buddug

Londonmix. I agree with you. By the way, just to be clearer, southwark said in answer to my FoI 'approval of the scheme' was given by another council (which denies this) not a private company. Southwark also said 'certification' after their (48) site visits was provided by their building control. Southwark's use of language seems designed to confuse the layperson. However, their building control signed it off (their certification).

Yes, under something called Local Authority Building Control (LABC), but not in the way Southwark has worded it to me.

I received answers to my freedom of info request to Southwark Council within the 20-day deadline, but they raise more questions than answers. I've contacted residents for more information regarding Southwark's response before I write my article. It's vital, for obvious reasons, that I get my facts right. In regards to my request, all I can say is that Southwark Council has passed the buck to another council's building control for the sign-off. I rang that council today. They deny signing off and said it was the responsibility of Southwark's building control. I have very good reasons for believing them, which I can't go into here. I want the results of my investigation to be made public first in the national press for it to have an even greater impact. I have also asked residents if they could invite me to visit inside the blocks so I can see things for myself. I do hope they will contact me. The reporter at Southwark News is doing a great job so far in keeping this dreadful situation in the spotlight and I have told him so. He will go far!

If St Aidans Group had any role in the Solomons Passage fiasco - and it is listed on their website as one of their projects - then surely, their recent application for planning permission at Railway Rise must be put on ice by Southwark Council until a full investigation into the Solomons Passage demolition and relocation of residents - both homeowners and renters - is concluded? James Barber? Renata Hamvas?

Not yet. Response is due on Tuesday, the end of the 20 working days - the time span in which they must reply. If Southwark Council has something to hide on this issue, they will say it is not in the public interest on Tuesday. Then I can appeal to the head of the freedom of info department at Southwark. That too is likely to be rejected at the end of another 20 working days. Then I can take it for final adjudication to the independent information commissioner. I'll keep you posted.

Hamvas said: "Southwark building control did follow correct process and procedure at this site." Oh, did they? Still protecting your paymasters. Let's see what my freedom of information request throws up in the next few days.

I've just heard the 'property expert' express his disbelief and shock that Southwark Council building control signed this off...

Exactly, Rendelharris. As well as the evidence of their own eyes re lack of fire escape route.

AbDabs, one resident said there were no fire exits. Southwark building control would have seen this was the case. For me that is the most serious issue after the terrible situation the residents are in. James Rixon's helpful link also seems to show building control had quite a large remit in my mind. For two blocks to need demolishing after just 6 years is astonishing following more than 40 initial inspections. I'm just going to wait and see what comes out from the freedom of info requests. No point trying to guess who's at fault at this stage, but questions had to be asked - of both Wandle and Southwark Council.

Thanks Rendelharris! Have now remedied that. It was the last three lines of his sign-off that threw me. Also a bit too early for me to be posting really - haven't had my second coffee...

James says "however it may be helpful not to focus on the role of building control department quite so much" and that to do so is "veering off topic"! Building control inspectors were not lied to about fire escapes, alarms. They made more than 40 site visits to the development for God's sake. Councillors should not be protecting the council at the expense of the safety and well-being of Southwark residents. And the only reason we don't know the full facts is because the council is not telling us them. I've had to put in a freedom of information request to prise the truth out of them.

Renata Hamvas. You said "I have contacted building control again and they have informed me that fire stopping would have been checked as part of the site inspection." But you don't mention fire escape routes...

Oh come on, Renata. Stop trying to protect Southwark Council building control. You say: "I have contacted building control again and they have informed me that fire stopping would have been checked as part of the site inspection regime to ensure that it is fine at that time point." Yet at that time when they were signing it off there were no fire escape routes/exits.

LondonMix. You've hit the nail on the head. Fire safety - exit routes and alarms - do indeed come under Southwark Council building control's remit. So how the hell, after 40 visits from building control, and after the fatal Lakanal House fire in 2009, could Southwark building control have given approval to this development. Although the council is now denying it was building control's role to sign it off. Equally, Owen Sheppard's excellent article in Southwark News reveals that although Wandle is claiming the Fire Brigade is now satisfied with the Solomons Passage fire safety provisions following an investigation, the Fire Brigade has denied that any investigation took place. The plot thickens.

I was outside my home just now - I'm having a week off - when a van with Wandle on the side came past, and slowed down right outside it with the driver looking through his window at me. He then drove off, but within seconds, he reversed. I turned round, and saw him in the reflection of my window stop outside for a couple of seconds, peer over, then he continued reversing down the road. Best not to comment on this as it is, without doubt, just a coincidence.

Why did the head of building control not sign his name at the end of his email?

Whatever we get via freedom of info request will be admissible in law. And as our requests are reasonable and valid, they will have to be answered.

Thanks, Mark T. You're right, 20 days is the max, but sometimes they respond before that. Here's hoping. The press officer relayed all the info she was given to me. She had nothing else. And consequently, it was a mess. I think what she was given by those on high was purely incompetent. Not her fault. When members of the press, like myself, need answers, we are automatically directed to the press office. So no one needs to apologise for letting the press officer near this. It is their job to answer questions from the press after gleaning the info from heads of department. However, when I have needed answers as an individual leaseholder of Southwark, I have not gone to the press office, but have gone straight to heads of department. But this situation is different, as I will be writing about this for my newspaper group. I think it's time I got one of my more senior colleagues at the Financial Times to report on this situation as it stands, questions unanswered, while I await a response to my freedom of info request.

Thanks geneie, for that. On their website, Homes & Communities Agency also say their responsibilities include "regulating social housing providers to make sure that they?re well managed and financially secure, so maintaining investor confidence in the affordable housing sector and protecting homes for tenants". Doesn't mention leaseholders, but I'll ring them tomorrow to alert them to the situation and see what they have to say.

Hi Pipsky. Having refused to answer my questions through normal channels, they now have about 10 days to give answers to my freedom of info request questions. Those questions are very reasonable and valid, and they will struggle to wriggle out of answering in the correct manner. The department at Southwark to which you have to send freedom of info requests is [email protected].

Trouble is, Spider, all these things have to follow a procedure in order to get anything out of the parties involved. My Freedom of Info request to Southwark has about 10 days to run. If they continue to fob me off, the independent Information Commissioner will likely force Southwark Council to say exactly what happened. They cannot claim building control officers visited the site and did inspections, but that there was no approval, or sign-off, as they are claiming at the moment. It's a nonsense. If it transpires Southwark Council signed off a development that was not fit for purpose, and a fire risk, if that is indeed the case, then they may be liable. We, sadly, have to wait. If Southwark Council turns out not to be liable, then other avenues will have to be pursued. It will all come out in the wash. Meanwhile, thank goodness for the Freedom of Information Act, which, incidentally, Tony Blair later regretted introducing, saying he was an 'idiot' for having done so. Says it all about Blairites, really. Sadly, the leader of Southwark Council, Peter John, himself endorsed arch-Blairite Caroline Flint in her leadership challenge...

Good idea. Though I've never seen anything about Southwark Council in Private Eye come to anything. Not even the Lakanal House story, unbelievably.

Spider69: I'm a member of the press and will be writing a news article about this situation. Since the press officer's strange reply, I have put in a Freedom of Info request to the appropriate department and copied in Eleanor Kelly, Gerri Scott and Peter John. I now have to wait for the reply. If I am not satisfied with it, I then have to file one more request internally for an appeal, and if still no answers, I can appeal to the independent Information Commissioner's Office. You will not get anything from the head of service. The press officer will have taken instruction from them in formulating her reply to me. I am still, unsurprisingly, awaiting answers from Wandle. If they do not reply soon, I shall simply say they did not reply to my questions.

I have filed a Freedom of Information request to Southwark Council with several questions to ascertain whether their building control officers signed this development off. I also asked if the blocks had a fire escape route/exit or fire alarms at the time, and if not, why was it given council approval, especially in light of the terrible Lakanal House fire in Camberwell in 2009. I will hear within a few days. Meanwhile, I had this reply from Southwark Council's press officer Kim Hooper: "Our building control officers visited the site and did the inspections that are within their remit, which is around issues during construction", and she added, bafflingly: "As explained in my previous emails, it is not the council who ?sign off? (as you put it) the condition of the finished building." Equally baffling - and worrying - she wrote: " It must be emphasised that Building regulations are minimum standards, which do not deal with quality but are about the building process." She then includes the following as part of building control's remit: "To secure the health, safety welfare and convenience of people in and around the buildings and people who may be affected by the buildings." She concluded by saying it is Wandle I should be contacting, as they are responsible for the 'condition' of the building.

Why are you shocked? It's Southwark Council.