Flats being demolished in Solomons Passage SE15

[Charles Notice]

malleymoo Wrote:

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

> http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/fire-ravaged-peckha

> m-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.

Has Renata Hamvas found out more about the above comments and whether building to a much lower specification would have raised issues with building control to monitor that more closely.

I would be interested in hearing more from the Cllr on this sad affair and not seeing it drop of the radar.

[Renata Hamvas]

I have attended two recent meetings, on Friday with many residents and Harriet Harman MP and on Monday afternoon with senior staff from Wandle, residents representing the four blocks, my fellow ward councillor Victoria Mills and Harriet. It is clear from the discussions with Wandle (from Monday and previously) that there were issues involving other parties but Southwark is not one of them. I don't want to say more as I know that Wandle is pursuing these parties via legal channels and this is a public forum and I have no legal background! I can say once more, from the information I have received, that Southwark building control did follow correct process and procedure at this site.

Ward Councillors will continue to support residents where we can and it definitely not dropping off our radar.

Renata

[buddug]

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.

[Blah Blah]

Until you get that info you have now way of knowing what it says, so perhaps best to not insult Renata, who from what I can see is working very hard to help residents where she can. Councillors are NOT council employees. Their paymasters are us, through our taxes (both local and national). It's also very clear that liability is elsewhere, which is why Wandle are pursuing legal avenues to bring to account those who are actually liable. Personally I'd like to hear more about that, but accept Renta's reasons for legal confidentiality.

[rupert james]

buddug Wrote:

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

> 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.

Have you received a reply back from Southwark on this matter.

Sure many people including myself would be interested in the response.

[buddug]

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.

[pipsky2008]

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

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

> I have attended two recent meetings, on Friday

> with many residents and Harriet Harman MP and on

> Monday afternoon with senior staff from Wandle,

> residents representing the four blocks, my fellow

> ward councillor Victoria Mills and Harriet. It is

> clear from the discussions with Wandle (from

> Monday and previously) that there were issues

> involving other parties but Southwark is not one

> of them. I don't want to say more as I know that

> Wandle is pursuing these parties via legal

> channels and this is a public forum and I have no

> legal background! I can say once more, from the

> information I have received, that Southwark

> building control did follow correct process and

> procedure at this site.

>

> Ward Councillors will continue to support

> residents where we can and it definitely not

> dropping off our radar.

> Renata

I understand Harriet Harman is a Q.C. but are either of your ward councillor colleagues, Cllrs Mills and Edwards trained in law ?

[Renata Hamvas]

No, none of us are lawyers!

Renata

[Blah Blah]

Don't see how that is relevant either. Wandle and Southwark both have legal teams they can refer to when needed.

[spider69]

So you are advocating that those that have been wronged should refer and request help from those that have overseen this mess?

Please explain how Southwark will provide legal teams to fight this on behalf of those that have suffered?

Do not forget residents will have to spend their own money regarding legal action, the Housing Ass uses our money.

I can see all residents, leaseholders and shared ownerships owners being leged over seven ways to Sunday.

This is already off the radar as far as most people are concerned.

M & S opening hours is far more important.

Perhaps the Cllrs would update all of us as to the state of play regarding this or has it dropped of the radar.

[pipsky2008]

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

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

> No, none of us are lawyers!

> Renata

Thank you for your prompt response

[Blah Blah]

Sigh Spider - no I did not say that. If you read back my reply was to a comment asking if three councillers were lawyers. My reply was simply making the point as to why councilors need to be lawyers when LAs and HAs have their own legal experts in house.

And it's also completely obvious from Renata's posts that those councillors are very involved in liaising with residents as too is the local MP. She has also pointed out that Wandle are starting their own legal action against those responsible. They don't have to report every 5 mins to this irrelevant forum.

[spider69]

"They don't have to report every 5 mins to this irrelevant forum"

I certainly would like to know the state of play on this public fiasco and how the residents are being treated.

When you have a gripe lets see if you find this forum irrelevant.

[aerie]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Sigh Spider - no I did not say that. If you read

> back my reply was to a comment asking if three

> councillers were lawyers. My reply was simply

> making the point as to why councilors need to be

> lawyers when LAs and HAs have their own legal

> experts in house.

>

> And it's also completely obvious from Renata's

> posts that those councillors are very involved in

> liaising with residents as too is the local MP.

> She has also pointed out that Wandle are starting

> their own legal action against those responsible.

> They don't have to report every 5 mins to this

> irrelevant forum.

* gasp *

[hpsaucey]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Sigh Spider - no I did not say that. If you read

> back my reply was to a comment asking if three

> councillers were lawyers. My reply was simply

> making the point as to why councilors need to be

> lawyers when LAs and HAs have their own legal

> experts in house.

>

> And it's also completely obvious from Renata's

> posts that those councillors are very involved in

> liaising with residents as too is the local MP.

> She has also pointed out that Wandle are starting

> their own legal action against those responsible.

> They don't have to report every 5 mins to this

> irrelevant forum.

Councillors have been involved but certainly not much 'liaising with local residents' as far as I have seen apart from the meetibgs mentioned above- unless they're involved in individual cases - so no it isn't completely obvious.

The LA and HA have their own legal advice of course but that us a separate issue from legal advice working solely in the interests of residents.

[Blah Blah]

And residents can instruct their own legal representation of course. Councillors can only 'advocate' for the residents. It's not council property and never has been, so their powers are limited. The people who are responsible for sorting out the mess are Wandle. They are the liable party and in turn they will enact liability with the developers. My honest opinion is that some posts here have been very unfair on councillors.

[richard tudor]

Following on from this mess there is an interesting article in this week's Southwark News regarding more Wandle homeowners on page 17.

It certainly appears there are problems on Wandle homes from when the first brick is laid.

Is management up to the job?

Are there still other stories to appear.

Less haste more speed seems to be the word.

[Azalea]

After this story came out here, I saw an advert for a flat for sale in Solomon's Passage/ It's been removed now. are all of the properties there built by Wandle?

[buddug]

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!

[hpsaucey]

Link to the Camberwell Wandle article: http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/residents-complain-catalogue-problems-brand-new-homes-including-rough-sleepers-water-shortages-leaks/

[first mate]

buddug,

Thanks for updating the forum and look forward to hearing more. Those poor people need someone fighting their corner.

How odd that Southwark would claim another council has signed off major building work that falls within Southwark...how does this fit with Councillor Hamvas's assertion that Southwark have done everything by the book? Of course this may be true but I am intersted to know how the system works in this respect...do councils now share planning resources?

[buddug]

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

[farfisamania]

LABC might be useful people to contact as they would be able to put the record straight regarding what Building Control can and cannot do.

Building Control does not act as a contract manager or as a clerk of works. It does not supervise workmanship and quality. Ultimately these are the responsibility of the client, along with whatever staff or consultants they have employed for the purpose. This is worth remembering even if you are considering acting as a 'client' in a small way by having some home improvements done.

If, as a client, I expected BC to make sure my builders were doing their job properly I would be negligent. It strikes me that in this unfortunate situation there is a very clear delineation of responsibility. It is extremely misleading, however, to suggest that building control 'sign off' should have acted as a quality and workmanship guarantee.

[LondonMix]

Thanks Buddug-- keep up the good work and I look forward to your article in the national press.

Building control are 100% responsible to visually inspect that certain work has been carried out according to code. Anyone saying otherwise is intentionally misleading the public.

[farfisamania]

Responsibility for compliance rests with the contractor and client. You appear to be misunderstanding what BC are required to do. While BC may carry out periodic inspections, their principal approach is to ensure that the client, contractor and designer understand compliance. It is unwise for BC surveyors to become drawn into acting as, effectively, a clerk of works. That's the job of, er, a clerk of works.

Moreover in this case the majority of the issues listed by Wandle appear to be quality issues. This is not automatically a compliance issue and many will have to be treated as a contractual one between the client and contractor, or any contract administrators they employed.