Showing posts with label Communal Repairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Communal Repairs. Show all posts

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 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.

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

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 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.

Friday, April 2, 2010

Actual Charges Enquiries on Repair Breakdowns Part 1

I wrote to Sandra Canham on 19th February to make various enquiries on the Repair Breakdowns we were in receipt of. (These had to be specially requested since they are not provided with the statements). Repairs Breakdowns are copied verbatim from the Repairs Team's entries, which are naturally written in short form, which are often unintelligible to the leaseholder. I have requested that in future a Glossary of Terms be provided.

Ms Canham fielded these queries to the appropriate departments and replied with partial answers on March 5th.

1. What location exactly is the wall that was rebuilt ? Eg:

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  £451.20  17/06/08

We suspect this wall was never rebuilt.
Still no answer to this.

2. What is the exact location of this fence? Eg:

Farrer: 3653779 REAR/SIDE OF BLOCK REPLACE MISSING SECTION OF FENCING  £375.00  17/06/08

Still no answer to this.

3. What are 'gully covers' and where are they situated?
4. Are 'gully plates' the same thing?
5. What is a 'gully grid'?
(NB Holden & Congers House' renewal of gully covers cost twice as much) Eg:

Castell: 3608233 SUPPLY & FIT 2 5" GULLY PLATES £28.82  26/12/08 (£14.41 per cover)
Finch: 3608249 RENEW 6NO 6" GULLY COVERS £86.53 26/02/09 (£14.42 per cover)
Wilshaw: 3612918 RENEW 10NO GULLY COVERS £162.88 10/03/08 (£16.28 per cover)
Holden: 3615103 RENEW 11NO GULLY COVERS   £346.50  14/03/08  (£31.50 per cover)
Farrer: 3608244 RENEW 6NO 6" GULLY COVERS & FRAMES £86.47 26/02/08 (£14.36 per cover)
Farrer: 3655351 RENEW 2NO GULLY COVERS  £29.73   20/06/08  (£14.86 per cover)
Farrer: 3662811  RENEW GULLY GRID  £29.72  07/07/08 (£29.72 per cover)
Congers: 3608240  RENEW 3 NO 6" GULLY COVERS £86.53 26/02/08 (£28.84 per cover)

Gully covers, grids and plates all refer to the grating used to keep undesirables, such as litter, leaves and people out of the gully, whilst allowing surface water easy passage to the drainage system.

Still no answer as to why they are costed differently.

7. What are 'programmed works' and how are they different? Eg:

Farrer: 3697211 PROGRAMMED WORKS CLEAR 10 GULLIES £218.50  30/10/08

We often refer to 'programmed works to clear gullies' as 'planned jetting maintenance'. This is where instead of trying to clear individual blocked drains we will carry out scheduled works to the block and/or the estate. We will often carry this out on occasions where our attempts to clear individual drains have been unsuccessful and plumbing surveys suggest that there is a wider drainage problem.

8. What is a bulkhead and luminaire?

A 'luminaire' is a general term for a complete light fitting. A 'bulkhead luminaire' usually refers to an external or communal light fitting (but not exclusively). It is usually ceiling mounted with the bulb encased by a heavy duty glass bowl, which is sometimes enclosed by a protective wire mesh.

9. Where did Pest Control take place?
- What was the date? Eg:

Holden: no repair number, no date PEST CONTROL BLOCK WORK  £360.00
Wilshaw: no repair number, no date PEST CONTROL BLOCK WORK  £360.00

The following pest control works were carried at Crossfield Estate in 2008/2009:

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

10. Why is there no repair number for Pest Control items?

We include pest control works in your schedule of building repairs, but the works are not carried out by the repairs team. As such pest control works are not given an individual repair reference number in the same manner as building and estate repairs. The Council carry out pest control treatments to blocks and recharge the cost to us directly. We then recharge a portion of these costs to leaseholders. From 09/10 pest control charges will be shown separately and not included with the repair charges.

11. What is MST? Is it Main Storage Tank?

You are correct, MST is an abbreviation of Main Storage Tank.

12. What is this 'planned jetting maintenance' of? Is it to do with drains? Eg:

Farrer: 3652517 CONFIRMATION OF PLANNED JETTING MAINTENANCE £265.39  13/06/08
Farrer: 36808661 PLANNED JETTING MAINTENANCE £249.52 12/06/08

Please see my answer to Question 7.

13. Why are Repair Breakdowns not listed in any proper order? (Repair Order numbers are not always in order, and dates of repairs certainly are not).

When preparing a breakdown of repair costs, officers should present the repairs in either the order they were logged, or in the order that they were completed on our system.

Officers will be asked to present repair breakdowns in a clear, logical order.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Leaseholder Improvement Group (LIG) 25th March 2010

In lieu of Minutes as yet unavailable, here is my report from the LIG meeting. See foot of this post for update.

Matters Arising from Previous Minutes

In the previous meeting it was noted that a new Grounds Maintenance contract was in place. The area covered will now be based on an Estate Plan, rather than just the old HELM maps (don't ask me what HELM stands for). This new system will be digitised and can be viewed on the LH website. Residents will be able to see what areas are being paid for. It was confirmed that the contract was not based on frequency, but on required levels, eg grass not to exceed a certain height etc. Penalties for poor performance would be more severe than previously (even though it is still the same old contractor).

Since it was not minuted, I asked when this new 'Estate Plan' would be viewable online. The answer was it should be up and running some time in April 2010 (in the next four weeks then).

Pest Control, Caretaking, Estate Inspections

Dave Tutt (Quality and Performance Manager) addressed the meeting.

Pest Control

Pest Control is one of those grey areas: it is the responsibility of the Council, not Lewisham Homes, but the work is outsourced. Pest Control used to be provided free by the Council but now the policy is to offer free block treatments only when an infestation involves more than ten homes. Gaining access is a problem with block treatments and they have recently been using the Environment Protection Act to force entry.

Leaseholders questioned whether this could be changed to less than ten homes, but Lewisham Homes is powerless to change policy apparently. When an infestation is in less than ten homes, we all have to pay for it, even if it is just one or two homes in a block.

A leaseholder pointed out that the process took a long time and that her block had been having treatments for four years even though her flat was not infested. Often there was not enough notice given and she wanted to know how they measured effectiveness of treatments.

I pointed out there was no contract for cleaning the bins (in bin chambers) since LH took over. LH said there was no contract before. (However, in a reply to Joan Ruddock in August 2009, Estate Services said that "this used to fall under the responsibility of Lewisham Council").

I also asked if it were true that new building work could drive out rats into other areas. Tutt agreed it could. Developers were required to do a Proliferal Baiting before commencing work. I asked if, with prior knowledge of new building developments, the council could predict where infestations would take place and act accordingly. He said they did not operate on a prediction basis.

I pointed out we did not know we were paying for Pest Control in our Charges unless we asked for Repair Breakdowns where it was included, but not in any detail with no reference or date. (However, we requested and now have details of where Pest Control took place on Crossfields). Sandra Canham said Pest Control would be separated out from Repair Breakdowns in future.

Caretaking

All leaseholders present were concerned about the hike in Caretaking Charges. One elderly gentleman was quite upset about how long the caretaker took on his block (half an hour a week and not the three hours he was told it was). I said we were told the hike was due to 'buying new equipment' but we had never seen anything but a bucket of cold water and a mop and although portable jet washers had been introduced to clean inside bin chambers, they couldn't be used because there were no nearby powerpoints. The elderly gentleman was told by a bullying Dave Tutt to stop going on about charges since that wasn't the subject under discussion. A feisty black lady wanted to know who was there for the leaseholders, since it appeared to be nobody.

Estate Inspections

Most leaseholders present thought these to be inadequate. The elderly gentleman said they were meaningless since there was always a 90% plus score. I said the standards were set too low for caretaking and that repairs that needed doing were often not noted. Sometimes repairs were noted and recorded as having been done a week later when they were not.

A leaseholder pointed out that caretakers knew when inspectors were coming. LH said there were ad hoc inspections carried out that caretakers did not have advance warning of, and also residents could become 'Resident Inspectors' and report stuff themselves. 

I said many people were out at work when inspections took place and this was a cue for LH to announce that they would shortly be introducing  Saturday walkabouts and as the days grew longer, Evening Inspections, so that tenants and residents had more opportunity to take part. There would a focus on 'Key Priorities' from April. I can't remember what was meant by this.

Communal Repairs

Mick Duncan (Response Repairs Manager) announced they would be introducing a system of Customer Satisfaction Surveys. This would work in much the same way as when a tenant asks for a repair to be done in their flat: they are asked to fill in a small form to say that the job has been completed satisfactorily. This has never been the case with Communal (external) Repairs. But now (due to lobbying by our own Raphael in the Repairs Focus Group, methinks) when external repairs are required and reported by a tenant or leaseholder, they will be contacted by text when the job is done.

I said that whilst this was good news, who would fill out Customer Satisfaction Surveys if the repair had been ordered by a caretaker? And how would anybody but the person who reported the repair know what repairs were taking place? The whole point should be to have a system whereby Leaseholders know what repair work is being done so that they would later know what they have been asked to pay for. Another information route is required: all repairs should be notified to the TRA, who would keep a record, which leaseholders could request sight of.

Other leaseholders pointed out that this should be possible since if all repairs are logged electronically, it should be possible to add another recipient into the chain. Mick Duncan agreed that it might be possible to do this, but only on a monthly basis. He promised to look into providing Monthly Reports.

I asked Mr Duncan if his team could be trained to write more detail into their logs, such as exact location of a repair (for instance, outside no.11, near no.12), since Repair Breakdowns were not detailed enough.

I asked him if there was an Estate Plan used, like the one now available for Grounds Maintenance. For instance, the plan might show what drains were where and could be numbered for easy reference. That way it might be easier to spot where there were persistent and frequent problems, since presently there appeared to be no monitoring of this and Leaseholders are asked to pay again and again for the same problem. It was stated that there was no Estate Plan for Repairs and that such a thing could cost thousands of pounds. I said I'd be happy to draw one up for our estate for a couple of hundred.

There was general concern among leaseholders present over the standard of repairs, and the reporting of repairs done and charged for when they were not, and that the number of post inspections was inadequate (6% of a 10% target).

Future Topics

Sandra Canham closed the meeting with a brief address on what the LIG might discuss in future and suggested that topics might include, among other things, changes to leases to include a compulsory requirement to obtain yearly gas servicing. Generally, this idea drew no objections, not least because it is common sense, but especially since it was already gone 9.30pm. No doubt the legal implications and costs of changing the leases will be discussed at future meetings.


This report will be supplemented in due course by the official Minutes taken by Anne Fitzgerald on behalf of LH, which may fill in some holes in my notes, but of course may not be a completely accurate record of the meeting either. 

I assume these minutes will be posted to me (or Raphael who I was substituting) as hard copy and, if the last minutes are anything to go by, will probably include an extra six or seven pages of A4 with nothing on them except the LH logo and four bullet pointed sentences. 

Quite frankly, if Lewisham Council wants to pursue credibility as a leader in Sustainability, it will have to review its report procedures. I will, no doubt, have to make a special request for a digital version which I will of course post here so that at least some people can read it, which will be more people than ever read the hard copy.