Warm, Dry & Safe Major Works / Refurbishment Nelson Square

Great to get all this useful 'conversation' and information just as I am about to send a registered letter to the Council raising my concerns after the 'drop in' to meet the contractors and consultants on Tuesday 22nd. I am in Vaughan House (flat usually let out however so unfortunately I can't get involved in any forums). Was exceedingly unimpressed with the responses of the 3 reps from J. Murphy. Would also love to get a copy of a list that was apparently circulated at the May 2013 AGM held at RHH concerning all the hassles that they (RHH people) had had with the Warm Dry and Safe works. Or any detailed info from those of you have previously 'suffered' as to what the major problems were / are.
Ruth

Look forward to reading the May 2013 list!

Too many problems to right here and many wont be relevant.

Officially the latest records show:

22 July 2014
Meeting Name:
Cabinet
Report title: Major Works Status Report incorporating Warm,
Dry and Safe
p.13
FRA works
requiring significant actions to bring to tolerable level
Rowland Hill House Complete Moderate (risk)

NELSON SQUARE GARDENS 2
2014/15
Borough & Bankside
Cathedrals As scheduled (packaged with Gaywood).

What happened to NELSON SQUARE GARDENS 1? There's nothing to say.

Perhaps the cleaners have been in.

As an absent leaseholder you'll need to keep in much closer contact or you'll end up paying bills without any evidence to challenge them. Evidence is essential.

So I have now been informed there was a meeting on Tuesday in the Nelson Square tenants' hall where residents from Vaughan and Helen Gladstone Houses were passed all the information and experience from the Rowland Hill House major works.

The new tenants' hall in Rowland Hill House, by the way, was paid for by the section 106 money from the Palestra building (loss of light and the likes). As soon as the tenants' and residents' association could not find new officers to run the show we received a very strictly worded letter from Southwark Council where they demanded they were given the keys to the hall immediately as there was no association.

Enough to say there are still regular residents' meetings in the hall, like the one mentioned above. Southwark Council has promised to "knock on doors" around the square to find new volunteers for the association. Not had any knocks on my door as of yet.

Hmmm. Interesting. However, with ref to this para:
"So I have now been informed there was a meeting on Tuesday in the Nelson Square tenants' hall where residents from Vaughan and Helen Gladstone Houses were passed all the information and experience from the Rowland Hill House major works."
It was not a meeting - rather a drop-in and I was NOT 'passed' any such "information and experience" whatsoever!
RuthNM

Suggest that residents look to the official policy including Major Works Local Offer
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3069/major_works_local_offer

There is other guidance and commitments too.

If you feel that you're not being reasonably treated or the MW Local Offer not complied with then raise an initial "informal" complaint. If still not happy then make a "formal" stage one complaint.

It tends to happen that if meetings have not been adequately advertised or notice provided etc then it might have to be redone. One issue has been the non provision of translation help when contacting residents.

RE T&RAs and Halls - keep in mind that you can form a T&RA with ANY blocks on ANY estate. Especially if there are other blocks that do not have a T&RA then you can gather them up. Or a T&RA just for one block (c25 people). Small or large.

Make sure the TRA HAll has been retained under control of the HOUSING DEPARTMENT and not shunted to another department. If a TRA was grabbed by Southwark then that might be news!

Anything not nailed down is lightly to be sold for cash.

I have a lot of detail about the proposed work to be done to Helen Gladstone House and object to most of it.

I attended the "drop in" session on 22 July and it is clear from this meeting that the council has no idea what it is doing and the contractors are using this naivety to specify work that is unnecessary.

Work originally specified form July is now scheduled for November and will continue over Xmas.

Please send me a private message if you want further details and interested in objecting to the work.

"contractors are using this naivety to specify work that is unnecessary"

Yes they will!

Hasn't the contract and spec been agreed?
So anything changed now is a variation and could cost money.

Just be careful you don't lose out in other ways.
Tricky business.

No - the price given by the contractor as part of the tender has apparently "elapsed" and therefore specs are now changing to bring it back down to price.

Leaseholders loose out either way.

So they will have to reissue S20 notices?

So the contractor is not appointed because the tender lapsed? R U sure that is true? Because there was a "General Exception Notice" to agree the contract award.

In terms of procurement, if it lapsed, how can they appoint a contractor on the basis of one specification/ scope and tender, and then change the specification / scope and not return to the market to get a competitive price?

So the outcome - you may get less for the same money, or even more money. Old trick, shuffling the tumblers. Chat to people for ages, draw up scope and specs, then changing it all. Necessary works not done, unnecessary works done.

Leaseholders should seek advice straight away.

Tendering and procurement is sent out in the Council's Constitution with timescales and dead lines. If Officers neglected to ensure these were adhered too then why should any leaseholder lose out either financially or by getting less works done?

All sounds very odd to me.

Here's the Notice for Nelson Sq + Gaywood:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50002476&PlanId=281


"The tender acceptance period for this contract expires on 8 May 2014. Approval
to award the contract needs to be sought before this date as the contractor will be
entitled to an additional cost on their tender sum if the contract is not awarded
before the tender expiration date."

The notice was approved.
So if they now say the tender "lapsed" then how come?
Why?