Dear Resident,

Thank you for copying me into your e mail

We have undertaken an analysis of the heating /hot water failures at the block. Many of the failures were partial and would not be caught by our compensation policy.

However in the light of the representations made by Cllr Robinsion and the levels of inconvenience caused we have agreed to award £100 to each residency. This will be paid into rent accounts or leasehold service charge accounts and we would aim to get the administrative work completed over the next week or two

Kind Regards

Pat O'Neill
Head of Service Delivery

Telephone: 020 7974 3264

Dear Mr O'Neil,

Thank you for your email.

However, I believe that the amount of compensation is an insult to the leaseholders for the following reasons:

1) Council Tenants have been awarded more than £100 compensation. Could you please explain the reason for this?

2) Three months without hot water was not a partial failure. It was a total failure of service as well as a failure to respect all those elderly, disable and fully paid tenants. An insult to the leaseholders who paid £1,200 for heating alone this year as well as £10,000 approx for Heating Works.

3) According to our log at: http://curnockestate.com/?q=node/463 there are ONLY a few hours of good service. The rest was misery.

4) The hot water temperature was and STILL is below the 50 degrees Celsius that you suppose to provide us. Please read your OWN standards, which was obtained under the Freedom Of Information Act, at: http://curnockestate.com/?q=node/489

5) Please also read the petition about this failure with the residents comments at: http://www.curnockestate.com/?q=node/480/activism_report

As from today we will stop all the payments to Camden Council until you provide us with the following:

1) A decent compensation for the loss of hot water (£150 or more).
2) A hot water that meets your standards (i.e. 50 degrees of Celsius at all times).
3) A copy of your analysis to the heating/hot water failures at the estate.

I am looking forward for your response.

Yours sincerely,

CSE Group
http://cse.curnockestate.com
Together We Are Stronger

Dear Resident,

The sum that has been agreed in compensation per resident is £100 and I don’t think I will get it increased.

I will discuss this matter with officers and councillors without giving any commitment..

Roger Robinson Cllr

Dear Cllr Robinson,

I was wondering if you heard anything concerning my questions about the hot water compensation.

Many thanks,

CSE Group
http://cse.curnockestate.com
Together We Are Stronger

Dear Stuart

Any progress re the compensation to Curnock estate residents for the loss of hot water for such a long time??? Your email dated 23rd October 2012 refers.

Please advise

Regards

Roger Robinson Cllr

Dear Mr Dilley,

Could you please let us know the answers to our questions sent to you on the 22nd October 2012?

In the meantime some of us have stopped all payments to Camden Council until this matter is resolved.

Many thanks in advance.

Yours sincerely,

CSE Group
http://cse.curnockestate.com
Together We Are Stronger

Dear Resident

Senior colleague are investigating the issues you raise who will hopefully be in a position to give a full response by the end of this week

Regards
Stuart
Sent from my iPad

Good Morning Mr Dilley,

Could you please provide us with an update since the residents did not receive any answer yet as per your email below?

Many Thanks

CSE Group
http://www.curnockestate.com
Together We Are Stronger

Dear Resident

My apologies for not responding to you by Friday, which was the agreement Mr Dilley had made.

We have undertaken an internal assessment and agreed a sum of £100 per residence across the whole estate, this is over and above terms dictated by the policy for loss of hot water service.

We are in the process of organising this payment and will advise when this will be undertaken.

Regards

John Wheatman
Interim Team Leader M&E Repairs and Improvements

Telephone: 020 7974 8639

Dear Mr Wheatman

I have to say that £100 is simply not enough to make up for the 2 years to my knowledge when the Curnock estate residents had no hot water and no heating in the autumn and winter periods.

I thought that Stuart Dilley was going to have a look at this and my recommendation is that the £100 be increased to a much more acceptable amount to make up for the lack of heating and hot water and the misery that caused.

Please let me know

Roger Robinson Cllr

Dear Mr Wheatman,

Thank you for your email.

1) If the £100 "..is over and above terms dictated by the policy" then why Camden Council awarded other residents more money last May?
2) Is discrimination on this manner against leaseholders acceptable?
3) Will you ask the extra money back from those residents?

Could you or someone else answer my questions on my email below dated 22nd October 2012?

I am looking forward for your reply.

Your sincerely,

CSE Group
http://www.curnockestate.com

Dear all

I acknowledge that the issue of compensation for loss of service at Curnock St has been a sensitive subject for some time

We have made every effort to analyse the repairs history and arrive at what we believe is a fair and just recompense for the problems experienced by residents

Whilst we must accept that there have been some periods when service was completely lost , the majority of reported incidents related to partial loss of either heating or hot water , low temperature or noise in the system.

When service was lost completely it was generally restored within the expected parameters .

We attempted to equate the recorded loss of service with the published policy related to heating /hot water failure but this would have arrived at what we considered to be an inappropriately low amount of compensation .

In recognition of the level of inconvenience endured by residents we requested authority from Cllr Fulbrook to step outside the normal policy and make a blanket ward of £100 to all residencies on the estate. Cllr Fulbrook has approved officers recommendations in this respect

We feel that this is a reasonable outcome and although I am sure that there may be instances where this is considered too low we feel that it is a fair and appropriate response

The awards will be progressed as soon as possible

Kind Regards

Pat

Pat O'Neill
Head of Service Delivery

Telephone: 020 7974 3264

Dear Pat

It IS too low considering the times that the hot water and heating has disappeared from Curnock estate over the past 2 years.

I still think £100 should be increased to a larger sum like £250.

Please re-think this,

Regards

Roger Robinson Cllr

I agree with Roger, I think the residents of Curnock estate deserve an increase of up to £300 or at least a payment of £250 which is very reasonable compared to the loss of services they had to face.

Please reconsider our suggestions

Many thanks,

Cllr Samata Khatoon

Dear Mr Wheatman

Please can there be a reply to resident’s emails to you dated 22nd October and 12th November ras both Cllr Khatoon and me feel the compensation offered is far too low.

Please advise

Regards

Roger Robinson Cllr

Dear all

I feel that we need to put this issue into context

A recently circulated report confirms that the required level of capital investment in our stock over the next 5 years exceeds £400 million. Our available budget is circa £200 million.

The shortfall in budget leaves us facing some stark and difficult choices and members will be acutely aware of the choices that are available to increase budget availability to match the shortfall.

The communal heating network is diverse and comprises 200 boiler houses containing 500 boilers. The network is ageing and relies on buried distribution networks that are prone to failure. Systems are inefficient and do not meet our sustainability agenda. We are seeing increasing levels of failure over a number of the major installations in recent years and many of our estates are experiencing similar problems.

As a result, the Council is developing a major programme for communal heating systems and is proposing £28.5m of investment through the next five years of Better Homes.

Irrespective of whether or not budget can be increased , the above need leaves us facing some very difficult challenges in respect of prioritising the investment and the potential level of service charge that may be levied on our leasehold tenants. We already face significant challenges in this respect.

With respect to Curnock St we are faced here with a decision of providing compensation that helps ameliorate the effect of service failure or investing the available budget in the works that are required to prevent service failure .

The decision to award £100 has been made in the light of investigation of failure levels and awareness of the issues experienced by residents . The Council has a policy on this matter. Had we adhered to policy we would not be providing this level of compensation .We increased compensation above policy levels to reflect residents inconvenience over the period in question.

We consider however that the award is fair and when put into the above context it would be unreasonable in the circumstances to focus additional scarce financial resources on one estate. We could also potentially create an expectation that this sets precedent and higher awards could not be sustained.

I appreciate that the response may sound harsh but as stated above we must accept that we will be increasingly faced with making some difficult and unpalatable decisions.

We are in the process of notifying residents of the £100 award and hope to have this sent out as soon as possible.

Kind Regards

Pat O'Neill
Head of Service Delivery

Telephone: 020 7974 3264

Hi

This is the reply I have received re my request to the Council to increase the compensation for £100 to a higher amount.

I am very disappointed but I am not sure how much further we can go,

A deputation to the Housing and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee on the 28th November possibly? If so , I can give details but it would have to be a deputation from the TRA with other residents involved too.

Please advise

Roger Robinson Cllr

Dear Mr O'Neil,

I have now received your email dated 16-11-2012 and I would like to provide my feedback.

Firstly I would like to say that I totally agree with your statements below:

1) "The shortfall in budget leaves us facing some stark and difficult choices"
2) "The network is ageing and relies on buried distribution networks that are prone to failure."
3) "Systems are inefficient and do not meet our sustainability agenda."
4) "We are seeing increasing levels of failure ... and many of our estates are experiencing similar problems."

From your email as well as from previous emails from your team, it is clear that the heating system is far too old, inefficient, end of its useful life and not cost effective. You have already spent millions on pounds on that system and you are proposing to spend another half a million in the next few months. The maintenance cost for that system according to your latest Section 20 Notice as well as the salaries for all those employees who maintains the system, is huge.

Since that is the case why Camden Council has invested and is continuing to invest all that money to that heating system instead of replacing it with individual boilers inside every flat that are much more efficient and economical?

Secondly I would like to bring to your attention my total disagreement with the following "false" statements:

5) "Had we adhered to policy we would not be providing this level of compensation."
6) "We consider however that the award is fair"
7) Mr Wheatman's statement that the £100 "..is over and above terms dictated by the policy".

My disagreement is based on the following:

a) Since Camden Council has already awarded compensations that are over and above terms dictated by your policies then someone has mismanaged public money or the whole process has been mismanaged. There are official documents showing that some residents have already received more than £100. What will you do to address that mismanagement?

b) Since Camden Council has already awarded higher compensations to Council Tenants based on terms dictated by your policies, then I would like to provide me compensation based on those generous policies. If not, why?

c) A compensation is not "fair" when it awards higher amounts to certain group of residents while dismiss the rights of other groups.

d) A compensation is not "fair" when a three or five bedroom flat gets less compensation than an one bedroom flat. What will you do to address this unfairness? How will you insure that some residents won't get compensation twice?

The residents of the estate and myself are looking forward for your reply before we consider our options on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

CSE Group
http://www.curnockestate.com
http://csegroup.curnockestate.com
Together We Are Stronger