Pandemic? What Pandemic?

On Saturday, 5th of September, the Chair of the Residents Association, Mr. Ali Shah, organised a party in one of the estate's communal gardens.

The same communal gardens the Council is currently consulting us about. The same communal gardens the same Mr. Ali Shah, Chair of the Residents Association, is proposing to open up to the general public without consulting the rest of the Residents Association and despite widespread opposition from the estate's residents (more on that in a later post).  

Leaflets advertising the event were randomly distributed across the estate just before the event. Some residents received the leaflet on Friday, some received the leaflet on Saturday, some received no leaflet at all. 

You do have to wonder whether the plan was to make sure that no one had the chance to object before the event took place. 

The leaflet advertised a free barbecue for up to 200 people, live music, a bouncy castle, and a raffle. 

Tables at the barbecue would be made available on a first come, first served basis in time slots of "up to 50 minutes". 

The event was described as "a socially distanced afternoon of community food and family fun". 

The good news: 200 people did not turn up. Anyone with any sense, which appears to have included most of the estate's residents, stayed well away. Possibly because, you know, there's a pandemic on. 

The bad news: social distancing was not at all evident. By all accounts no attempts were made to ensure that groups of attendees did not mix, that people kept to their own groups, and that those who attended the barbecue only did so for only 50 minutes (as advertised). 

Is this surprising? Of course not. It's what we have come to expect. 

The real question is of course: who in the Council's Housing Management Department thought authorizing such an event was even remotely sensible given current government guidance on containing the spread of COVID-19? Guidance they repeat like parrots but have clearly never read properly or actually understood. 

The government is about to ban people from meeting in groups of more than six. The Council authorized an event where 200 people, over thirty times that number, would meet and mix and socialize. 

And then, to make matters just that little bit worse, the current Mayor of the Royal Borough, Councillor Gerard Hargreaves, turned up and mingled and mixed with all those present as well. Leaving no one in any doubt that poor judgement in the face of an ongoing pandemic that has already killed between 40,000 and 60,000 people (significantly more than the Luftwaffe ever did throughout the Blitz) is not only endemic at the Council's Housing Management Department but appears to afflict many of our local politicians too. 

We sincerely hope that no one suffers any negative consequences from this little "party" and that COVID-19 was not present in any way, shape or form. But should that not be the case who of our wonderful Council Housing Management staff and politicians will own up to an epic gaffe and willfully putting the estate's residents at risk?

When the cat's away ... run a consultation.

An eagle eyed resident was kind enough to point out that the Council's consultation on opening up our gardens is both very short and taking place entirely during the month of August when many residents are likely to be away. 

The letter from Patrick Sean Sullivan is dated the 6th of August. The deadline given is the 28th of August. That is, at best, 22 calendar days. And all within the month of August. 

The consultation period is also unusually short. The equivalent letter for a proposal to paint some shed and garage doors was dated the 16th of July and set a deadline of the 14th of August. That's 29 calendar days. 

The proposal to paint shed and garage doors will not have a negative impact on anyone. Not all residents have a shed or a garage and many simply won't care whether the Council paints them or not.

The proposal to open up our gardens to the general public (for that is what it is) will have a detrimental impact on all residents, and particularly those living next to the gardens, for the many, many reasons we have cited previously (see our previous post for the gory details). 

Would any sane person believe that a proposal to paint some shed and garage doors is worthy of a longer consultation period than a proposal to open up our gardens to all and sundry? We suspect not. 

But the Council's Housing Management Department clearly do. 

Why? Because they are perfectly aware of the fact that a significant number of the estate's residents are likely to be away for some or all of the month of August. And they are quite cynically taking advantage of the situation. 

They are hoping that those likely to object will be away and will miss the consultation altogether.

Dissenting voices are very clearly not welcome. And if those likely to dissent are intentionally (ahem, accidentally) excluded by rigging (ahem, setting) the dates of the consultation in this way so much the better.  

They are quite simply trying to engineer the end result they want. 

The consultation is really a non-consultation. It is designed to tick a box not find out what most residents actually think. Because it's quite clear that Housing Management don't really care what anyone thinks. They simply want to have their way.

This is the kind of behaviour that you might expect of dodgy property developers with questionable planning applications who submit their planning applications at the height of Summer in a cynical attempt to try and avoid any opposition from those affected (and we've had plenty of those before), not the Council. 

Destroying our gardens

A letter from the Council just landed in our letterboxes. 

The letter is signed by a Patrick Sean Sullivan, a member of the Council Housing Department's Environmental Services Team.

This team, which the Council inherited from the TMO, has been the subject of many a complaint from many residents over the years. 

They are no strangers to allegations of corrupt, immoral and dishonest behaviour. 

The letter claims that the Residents Association had asked the Council to open up the estate's gardens.  

They would remove the existing fencing around our garden areas and open them up to public use. 

This is an unbelievably stupid proposal. Monumentally stupid in fact.  

Parts of the estate currently suffer from regular incidents of street drinking, drug dealing, dog fouling and every other kind of anti-social behaviour imaginable. 

We've had drunks from the local pub pass out and collapsed on the ground outside blocks.

Drug dealers are often seen dealing from behind some of the sheds on Ann Lane. 

The local Police do the best they can to deal with the issues. The Council have yet to demonstrate either the willingness or the know-how to deal with any of them. 

Some Council staff actually seem to do the best they can to remain willfully ignorant and pretend those problems don't exist, which is why we appear to be stuck with them.  

And now they want to open up our gardens to all and sundry. 

As if all this ongoing appalling and unwanted behaviour will somehow not simply migrate there and turn our gardens into a hive of anti-social and criminal activity. 

They intend to destroy our gardens and make the lives of those living nearby a misery.

And then they have the temerity to claim this was requested by the Residents Association. 

We know most of the residents on the Residents Association. Most have served on the Residents Association for years and know the estate well. They would not propose this. 

And having now spoken to most of them we know none of them asked for these works. 

None of them were even consulted about them.  

The first they knew of these works were when the letter from Patrick Sean Sullivan arrived at the weekend. 

They're all supposed to have proposed something they knew nothing about!

In truth they are all very strongly opposed to the proposals. They know the damage opening up the gardens would do. 

They know how badly their neighbours would be affected. 

They would not dream of proposing such a damaging and dangerously stupid idea. 

The letter is clearly factually incorrect and grossly misleading. 

The question is whether Patrick Sean Sullivan and the Council know that it is. 

We suspect they do. 

They're lying. 

And they know they're lying. It's clearly intentional. 

We don't know who Patrick Sean Sullivan has been speaking to, but it's clearly not the Residents Association. 

What remains to be seen is just how long they intend to pretend they aren't lying. 

But if they're lying about something like this, what else might they be lying about?

The Heating Controversy

Those of us living on the Cremorne Estate are no strangers to problems with the estate's district (communal) heating system. The system has been playing up for many years. Many of the estate's blocks suffered lengthy outages to their heating and hot water in 2017 and 2018. 

There are of course disagreements as to the cause of these problems and outages. Some say the system is too old and hasn't been maintained properly. Others say the performance of the heating maintenance contractor leaves much to be desired. Given that the Cremorne Estate is not the only estate to have suffered severe outages in recent times we would suggest that there is more than a little truth to both of these suggestions - the system probably hasn't been maintained properly and the performance of the contractor probably has left much to be desired. And the two are very clearly related given that the contractor carries out the maintenance. 

Whatever the actual cause of these problems the Council proposes to remedy the situation by carrying out extensive works to the system. These works have been split into two phases. The first phase contains all the works to the boilers and distribution pipework. The second contains all the works within buildings/blocks and inside individual homes. 

The Council recently wrote to all residents with regards to forthcoming major works and described the works as follows (copied verbatim):

Phase 1:

Replace the whole boiler house including all boilers and relevant controls. Total refurbishment. 

Replacement of all pipework involved in the distribution of heating and hot water system throughout the estate running from block to block, but not into the block. 

This phase is to bring all the external heating systems into a good serviceable condition and increase efficiency in its present design.

Phase 2: 

All pipework within each block and into each flat will be replaced.

Redesign the system install additional radiators and controls in line with the current legislation 'Decent Homes Standards'.

This will be a carefully programmed approach as we will need to carry out invasive works within each property. 

The timelines given are 2020-2022 for phase 1 and 2022-2023 for phase 2. 

Phase 1 is not controversial. We are not aware of a single resident who objects in any significant way to the first phase of works. Everyone seems to agree that the works are necessary, precisely because the current system is not in "a good serviceable condition" (for whatever reason). Leaseholders may wish to argue over the costs of the works, in particular as it could be argued that said costs will be abnormally high as a direct result of many years of neglect, but whether they will do so remains to be seen. 

Phase 2 IS controversial. A number of residents have pointed out that the Council's description of the second phase is neither accurate or honest. They have noted that the second phase of works, as proposed will actually be:

1. Extremely expensive. In particular as it involves significant works inside both buildings/blocks and inside people's homes. 

If you're a leaseholder have a good think about this, because you're going to be paying for it. 

2. Extremely disruptive. Precisely because it involves significant works inside people's homes. And they will clearly be much more disruptive than the Council wants to admit. 

In some blocks the distribution pipework runs through people's homes rather than through communal areas or spaces, so even replacing that will be extremely disruptive. Residents are likely to have workmen in their homes for many weeks if not months replacing not only the radiators and pipework serving their homes but also the pipework used for distribution.

And a consultant's report we have had sight of clearly states that to be the case. The report goes as far as to state that it may even be necessary to decant residents during the works. That's a rather extreme definition of the word "intrusive" being used by the Council. 

3. Expensive for all in the longer term. That the additional radiators and controls referred to will include Heat Interface Units and Heat Meters and that their use will result in a significant increase in the cost of heating and hot water and drive many tenants and leaseholders into fuel poverty, something the Council has done before on a number of other estates. 

The Council has rather a lot of form in this regard. 

For example:

The residents of Grenfell Tower were convinced to have their district (communal) heating removed and replaced with individual boilers within their homes (arguably unsafe in a tower block) on the assurance that the new system would be no more expensive. This turned out to be a very blatant lie, the replacement system was a LOT more expensive and many residents were unable to pay to heat their homes as a result. 

And there's a very similar tale of woe at Wiltshire Close. 

Similarly the "hidden homes" flats created on the World's End Estate next door were intentionally removed from the estate's district (communal) heating system for no good reason and despite the opposition and objections from that estate's Residents Association. The tenants who subsequently moved into those "hidden homes" found themselves facing heating costs up to three or four times that of their immediate neighbours. And, unsurprisingly, having committed the dastardly deed neither the Council nor the TMO felt any obligation to either remedy the situation or help the affected tenants and that remains the case to this day. 

And, we suspect, that's just the tip of the iceberg. The Council clearly has no qualms about making tenants and leaseholders fuel poor. It might say it has no intention of doing so but its actions to date clearly say otherwise.  

And again we have had sight of a consultant's report that states that will indeed be the case if the second phase of works proceeds as planned. 

The report states, quite clearly, that some households on the Cremorne Estate are likely to face increases in their heating and hot water charges of up to 300% if Heat Interface Units and Heat Meters are installed and used.

So there are some very obvious issues with the second phase of these works. And they have been brought to the Council's attention, both directly and via the office of Greg Hands MP. And what have the Council done? Not what you might have expected. 

Or perhaps exactly as you might have expected.

The "heating controversy" referred to above is that having been told of these issues and concerns the Council has decided not to engage in a serious, adult conversation with the residents that have pointed them out. Rather it has decided that it would be best to pretend that these issues don't actually exist and suggest that those raising them are being "difficult", "obstructive" or "troublemakers". 

Some members of Council staff have gone as far as to refer to the issues raised as "misinformation" which, given the existence of the two reports from the Council's own consultants, is not only farcical but bordering on the behaviour of Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

And where have we heard this kind of thing before? Oh yes, that's right, at Grenfell. When the tower was refurbished (and clad in highly combustible materials) the Council referred to any residents raising any issues or concerns as "difficult", "obstructive" and "troublemakers". The Council thought it better to insult, demean and denigrate residents than try and address their (clearly justified) concerns. It appears very little has changed.

What the Council should have done is respond to the issues raised by engaging in an open and honest discussion about the scope of the works, the impact they are likely to have on residents and allow residents to be actively involved in making the decisions that may yet mitigate, minimize or even eliminate that impact. 

We appreciate that the Council may not have wanted to have that conversation at this time. But now that the cat is well and truly out of the bag it would be sensible to try and engage in a proper discussion with the residents that treats them as adults. 

Said residents may, unsurprisingly, wish to have some input into a decision process that is likely to have a monumental impact both on their homes and on their lives but is currently completely opaque and in which they have no real involvement. 

Sadly this has not happened. Other than the descriptions of the works quoted above the Council have sent us nothing. And the responses to any residents who have made queries or raised issues are not being provided by technical staff who might actually understand the issues and be able to address them properly but by "resident engagement officers" who clearly haven't a clue and are not beyond simply lying to make the residents and their issues go away.

And referring to any resident as "difficult", "obstructive" or a "troublemaker" suggests the Council has learnt nothing from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, let alone improved in any way as a result. 

But should the Council ever get round to addressing these issues properly we will be more than happy to document their response here. 

We hope for and await something meaningful. But we're not holding our breath. 

Just who is running the show?

A newsletter was distributed across the estate last week that appears to be from the Residents Association but on closer inspection appears to be nothing of the sort.

Our last post noted that the newsletter appears to have been prepared without the knowledge or consent of much of the Residents Association's Committee.

Of the twelve elected Committee members ten have stated that the first time they saw it was when it dropped through their letterbox.

That doesn't sound at all dodgy does it?

A further bit of digging has now revealed that:

• The newsletter was written with the help of, perhaps even entirely by, Council staff.
• The newsletter was printed by the Council.
• The newsletter was distributed by the estate's caretaker, a Council employee. 

And the photo of the recently anointed Chairman gracing the front of the newsletter was clearly taken in the Council's own offices. Probably by a Council officer (we wonder who?).

The Chairman. In the Council's offices.

That all sounds completely legitimate, doesn't it?

It's not as if we have Council staff effectively pretending to be the estate's Residents Association with the help of one particularly "helpful" resident is it? Of course not.

The newsletter states that a "residents meeting" is to take place this evening in the Cremorne Sheltered Clubroom. 

Again, most of the Resident Association's Committee, including the Resident Association's Secretary, knew nothing about it. It's clearly not a meeting called by the Residents Association in any legitimate fashion.

It hasn't been announced or advertised by the Council in any way. So it doesn't appear to be a Council meeting either, although we understand that a number of Council officers intend to be present (why? what for?).

The agenda is apparently going to include a discussion on the future of the Riley Arms pub, a den of iniquity, drug dealing, fencing stolen goods and other petty criminal behaviour at the end of Ann Lane that blights the lives of those living nearby, both on the estate and on the other side of the Kings Road.

The newsletter's author, whoever that may be, and whoever actually organised this meeting, clearly support whatever plans the pub's owners have for the place.

The Council, the freeholder of the property, appears to do so as well.

The only people who don't are the Resident Association Committee, many of the estate's residents and many of the estate's neighbours (and, unsurprisingly, they haven't been invited).

Does anyone else get the impression that the Council is making use of the newly anointed and clearly compliant RA Chairman to rush through unpopular decisions before the estate's residents, or anyone else affected, can do anything about it?

So much for the Council actually caring for its residents. Or having learnt anything from Grenfell.

We do wonder who at the Council thinks this is a good idea. A bit more digging is clearly in order, and once we start digging we are sure there will be much, much more to follow.

RBK&C dirt ahoy!

Newsletter #1

A "newsletter" has been delivered across the Cremorne Estate in the last couple of days.

A newsletter from the Residents Association. Possibly.

The newsletter appears to be from the Residents Association. It doesn't actually say it is so we're guessing. But having spoken to several Committee members it appears that none of them were aware that it was even being produced. Everything ship shape there then!

The contents of the newsletter make interesting reading, revealing much about the interests and concerns of those who wrote it. More on that at a later date.

One very short article in the newsletter makes interesting reading.

Under the heading "Resident Safety" the newsletter states:

"Concerns have been raised by some residents about vehicles being parked near gas pipes. Council officers have investigated and found there is no cause for concern." 

What's wrong with this you ask? Well, aside from the fact that no "Council officers" are named, the problem is that the "vehicle" often parked near a gas pipe, and likely to be the subject of these concerns, is a motorbike belonging to none other than the newly anointed Chairman of the Residents Association whose face happens to be plastered all over the newsletter.

The Chairman (photo taken in the Council's offices)

That's right, the owner of the offending "vehicle" is writing to let us know that it's perfectly safe for him to continue to park his motorbike on the pavement next to the gas pipe outside Riley House.

The Chairman's motorbike parked next to the gas pipe outside Riley House. As usual.

We have nothing to worry about.

Because "Council officers" said so.

Is this appropriate? We think not.

Have "Council officers" really investigated and determined that it's perfectly okay to park a motorbike next to a gas pipe?

Who are these "Council officers"? Why aren't they named? Why aren't any contact details provided?

If anyone should be writing to the residents about this it should be Council. Not the owner of the offending motorbike.

There's more than a small conflict of interest here. That no one at the Council appears to have spotted it is worrying. That it did not occur to any of them that this might not be a good idea really does call their judgement into question.

The motivation of the Chairman (motorbike owner) is clear for all to see. He wants to carry on parking where he does. The Council's is a bit of a mystery.

But given that it appears that the Council did in fact have a role in the creation and distribution of this "newsletter" the words "clueless" and "learnt nothing from the Grenfell fire" do come to mind.