Another newsletter, another farce

As we mentioned in our last blog yet another newsletter claiming to be from the Residents Association was delivered to the estate's residents recently. 

As has now become the norm the first most of the Residents Association Committee knew about it was when it was delivered to their homes. The Chair is clearly keeping his fellow Committee members, our elected representatives, fully informed of what he's up to.

How anyone can seriously claim that it is from the Residents Association under these circumstances is a joke. It is clearly a newsletter from the Chair, Mr. Ali Shah, produced with the help of the Council, who probably also helped write it.

And it has "Resident Engagement Team (ex-TMO), scourge of Grenfell" written all over it.

The newsletter is six pages long and printed in colour double-sided on three sheets of A4, which have then been stapled together. The newsletter was clearly printed on an ordinary office laser printer. There's nothing to suggest a professional printing firm was used despite the fact that it would have been significantly cheaper.

Each newsletter has then been placed in an envelope and posted out to all 270 households on the Cremorne Estate using the Royal Mail. A franking machine has been used and the mark on the envelope is that of the Council. 

It's pretty clear that the Council provided the paper, printed the newsletter, provided the envelopes and address labels, and paid the postage.

This is not a service the Council offer or provide to other Resident Associations for the simple reason that it is not cheap. We estimate the cost of this exercise was somewhere north of £800. The postage alone was about £200. That's over £3 per household. 

Most Resident Associations simply cannot afford to spend £800 on a newsletter. Unsurprisingly they find more economical ways of producing and distributing a newsletter. And spending £200 on postage because you can't be bothered to deliver anything on the estate where you live demonstrates exemplary laziness on the part of the Chair, and not much in the way of basic common sense on the part of anyone involved, particularly the Council staff.

As for the newsletter itself: 

The content of the newsletter could be summarized as propaganda in favour of the current Chair of the Residents Association and propaganda in favour of he Council. 

Much of the propaganda in favour of the Chair takes the form of the Chair claiming credit for things he had little or no actual involvement with. 

The propaganda in favour of the Council takes the form of fawning support for anything and everything the Council does. Oh, and some pretty blatant attempts to rewrite history.

The Chair can justifiably take credit for everything on the first four pages - the barbecue held in the estate's gardens in the middle of the pandemic (see our previous article), the installation of a Christmas Tree, and the installation of a memorial bench for a former, rather controversial, resident of the estate who passed away just before Christmas. 

We suspect this is the kind of thing the Council wishes all Residents Associations spent their time doing. Not because it benefits the community, but because it would keep them busy doing something other than scrutinizing the behaviour and performance of Council staff and contractors. Bread and circuses to distract the plebs as they say. 

On pages 5 and 6 the Chair tries to take credit for things he clearly had nothing to do with.

He tries to claim credit for the works to replace the front doors of tenanted properties on the estate. This is despite the fact that these works are part of a borough-wide programme that began well before he was anointed Chair. He clearly had nothing to do with it beyond being the Chair when the works were carried out.

He tries to claim credit for the recent roll out of fibre broadband on the estate. Again, this had nothing to do with him. The decision to allow Community Fibre and Hyperoptic onto Council estates was taken before he was ever Chair and the Cremorne Estate clearly isn't the only estate where it is being installed. Does he also wish to claim credit for it being installed on dozens of other Council estates as well?

He states that he opposed plans for high powered street lighting opting instead to install "softer" estate lighting. What he forgets to mention (or, more likely, simply doesn't know) is that the lighting he has opposed was recommended by the Police's Design Out Crime Team whilst the "softer" lighting he has opted to install instead probably hasn't. Who wants to bet that the new softer lighting fails to provide the estate with the security benefits it actually needs?

To be honest we could go on but we won't. Suffice is to say that claiming credit for things you have had nothing to do with whilst openly displaying your ignorance is the norm. 

At the end of the newsletter there is a "closing statement". We don't necessarily disagree with some of the sentiments expressed but do disagree with some of the "facts" put forward.

Denying that there was ever a plan to install a Crossrail 2 station on the estate is a blatant lie. We've discussed this elsewhere and some residents have since reminded us that he actually attended many of the public meetings at the time, including the one attended by Greg Hands MP. He really should know better.

Denying there was ever a plan to build on to of some of the blocks on the estate is also a lie. The Council have rethought their proposal but they were, at one point, seriously considering adding more floors to Westfield House. This is all a matter of public record. Why he believes it is even remotely sensible to deny it is beyond us.

Suggesting that the Residents Association had previously worked in secrecy and was now totally transparent it not only a lie but total hypocrisy. 

Secrecy is keeping most of the Committee in the dark about what you're up to, such as sending out newsletters and making decisions without their knowledge, and he has been doing just that ever since he was anointed by the Council in December 2019. 

In fact pretty much everything the Chair can justifiably claim credit for he did without the knowledge or approval of most of the Committee but with the wilful collaboration of certain individuals working at the Council. 

Is that transparency? Or is it actually secrecy? Who is guilty of what exactly?

This would all be a humorous farce were the situation not so serious. The estate is faced with millions of pounds of major works and this newsletter makes it abundantly clear that the current Chair of the Residents Association is both unwilling and incapable of scrutinizing any of it. That he apparently also considers it perfectly reasonable to put out a newsletter that cost the best part of a thousand pounds is merely confirmation of his poor judgement and general ineptitude. 

And to make matters worse the Council will be ensuring that he is re-elected by running the elections to the Committee on the 1st of July. Just like last time. They won't allow the election to be supervised or have anyone verify the result. Just like last time. 

No doubt because they'll be fiddling the result to both his and their advantage. 

Just like last time.

Ladies and Gentlemen we present the all new, all dancing "we really learnt lots from Grenfell and repeatedly crucifying the residents we didn't like, honest guv" Rotten Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Save the Cremorne!

Rewriting history, for thirty pieces of silver ...

Residents of the Cremorne Estate recently had the latest newsletter from the Cremorne Residents Association drop through their letterboxes (and, as is now usual, most of the Residents Association Committee knew nothing about it - more on that to come).

In it the current Chair of the Residents Association, Mr. Ali Shah, claims that:

"There are no plans to demolish any part of the Cremorne Estate for the Cross Rail 2 project as previously circulated and can confirm that there were never any plans to do so." 

This is a lie.

Or perhaps Mr. Ali Shah would like to explain the document below?

It is the original TMO Board briefing that was leaked to residents in 2014. It let the cat out of the bag and told us what the Council were up to.

The TMO Board briefing is very clear:  

There was a plan to locate a Crossrail 2 station on the Cremorne Estate.  

It was a plan the Council dreamt up (as the briefing says: "at the request of RBKC Leader Councillor Nick Paget-Brown") and then put to TfL. 

It would have led to the demolition of most of the estate and its "regeneration".

The Grenfell Inquiry has confirmed what "regeneration" really means in Kensington and Chelsea.

It means moving people out of their homes, out of the borough, and leaving them there.

And that document is just one of many implicating the Council, Council officers and Councillors in a proposal that would have destroyed our community, our estate and blighted the local area. 

You only have to look through the posts on this site from 2014 and 2015 to confirm just how real the threat to the estate was. 

We are assured that Mr. Ali Shah knows this. Why then is he lying? 

Perhaps because the only reason Mr. Ali Shah is the Chair of the Residents Association is because the last election was fiddled in his favour by the Council's Resident Engagement team (and they appear to be planning to fiddle another election on the 1st of July). 

He is the Council's choice, not ours. 

Mr. Ali Shah now appears to be doing his master's bidding. He is trying to whitewash history in the Council's favour. To what nefarious ends and in return for what we do not know. But we can't think of a better way of trashing your credibility and confirming the accusations of being little more than a sycophant and a plant and not to be trusted.

In 2014 we were lucky. We had a Residents Association that would fight tooth and nail to defend the estate and save our homes. And they did.

In 2021 we are cursed. The Residents Association is led by a man who appears to be quite happy to lie and cheat and sell us all down the river for thirty pieces of silver.

And given what we know is coming our way - millions of pounds in major works that will be extremely disruptive and cost leaseholders tens of thousands of pounds that Mr. Ali Shah is clearly unwilling to scrutinise or challenge in any way - perhaps he will.

Save the Cremorne!

Has anything changed?

It will not have escaped eagle eyed readers that the Grenfell enquiry has now reached the stage where it is considering submissions from the residents of Grenfell Tower and the Lancaster West Estate as well as from the TMO.

The submissions from the residents should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the TMO's modus operandi - tales of bullying, intimidation, disdain and general apathy and indifference from members of TMO staff, with those residents who dared ask questions or raise issues labelled "difficult" and "troublemakers" and ostracised. Totally unprofessional and uncaring behaviour that demonstrated a total lack of care and respect for residents. 

And in some cases far, far worse. 

And accounts of what the Council were up to at the time aren't much better. Anyone suggesting the Council were "okay" and simply misled by the TMO should take off their blinkers. The Council knew what was happening and, through inaction if nothing else, was totally and utterly complicit.

It is therefore extremely disappointing that as we approach the fourth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire it is impossible for us to propose with any honesty that the situation has improved and that the life of a resident whose home is now managed by the Council, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, is significantly better than it was under the TMO. 

Yes, the Council has acted to deal with some of the most obvious failings already identified by the Grenfell enquiry in relation to fire safety - a number of estates have had new front doors and communal fire doors installed and other fire safety works are apparently on the way - but has the attitude of the staff to the residents changed much if at all? 

And more importantly: has it changed for the better? 

Given what we have seen of staff behaviour over the last two years we find it difficult to believe any claim that it has. 

The Council was on its best behaviour in the immediate aftermath of the fire as was, it must be said, the TMO. And when the Council inherited most of the TMO's employees through TUPE that continued to be the case. But that honeymoon period lasted 18 months at best and died a quick death once the Council secured the result it wanted from the government imposed test of opinion. They would clearly go the extra mile to secure a favourable vote from residents (that the Council should continue to manage their homes) but once they had that in hand it was clearly back to business as usual. 

There are now so many examples of poor staff behavior that would not be out of place in a submission to the enquiry that it is readily apparent that those former TMO staff still employed by the Council have reverted back to their old ways. And that those recruited since have simply followed their lead and acquired some of their most appalling traits and behaviours. 

And that is without mentioning the obvious corruption that pervades the delivery of so many services, the audits so often promised by Doug Goldring that were supposed to deal with the countless cases of improper working practices and inappropriate relations between members of staff and contractors reported by so many residents having completely failed to materialise.

And it's certainly without mentioning the despotic and dishonest antics of certain members of staff on the Cremorne Estate, both in relation to the manner in which they deal with residents and the manner in which they have effectively neutered the Residents Association. All done with the knowledge and consent of their superiors: Councillor Kim Taylor-Smith, the Lead Member for Housing, and Doug Golding, the Director of Housing Management. 

It is readily apparent that the countless promises from the likes of Councillor Kim Taylor-Smith and Doug Goldring that things would be both radically different and radically better under their leadership were little more than hot air, and had just as much substance.

Housing management under the Council, under the direction of Councillor Kim Taylor-Smith and Doug Goldring is equivalent, if not identical, to that under Rock Feilding-Mellen and Robert Black. The cooks may be different but the recipe is exactly the same. 

Things have changed very little. We can only hope that the enquiry might yet serve to shed some light on that simple truth and that actual meaningful change could yet follow. 

But as usual where the Council are concerned we won't be holding our breath.