TMO Freedom of Information Fiasco – Part 2

The pictures illustrating today’s blog show what appear to be heavy duty heating pipes exposed along ceilings, and up and down the walls, on the landings and other public areas of Grenfell Tower. The intention appears to be to leave these pipes exposed, perhaps as an example of some pretentious post-modern industrial style of architecture, except that in the present context they are completely lacking in any aesthetic value. We think it more likely that the pipework is designed this way because Grenfell Tower is regarded merely as warehousing for the poor (ie for the non-rich) of the Rotten Borough. Furthermore we are unable to recall any consultation exercise in which this feature was disclosed to, or discussed with, the residents who will have to live with it. In fact we struggle to recall anything at all that might reasonably be described as genuine public consultation.

These metallic monstrosities have lately become one of the main topics of conversation among Grenfell residents coming and going from their homes, who are both outraged and horrified by this horrendous imposition, like a cancerous growth, throughout the tower. We need answers urgently to some basic questions about this piping. Firstly, do the planners, and their contractors, really intend to leave this monkey puzzle exposed as it would currently appear they do, and if so how do they intend to justify this to the residents of Grenfell Tower?

The Grenfell Action Group has already written to Councillor Paget-Brown, Leader of the Royal Borough, to alert him to our concerns regarding the Grenfell Tower Improvement Works, and how the TMO are brazenly breaking the law by failing to consult with residents. In particular we wish to highlight the fact that we believe the TMO have acted illegally by not consulting with residents regarding the latest type of windows they plan to install in our properties and we believe that the TMO and their building contractor, Rydon, are planning to replace their original choice of window with an inferior and cheaper aluminium model much to the detriment of residents long-term welfare.

We believe that residents have a right to know what is really going on with regards the proposed works to our properties and that the TMO and Rydons have a duty to consult and be open with us. However, our recent attempts under Freedom of Information legislation to obtain the minutes to the “end of month” meetings between the TMO, Rydons and the architects Studio E have been refused by Fola Kafiydia, Head of Governance at the TMO.

Her reasons for witholding these documents do not withstand any serious scrutiny. For instance, in an email dated 5th December she claims the information;

“…is not held on behalf of a public authority or by the TMO on behalf of a public authority…”

This is simply not true. The sole function of the TMO is to serve as managing agents for the social housing estates owned by the Royal Borough. It follows from this that all information the TMO hold is held on behalf of the Royal Borough. Furthermore , when it comes to the Grenfell Tower improvement works, the Planning Department at RBKC registered the controversial recent changes to the planning application (ref. NMA/14/08597 ) on 10th December and the applicant for planning permission is named in this document as none other than The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Need we say more?

Ms Kafidya goes on to argue regardless that;

“… although Rydons is providing a service in the public interest, the TMO’s commercial communications with its contractors are sensitive and the disclosure of such commercial communication would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of the contractor. By virtue of section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, such information is exempt from disclosure”

According to her published CV Ms Kafidya is well experienced in handliing FoI and data protection matters. She will therefore know full well that the correct use of this particular exemption, assuming that the minutes in question do in fact contain some ‘commercially sensitive’ information (?) would be to simply redact the sensitive material and release  redacted versions of the requested documents. This is generally the view taken by the Information Commissioner’s Office, to whom we have complained on previous occasions when refused material by RBKC. Unfortunately for us appealing to the ICO is a lengthy process, which Ms Kafidya will also know full well, and we suspect that her intention may be to delay, obstruct and discourage us.

Anyone who has previously made FoI requests from local authorities, and is familiar with the pitfalls of the process, will immediately recognise the misuse of section 42(3) as the typical response of many local authorities who wish to obstruct, delay and therefore discourage those who make such bothersome requests in the first place. They may use this tactic to conceal errors or wrongdoing by their staff or agents (even those of a minor nature), to avoid embarrassment that might arise should any incompetence or ineptitude of their systems or staff become apparent, and we suspect also that they frequently do so simply out of sheer arrogance and bloody minded obstructivism.

WISE UP MS KAFIDYA. REDACT THE DOCUMENTS, IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, AND LET US HAVE THEM. YOU SURELY KNOW THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

FOOTNOTE: Since posting this item we have been informed that the complex of heating pipes throughout Grenfell Tower will be boxed in by lowering ceilings and building protective cupboards around the vertical pipework. This should satisfy some health and safety issues, by eliminating the burn risk (particularly to children) from touching hot pipes, and we assume the pipes will also be lagged to prevent heat energy loss. However, the concentration of so many heating pipes in such small lobbies may create significant public safety risks in the event of any technical failures in the pipework system, and the proposed protective measures will significantly reduce the amount of public space on the landings, and may thus create additional problems of cramped space and reduced access to emergency exits etc.

Again we would argue that all these issues need careful consideration, and require proper consultation with affected residents, which has not been happening to any remotely acceptable or satisfactory degree!  

 

 

Paget-Brown Washes His Hands

We published an open letter to Nick Paget-Brown recently complaining about the contemptuous attitudes and actions of the TMO and its’ officers towards residents in general, and those at Lancaster West in particular. If you haven’t already read our letter you can find  it by scrolling down the page just a short way. Paget-Brown didn’t keep us waiting long for his reply (below), but in our view it says nothing remotely helpful:

“Thank you for your email of 10 December 2014 and for bringing your concerns to my attention. The Council does have a procedure for dealing with complaints about its services as does the TMO. If, at the conclusion of those procedures, you are dissatisfied with the outcome you can appeal to the Ombudsman and you will be advised of your right to do so at that time. I have, therefore, asked for your complaint to be referred to the Planning Department and the TMO.

Yours sincerely (?)

Cllr Nicholas Paget-Brown         Leader of the Council”

Our regular readers will already know that the RBKC and TMO complaints procedures are widely regarded as a bad joke throughout the borough, and in any case we have already referred our concerns to the Ombudsman, who appears so far to have responded positively. Our opinion of Paget-Brown’s officious and non-commital reply can best be summed up by the graphic we chose to illustrate this post – apologies to any of our readers from a non-christian background who may not ‘get’ the Pilate reference.

TMO Freedom of Information Fiasco

A representative of the Grenfell Action Group recently made, on our behalf, a request under the Freedom of information Act from the TMO. He was seeking assurances, as well as evidence, that the TMO had informed and instructed Rydon’s, the Grenfell Improvement Works contractors, of widespread asbestos contamination throughout Grenfell Tower, so that they, the contractors, could deal appropriately with the associated risks to human health.

On Tuesday, 11 Nov 2014 we received the following reply from Fola Kafidya (the latest in a long line of company secretaries/heads of governance at the TMO):

“Further to Section 39 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, your request for information of evidence that the issue of asbestos in Grenfell Tower is being dealt with by the contractor Rydons and provide evidence that the TMO have informed the building contractor of the presence of asbestos in our properties is exempt from of the Act.”

What Ms Kafidya reglected to say is that Section 39 of the Freedom of Information Act states simply that:

“Information is exempt information if the public authority holding it — is obliged by Environmental Information Regulations to make the information available to the public in accordance with the regulations, or would be so obliged but for any exemption contained in the regulations.”

She also neglected to inform us that under the Environmental Information Regulations we would be entitled to access the information we requested, particularly as the risk posed by the asbestos throughout Grenfell Tower makes this an urgent Health and Safety issue.  There is therefore a significant public interest in favour of disclosure of the requested information, and we do not believe there can be any genuine reason to apply any of the very few exemptions allowed under the legislation.

Furthermore, according to guidance published by the Office of the Information Commissioner, when requesting information one does not have to:

• mention the Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations;
• know whether the information is covered by the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental Information Regulations; or
• disclose why one is seeking the information in question.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/official-information/

If Ms Kafidya had a shred of integrity, and was mindful of the TMO’s duty of care to the many residents over whom it wields so much power, she might just have informed us of these simple facts and advised us to reword our information request accordingly.

Better still she might have saved everyone, including herself, a deal of delay, frustration and additional needless effort by supplying the requested information immediately, with an advisory that we had mistakenly invoked the Freedom of Information Act rather than the Environmental Information Regulations. Had she chosen this course of action she might just have helped create a modicum of goodwill, where none currently exists, and improved, ever so slightly, the very poor relationship between the TMO and the residents of Lancaster West Estate.

WHY WOULD THAT BE TOO MUCH TO EXPECT, WE WONDER?

WATCH THIS SPACE: In our initial request we asked Ms Kafidya for additional information under the FoI Act which she refused under another exemption. We will be posting a further blog very soon covering the details of this other fob-off.

An Open Letter to Nick Paget-Brown

Dear Councillor Paget-Brown,

I am writing to you, on behalf of the Grenfell Action Group, in your role as Leader of The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, to ask you to investigate the actions of the Council’s Planning Dept. and the TMO who are brazenly breaking the law by failing to consult with residents during the Grenfell Tower Improvement Works. I would like to lodge a formal complaint against the Council and ask that this matter be referred for immediate investigation to your Monitoring Officer.

In particular we wish to highlight the fact that we believe the TMO have acted illegally by not consulting with residents with regards the latest type of windows they plan to install in our properties as part of the improvement works and we believe that the TMO and their building contractor, Rydon, are planning to replace their original choice of window with an inferior and cheaper aluminium model much to the detriment of residents long-term welfare.

We believe that residents have a right to know what is really going on with regards the proposed works to our properties and that the TMO and Rydons have a legal duty to consult and be open with us which they are patently failing to honour.

As an example, our recent attempts under Freedom of Information legislation to obtain the minutes to the “end of month” meetings between the TMO, Rydons and the architect Studio E have been refused by Fola Kafiydia (Head of TMO Governance). The Grenfell Action Group believe that this refusal to share legitimate information with the residents of Grenfell Tower shows that the TMO and Rydon have something to hide from our community and they should be ashamed of their need for secrecy. We are tenants not terrorists!

In addition, we believe that the latest attempt by the TMO to apply changes to the planning permission granted by the RBKC in January 2014 (Ref: PP/12/04097) are illegal, as they have been proposed without any consultation with residents, and we are asking you as the Leader of the Council to investigate these allegations as a matter of urgency.

According to the TMO Tenancy Handbook, and in line with residents rights under Acts of Parliament and Government Regulations, tenants and leaseholders have a right to be consulted on any modernisation or improvement planned for our homes.

We believe that the TMO have patently failed to abide by their obligation to follow the Law in this respect and, therefore, do not have the authority to apply for a change to their original planning permission. While most residents in Grenfell Tower welcome the improvement works we also believe that we should be properly consulted before we simply surrender our homes to the TMO’s building contractor.

We were originally promised by Paul Downton, the previous TMO Lead on the Grenfell Tower Improvement Works, that residents would be consulted and given the opportunity to view and comment on a variety of different windows. We were informed at the time that the TMO would be open to engaging with residents and taking on board their feedback. To date (and nearly two years later) these promises have been broken as no residents have ever been provided with an example of the proposed windows or been given a formal opportunity to submit comments on the type of window that will be used. This is illegal.

Now we hear that residents will, in fact, never be given any opportunity to comment on the final choice of window that we are to receive as they have already been chosen by the RBKC Planning Dept. Residents in Grenfell Tower that we have spoken with feel most aggrieved and believe that we should have been consulted before the final choice of windows was decided and residents should have a say in the type of window that we receive.

We have taken the liberty of copying this correspondence to our elected representative at Parliament, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and also to the local Press and can assure you that we will not let this matter drop until the Council, the Planning Dept and the TMO start treating residents with some respect and consult with us about the proposed improvements to our homes as you are required to do by Law. Please can you assure our community that the current application with regard planning permission changes will not be sought by the Council without first properly considering the views of residents?

Regards,

Grenfell Action Group

PS. Our readers might be very interested in the many comments posted on the Hornet’s Nest blog after Dame Hornet posted a copy of our letter earlier  this week.

http://fromthehornetsnest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/tmo-to-be-reported-to-local-government.html#comment-form

Save Earl’s Court: Our voices will be heard.

For too long the voices of the good people of Earl’s Court, whose lives will be changed forever with the demolition of the Exhibition Centre and “regeneration” of their community, have been ignored.

The following film finally gives a voice to the powerless and ordinary residents of Earl’s Court and captures how the destruction of their much loved community will impact on their private lives, homes and businesses.

We urge our readers to take some time out to listen to our near neighbours heartfelt story and reflect that “regeneration” and the devastation that it brings could be heading our way soon.

STILL NO WAY OUT

The Grenfell Action Group would like to draw the attention of our readers, including and especially those at Hornton Street, that our much loved and cherished rights-of-way from Lancaster West Estate northwards towards Ladbroke Grove and Portobello Road have now been denied to residents by RBKC Council for a period of TWO YEARS, causing local people much inconvenience, heartache and distress. We refer, primarily, to the vital right-of-way that formerly ran, and should again run, between the Academy and Verity Close, joining Grenfell Road to Lancaster Road. The KALC construction works were scheduled for completion in September 2014. Clearly they have overrun this schedule by several months (and we suspect by several millions) and so there is still no way out for the many Lancaster West residents besieged behind the despised impassable wall of the KALC security fencing.

THIS BRUTAL AND NEEDLESSLY CALLOUS TREATMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN AND WILL COME BACK TO HAUNT THOSE IN HORNTON ST WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS HEARTLESS POLICY!

The Council closed this vital access route in November 2012 but were forced to reopen it temporarily when the Grenfell Action Group successfully complained that the Council had closed it without obtaining the proper permission from the Secretary of State:

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/highway-robbery/

After that time we continued to lobby hard for the provision of a narrow access corridor along this vital right-of-way towards the north of the Borough. The KALC contractors reluctantly costed this at about £150,000, but the Council refused to compromise or co-operate, claiming it would be too expensive. Instead, we now know they opted to spend far more money on providing a quarter of a million pounds for artwork to grace the new Kensington Aldridge Academy rather than honour their word and their duty of care to local residents.

We would like to record for posterity the fact that our local Labour Councillor, Judith Blakeman, props up the KAA Art Steering Group for this frippery and indulgence that is an insult to our community and totally wasteful expenditure of Council Tax payers money.

The long and short of this story is that vital money that could and should have been used by the Council to keep open important rights-of-way was used instead to fund artwork at the Aldridge Academy to the great detriment of our community. We believe that Councillor Blakeman would do better to concentrate her efforts on representing the needs of the people who have elected her and not get sidetracked into puffing up her ego with her support for Holland Park Opera and other arty fripperies by RBKC!

http://fromthehornetsnest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/no-money-for-disabled-loads-for-junk-art.html

In addition, and to add insult to injury, we do not believe that the current closure of the route between Grenfell Road and Silchester Road is currently legal, and we challenge the Council to produce evidence that they have obtained the necessary periodic extensions for the continued closure of this right-of-way from the Office of the Secretary of State, as they were required by Law to do in July 2014 and at intervals thereafter.

The removal of our right-of-way along Station Walk, and the extinguishment of our alternative routes to the north of the Estate has forced residents on a detour that totals nearly half a mile and reinforces the apartheid experienced by residents on Lancaster West by our separation from the more affluent and upmarket neighbourhoods of RBKC.

Not only do our disabled, community elders and mothers with children and pushchairs have to negotiate four flights of stairs just to enter and leave Grenfell Tower, but they then face a massive detour to reach Ladbroke Grove and Portobello Rd.

When we recently appealed to David Benson, the Headmaster of the Kensington Aldridge Academy, for assistance with this matter he simply referred us back to the likes of Laura Johnson (Housing RBKC) and our local Labour Councillors.

Anyone expecting our Member of Parliament, Council Officers or our local Labour Councillors to help us will be seriously disappointed as our elected representatives seem to have no interest in coming to the aid of beleaguered Lancaster West residents and seem quite happy to leave us to languish in this hellish no-mans-land.

Shame on them and their support for a system that has denied access for Lancaster West residents to the shopping and other amenities at Ladbroke Grove and Portobello Road for more than two years and for considering some decorative artwork for the benefit of a privately owned school and a privately run sports centre more important than respecting the vital needs of the resident community!