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)

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...

.................................................................................................................................................

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

.................................................................................................................................................

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

.................................................................................................................................................

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)

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

.................................................................................................................................................

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.

 

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...

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)...