does not sound like a lot when reduced to its weekly component (around £4), but with 365 flats on the estate, the income from tenants and leaseholders is around £100,000, enough to pay four full-time wages. But all we are actually getting is two hours a week from three caretakers whose workload is spread across several other estates.
Targets
Targets for caretaking are very low, with a satisfaction target as low as 60% for internal cleaning (achieved 67%) and 65% (achieved 71%) for external cleaning. As already stated, Estate Inspections are inadequate. Presenting these figures Lewisham Homes give themselves a ‘tick’ as they ask ‘Are we going in the right direction?’
Unfortunately, the Public Accounts Committee failed to identify this very important matter separately from general maintenance, and did not specifically address it in its Recommendations.
Grounds Maintenance
In addition, there has been no contract in place throughout 2009 for grounds maintenance, resulting in a deterioration in the environment, but no corresponding reduction in charges. 25 Through the Programmed Estate Report we asked for a HELM map in order to check why certain areas were constantly neglected. We still have not received this. We understand from a report made by another estate that the grass is supposed to be cut every two weeks, the hedges, bushes and flowerbeds trimmed every four weeks, but this hasn’t been happening. Moss is growing on the playground areas causing Health & Safety issues and lack of use. A large hole in one of the lawns was left for a year and has only just been filled in. When it was noted in the Leif Law report in July, the result was to padlock the gates to the lawn. These locks have only recently been removed. We don’t expect conditions to improve.
However, with a new contract now awarded to Glendales, it was recently announced in the Leasehold Improvement Group (March) that the HELM map has been replaced by an Estate Plan which will be available on the Lewisham Homes website, and that work would be done according to required levels rather than a specific frequency (eg grass not to exceed a certain height).
Investors in People Assessment
It is perhaps worth noting that where performance is concerned, an Investors In People audit of staff recorded that ‘Some of the teams encountered including Repairs Service did not fully realise that they were delivering a poor service in the past. A minority of individuals still appear to be in denial that they were part of a failing service’. (Investors In People Assesment Report (Dec 2009), Minutes of Lewisham Homes Board Meeting February 2010 (p231))
NOTES
1. Lack of proper cleaning
Since Leif Law’s report, caretaking has not improved and the stairs are still only mopped with one bucket of water. Estate Services’ response to our complaint was for caretakers to ‘ensure that cleaning equipment is checked regularly’ and ‘be advised of the importance of regularly changing the water when washing down stairs and communal areas.’ We maintain that there is no ‘equipment’ to speak of and that mopping is not ‘washing’. Is this the only review of procedures to take place? Has the management actually checked what is required for decent cleaning? Either way, the poor procedure continues to damage the surface and leave grime and stains.
2. Remedy for filthy stairs
Mr Law attended the TRA meeting in January 2010. He had no proposals or information on the resurfacing, but stated there were now two possible paint options that could be used. He was asked to return to the next meeting with a full and detailed proposal that included information on both options, and to include costs for another option to remove the present surface and leave unpainted. He promised to do this within a couple of weeks but has not returned. Mr Law stated he is now on secondment for four and a half days a week on Void Properties. It became apparent that the main purpose of his attendance at the January meeting was to talk about how tenants and residents might assist in his task to identify empty properties on the estate.
3. Deep Cleaning
We were promised a deep cleaning programme for all council properties in the borough by Lewisham Council in 2006/7 after an estate walkabout with Ms Joan Ruddock MP in 2005. Only a percentage was actually done. Our Repairs Rep was recently told by a Repairs Manager that the practice of ‘deep cleaning’ was suspended because ‘people will think that they don’t have to clean’. This presumably refers to the caretakers and misses the point that the purpose of ‘deep cleaning’ would be to wipe the slate clean in preparation for a proper cleaning maintenance schedule. (See 5.5 of Leif Law’s report).
4. Increases hidden by new charges
We also complained about the new charge for Sweeping in the 2009/2010 Estimates, the charge for which was apparently previously covered by the Caretaking Charge (but not itemised in our bills). In the 09/10 Estimates it was itemised as a charge under Grounds Maintenance (since it is a service provided by the contractor Glendales, and not Estate Services). Overall there was a 24% increase in the combined cost of these services, and hidden within this change was a 38% increase in Caretaking charges.
No comments:
Post a Comment