Jump to content

Recommended Posts

LondonMix & Buddug,


This is a terrible thing that has happened, however it may be helpful not to focus on the role of building control department quite so much, especially without knowing the full set of facts and defects of the development.


Whilst the duty of the building control is to approve particular aspects of a development, it is difficult to hold them to account if they have been lied to or misled. This may be the case but as yet I don't think we know the full facts.


below is a link with a brief explanation of the many types of inspection that MAY happen on a construction site, which demonstrates the complexities of responsibilities.


http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Construction_site_inspection


Please feel free to PM me to discuss more so as not to veer off topic on this thread.


Regards,


James

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.

buddug Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.


A lack of fire exits/routes can be spotted in one visit but fire stopping is a very different thing. 40 visits would only witness a small percentage, and when the inspectors do their rounds workers will know to turn their hands to 'finishing' any exposed details that need stopping. Most fire stopping can't be seen in the finished product. I suspect the problem only came to light when the floor,wall,ceiling finishes have been removed to repair other defects. I would lay the blame solely with the contractor.

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.

http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/6525371.article?mobilesite=enabled


http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/analysis-and-data/investigations/london-burning/7009301.article?fontSize=2


First link is from Inside Housing, its from 2013,

Regarding enforcement orders from fire brigade. There was 16 notices served to London social landlords within a 6 month period in 2013, 50% of those were served in Southwark, 4 to Wandle.

The second link is more up to date, does anyone

Know if wandle have been served an order.

During my build, building control insisted on seeing the firestopping before dry wall was overlaid. He specifically told the contractor to call at the specific point and said if it wasn't visible he'd make them remove the finishing. Again, I'm only speaking for personal experience and I may have dealt with an exceptional officer but I find it hard to understand.


Of course the contractor is to blame and I hope there are legal penalties that can be put forward against the director of that now bankrupt company. However, building control exist to protect the public against rogue contractors.


Of course one of my top priorities is getting the people impacted by this compensation and housing.


However, I live in Southwark. New primary schools and secondary schools are currently being constructed and its important that some type of investigation into what happened within the council takes place to see if appropriate duty of care was adhered to. Perhaps it was, but without proper accountability what prevents lapse behavior now and in future?

JamesRixon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Whilst the duty of the building control is to

> approve particular aspects of a development, it is

> difficult to hold them to account if they have

> been lied to or misled.


You are clearly far more knowledgable about these matters than I, but as a lay person I would have thought one of the prerequisites of a building control department is to have the necessary knowledge, skills and rigour to ensure that they are not lied to or misled?

The BBC London Radio today - Solomons Passage residents talking, MP Harriet Harmon and Wandle Chief exec Tracey Lees

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03tpx3f


Listen for the last 90 mins to catch all of it.

Rosetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This story is being comprehensively covered on BBC

> Radio London, 94.9, now, on the Drivetime

> programme. They interviewed the Chief Executive.

> Available to listen to on iPlayer later tonight

I have just listened to the interview on BBC drive time and would suggest that local residents take the time to do the same.


Thank god that Eddie Nestor has taken this up and promised he will not let the matter drop. His interviews were excellent.


The programme put all those involved to

shame and the interview with the Wandle Chief Executive has to be listened too to be believed.


All you people that post on the forum regarding trivial and petty things should listen and put your support behind these people who will suffer through no fault of their own.


At least Harriet Harman spoke sense and nailed the matter regarding all that is wrong with this whole affair.


Let's hope that the National Press picks this up so those at fault cannot pass the buck.

Hey All,


I'm so glad that residents spoke with BBC Radio London, as I suspected Eddie Nestor (Anna O'Neil and team) highlighted the awful situation that they are facing and tried to get some responses/answers.


The responses from the Wandle CEO beggars belief and in my mind demonstrated that she simply does not care. The CEO did not once show/express/'just say it for saying sake' one drop of empathy or regret for the situation until repeatedly pressed by Eddie - utterly disgusting and I made sure to email in and say so. Whilst I suspect that Wandle is not solely at fault (again where are Southwark Council in this??) the residents are faced with dealing with this organisation for resolution.


Harriet Harman seems to be doing her best to get the voices of the residents heard and bring them directly to Wandle - this is indeed progress. I really hope that they respond responsibly and with empathy and common sense.

Harriet Harman is visiting Solomons Passage this morning first thing, according to her interview on Drivetime.

An excellent photo opportunity and shame there will not be tv cameras there.


All residents, best wishes, and an opinion that it is not for you (residents) to find yourselves somewhere to live after having been asked to leave - all good sense, manners, and pragmatism suggest this is the responsibility of Wandle. And possibly legal, but as I am not sure, I say that in a little voice.


The interview with Tracey Lees was a jaw dropper wasn't it?? She described Wandle, twice, as a business! Well a business has customers who need to be catered for and if needs be placated. And we all want value for money and not be ripped off Tracey. Wandle is a Housing Association, publicly funded.


I make no excuses for Tracey Lees but would say that she has been CEO since March 2015 and would not have known about Solomons Passage problems, and picked up the poisoned chalice unwittingly. However now as CEO she is able to show her mettle if not her compassion, and to do the right thing by her hapless residents.

Harriet Harman has also tabled meetings with Wandle in parliament on this, so there is no doubt that Southwark Labour are treating this with the seriousness it deserves. Southwark do not own the land, they did not build the properties in question either, and they also hold no liability really.


The construction company (companies) involved are the only party to this that no-one is dicussing here and yet they are central to what has happened. If the process was such that Wandle couldn't, or didn't pick up on the problems, that needs to be looked at. If the guidelines and rules around building control/ inspection from Southwark's end weren't adaquate to pick up on problems, that can be looked at too. There's an automatic drive it seems to lay blame at Southwark, or Wandle etc. But until the facts are fully established and understood (as they must be through some kind of inquiry), seeking blame where there may be none is unfair.


What matters in the immediate term, is that residents are given satisfactory alternate accomodation at no extra expense to themselves (whilst the rebuild takes place) and that fair compensation is given for the disruption. This should be done with no objection or fuss from Wandle.

"There's an automatic drive it seems to lay blame at Southwark, or Wandle etc. But until the facts are fully established and understood (as they must be through some kind of inquiry), seeking blame where there may be none is unfair."


As the original builder went into liquidation as you might expect they are out of the frame.


In financial takeovers there is a thing called due diligence where one company looks at another to establish what the true situation is before they go ahead.


Why did the new construction company not look at what they were taking on and report and why did Wandle not know what they had in construction terms when the other builder went down?


No matter which way the cake is sliced Wandle is the main ingredient.


Southwark is in the picture because of building control.


It would seem proper for Wandle to hold their hands up and say we are 100% in the wrong.


"What matters in the immediate term, is that residents are given satisfactory alternate accommodation at no extra expense to themselves (whilst the rebuild takes place) and that fair compensation is given for the disruption. This should be done with no objection or fuss from Wandle."


An enquiry should slow this down.


Drive time should be praised for bringing this into the public arena.

The original construction company might be out of the frame in terms of compensation, but they are not out of the frame in terms of usderstanding exactly WHO is responsible for the poor construction. Did either of the construction companies build anything else at the time, and are those building in danger too? These are questions at the heart of the matter.


After all, concrete that is poured, looks like poured concrete. Only a scientifc test could really tell you if the poured concrete is to the required standard. My point there being that once something is constructed, it is possible for it to look ok enough to pass inspection, especially if dishonest paperwork or records accompany it. I don't know enough about the process of checks and standards to be specific, but this is what needs to be looked at - the safeguards that should have made sure this didn't happen having failed.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/fire-ravaged-peckham-site-had-no-watchman/6507756.article

There were concerns back in 2009 about Greenacre sites around the time the current flats were being built. Please see the link above. There had been two major fires on their sites I a shirt period. This article all edges they had not followed the correct fire procedures re fire safety on their sites.



Greenacre is down in many of the news reports as the developer but the original scheme had been developed by St Aidan's group. They were challenged in the planning process about the fact that they were planning to build the social housing at a more lower specification than the earlier privatly owned development.Southwark was very much aware of this issue and chose to ignore the concerns. In my mind this makes them just as much to blame as Wandle Greenacre and St Aidan's.

we are Wandle tenants on CPR as in a sudden desperate situation involving immediate surgery which obviously they knew about necessitating offer of small apartment.

What we could not grasp was how filthy it was and had to install new toilet!! it was disgusting.

The obfuscation, lies, intimidation, lies, promises, lies, harassment, lies, threats! lies, mag describing how wonderful Wandle are and new CEO who is uncontactable!

and 'housing officers' with a life experience of a 12 yo and as much tact, we despaired. Do not think you will fare any better. Stay until you are offered something better. Wandle are morally deficient : fasten your seat belts it's going to be a bumpy ride.

And Wandle, ceo and all, are about to be exposed.

Which does not help you residents. We listened to Drivetime. Tracey Lees sounds like someone on the you know what. HH will make mincemeat of her.

And hopefully will have your collective backs.

This is a shocking, disgraceful situation, good luck one and all

Hi all, I would like to offer my condolences as it were to the terrible situation you all find yourselves in. Just proves that all the rules in the world mean nothing when it comes to any kind of company trying to do things for cheap when they think they can get away with it. I can not imagine how you all feel.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...