Controversial

[Huguenot]

What, am I James Barber? I assumed that you weren't so stupid as to ask that question for real. Seems I was wrong.

Yes buddug, sure I am, whatever you want.

[Chippy Minton]

"Old bat," "shits," "arseholes" and now "bullshitters."

Oh dear.

Anymore abuse for the abusers that dare to complain about him?

[Huguenot]

I believe that 'old bat' was referring to a suspicion that 'buddug' is in fact a reincarnation of 'batdog'

I can't find the 'shits' reference, and 'bullshitter' hardly qualifies as abuse because it's a description of the inventive nature of some of the critics.

If you a trying to find offence in order to try and win an argument, that may well work in industrial tribunals but is unlikely to work in the court of public opinion. No surprise to see the tactic from a union rep ;-)

[buddug]

Huguenot wrote: "I believe that 'old bat' was referring to a suspicion that 'buddug' is in fact a reincarnation of 'batdog'

Aha!! But sadly wrong. This, I believe, may be why you think James has been "working with me for months" on my leasehold woes and why you posted: "You and I, and many people on this forum know that your exchange with James was much more than that!" So poor old Batdog has been through the southwark council/james barber mill too, then?

Buddug is the Welsh version of Victoria. Confusingly, my real name is Anne. But I am Welsh. Interestingly (or not) Boudica was actually called Buddug (the early Britons being Welsh and speaking a form of Welsh) because she was so often victorious. I'm probably horribly wrong on all that.

So maybe an apology, Hugo, for calling me a liar based only on gossip. Tut tut.

[Huguenot]

"This, I believe, may be why you think James has been "working with me for months" on my leasehold woes"

No, the reason why I think you've been working with James for months is because you said this on another thread:

"[James] I asked you for help on some ongoing problems early last year and you said you couldn't do anything."

You see? I know you've been working with James for months because you said so yourself.

You also said that he went through your situation with you, and explained that whilst Southwark were the freeholder they had to do the renovation work and that there were systems in place for this that he couldn't influence.

In fact the only thing that seems to come out from this is your belief that if you make a big enough fuss you'll get given the freehold for nothing. That suggests a rather different agenda to one which is apparently just unnecessarily slagging off James for something he hasn't done, after suffering an enormous 2 incompetent jobs in 13 years.

[lindylou]

Sorry, but I have to agree with grumpy old man. James in the past has helped me immenseley. I have mental health problems and had a problem with southwark council repairs. If it wasnt for the help and kindness of james I don't know what I would have done. thank you James and take no notice of the negatives.

[buddug]

Huguenot wrote: "You see? I know you've been working with James for months because you said so yourself."

Huguenot, with what distorted logic do you deduce that my post "[James] I asked you for help on some ongoing problems early last year and you said you couldn't do anything" means I have been working with James on my leasehold problems for months???!

Early last year I approached him with one email and one phone call, and he said he couldn't help, saying: "buy the freehold". End of.

As to your comment that I suffered "an enormous 2 incompetent jobs in 13 years", read that post again! I said very clearly those examples (there were five actually, rubble causing damage 1, more rubble causing damage 2, botched paint job leading to court case damage 3, lawn wrecked damage 4 and gate destroyed damage 5) were to give you only "a tiny insight" of what I've had to put up with from southwark contractors. I also said near the end: "Shall I go on? There's plenty more."

I'm bailing out here, it's getting a bit bonkers.

[Huguenot]

None of those problems is related to James or justifys your abuse and personal attacks.

Those seem to be motivated by your desire to get given the freehold for nothing.

[Undisputedtruth]

It's a well known fact that Southwark gives a poor service to leaseholders. Even Cllr Barber has admitted it.

Harriet Harman have campaigned for improvements for Southwark's leaseholders charges to be more transparent.

My concern over this thread is that there are a number of people given opinions on matters they know nothing about. I don't think Cllr Barber is able to help with buddug's case as I feel his hands are tied. Buddu's options would be to take the matter through the complaints process or pursue the matter through legal channels.

[DJKillaQueen]

There is no doubt that Southwark Repairs and Contracts services are a mess. And there is no doubt that some of the people running those services should have been fired a long time ago. But to lay the blame for that at James feet is unfair.

Local councillors are not full time employees of the state. Many of them have full time jobs elsewhere and fit their councillor duties around that. And councillors that work hard for their local residents find pretty much every spare hour of the day they have, taken up with those duties.

The people who are responsible for overseeing repairs and managing contracters etc are full time employees...not politicians....and when they are incompetant (just as in any public service sector) are very difficult to get rid of and to hold to account. This is what is at the core of the poorer services of Southwark. Councillors come and go, and the party political control changes but those working for the council don't (a bit like the relationship between the civil service and government).

James will sit in on the meetings that decide policy and general budgets for the council but he won't have any power to fire the person who took out x contract or y contract when things go wrong. Nor will he have the power to hire x person or y person. And even where he agrees that say for example, a freehold would be better off sold outside of the current rules...he would have to go through a whole process of proposition and voting and convince a majority of concillors accross the borough to support his proposal before anything changes. Jumping up and down demanding change and blaming him when none comes isn't going to make any difference to the system. Sometimes there just isn't anything he can do unfortunately.

On local issues he is likely to have some influence which is why it is fair to press for a view on the CPZ consultation for example, but even there, the tone expressed by some hasn't been very pleasant to read. I could very well understand if he feels upset by it. I've had disagreements with him, it's the nature of the beast when you put yourself out there, but he clearly is someone who works hard and does what he can and it is perfectly possible to express a view of disagreement without resorting to insult. I don't think a public forum is ever the place to air personal grievances anyway (because who can know what the truth is apart from those directly involved) and he won't be the first to be driven off by the vitriol of some who post and probably not the last either.

Back onto the topic of council contractors though. It might be of interest to you Buddug to know that this has been something that various organisations like 'Southwark Group of Tenants Organisation (SGTO)' have been lobbying and campaigning on for several years now (contracts management has been notoriously bad for a long time). The issue seems to be the lack of flexibility for the council within existing contracts and the poor service by some contracters especially when it comes to putting things right. I could list which contractors provide a good service and which ones the council have issues with. Unfortunately when the contracts were taken out the council didn't employ a skilled contracts consultant (something it would be well worth spending the money on for future contracts and renewals) so the contracts make it very difficult for the council to hold contractors to account or to get rid of them. In other words...the contractors got contracts that suited them more than giving the council the balance of power.

The tendering process is always a balance of financial considerations. Some council contractors then sub-contract various aspects of work and so on. One of my recomendations at various meetings was to have resident inpectors to oversee quality control (Southwark got rid of a third of their own quality control inpectors in recent cuts) and indeed it is something we put into practise on my estate when major works were carried out over an 18 month period. The frustrating thing was that some of the snags raised whilst the work was ongoing were never addressed because that aspect was under 'guarantee' for a year. So on the one hand a plasterer was not paid by the contractor because his work was pointed out as substandard, but the snags that were left to be dealt with under the guarantee period were never addressed. Basically guarantees to doors and windows etc are worth nothing with the council often having to pay to replace or repair out of their own coffers rather than laying the expense at the feet of the manufacturer or contractor.

Your comments about external peeling paint are a classic example of what happens when contractors sub-contract and squeeze the price so much that the sub contractor cuts corners. So an external hallway that should take two days with primers, under and then top coats gets done in one day with often the undercoat being forfeited (because you can't see that right?). There is also an 'attitude' amongst some tradesmen that when it's council it doesn't matter, because it's not the resident or tenant paying them but the council paying their employer...and they know that the chances of anyone with-holding their wages because they didn't do the job properly are pretty much zero. And no-one is going to complain about them pesonally either...instead it's Southwark who takes the criticism.

It is no wonder that with a system like that, tenants and leaseholders are getting such poor value and yes I agree that leaseholders particularly get shafted. What other service would you be expected to pay thousands of pounds for and not have any say in who carries out the work?

But definitely, the money saved by not paying for poor work could easily pay for inspectors to enforce a level of quality control. Failing that, contractors need to be held to account directly.

[Chippy Minton]

My concern over this thread is that there are a number of people given opinions on matters they know nothing about

Absolutely UDT. However, Huguenot seems to think he is well placed to judge and execute on a situation which he's read about from 8,500 miles away on this forum ;-)

[DJKillaQueen]

Also it might be worth bringing your complaints to the attention of Gerri Scott, Buddug. She is the director of housing services and cabinet member for housing. She is fully aware of the issues with current contracts management and repairs and determined to do something to improve the service. She's a very intelligent lady too.

[buddug]

Hi there. I said I wouldn't post again, because of the laxness of one poster in reading my posts properly. But I've suddenly realised he's just a troll (by the way Chippy, 8,500 miles away - where is he based? Do tell all).

However, I'm impressed by the good sense of the recent posts by Djkillaqueen (your post name terrifies me!) and you Chippy, and the fact you've bothered to even address this issue of mine (and fazer71's and probably many others), even though not all of you may agree with everything I say.

I don't understand, DJ, why your problems were not addressed simply because they're under guarantee for a year. Surely, at any time within that year, they can be? For me, the only good thing about southwark as a freeholder is, despite the myriad and ongoing problems, they can be held to account and forced back to make good - even though this takes up hours of my time.

As to taking southwark through the legal system, Undisputedtruth, it took a whole year for a court case to be resolved, which I won. But I was exhausted at the end of it. The idea of going through more legal hoops is so disheartening for me. Nevertheless I will be going to the LVT in the near future despite this.

In addition, Gerri Scott knows all about my case. She authorised the payment of ?3,060 to replace my damaged carpets by southwark contractors when the housing department were refusing to budge on this. And she admitted that southwark council (or rather taxpayers!) had spent ?10,000 on damages etc to me and my neighbour in a letter to me. But I think it's all so out of control, even she can't deal with it. One of her housing officers told me the current contractor is "the worst southwark have ever had" - and that's worse than Botes, which went into administration, after causing havoc at my place for years.

As to James Barber, I am in no way laying the blame at his feet. Of course none of this is his fault, though it's something he should have addressed a long time ago on behalf of leaseholders. But what I do take umbrage at, and I make this very clear in my posts, is the fact that on another website he has told southwark leaseholders to come to him with their problems, but then when I did he told me he could do nothing. That's in addition to his "can I help" thread here. No, he cannot help. Maybe his hands are tied, for whatever reason (what reason?!), but he shouldn't then promise the earth and deliver nothing. "Just buy the freehold" he told me. Pah, as if money grew on trees! Anyway, thanks to all of you for your feedback. Much appreciated.

(Sorry for all the edits - I'm a sub-editor, and can't help myself!)

[????]

Do sub-editors have no responsibility for paragraphs nowadays?

[buddug]

Oy, ???! There are six paragraphs in my last post! And not one literal.

[Undisputedtruth]

I think Quids wants white spaces between the paragraphs, buddug. It just makes it easier to read and understand your points.

[buddug]

:))

I guess I do go on a bit...

[Undisputedtruth]

buddug Wrote:

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

> Hi there. I said I wouldn't post again, because of

> the laxness of one poster in reading my posts

> properly. But I've suddenly realised he's just a

> troll (by the way Chippy, 8,500 miles away - where

> is he based? Do tell all).

He's based in Singapore and possibly on a tax avoidance scheme according to one poster.

[buddug]

Huguenot must miss East Dulwich...

[Huguenot]

Oh dear, a right couple of charlies...

[maxxi]

The Girl or the Dragon?

[grumpyoldman]

It seems to be getting worse

[the-e-dealer]

Go to a few Council meetings - you see that for James this is a picnic in the Park (and not one with dog mess, footballers, litterers , dog walkers , crisp packets , school children and wingers in it!) His efforts to engage are to be admired. I'd like to see ALL councillors engaging on here. - Some of the more sensitive of you might be frightened off though! Maybe a Council Chamber Area like the Lounge would be required!

[Chippy Minton]

+1 e-dealer

If you were a fly on the wall at a Councillor's surgery then you'd really see the crap they have to deal with. Hats off to all of them that do it, I certainly couldn't.

I maintain that there's no place for outright abuse on here, but I'm sure James Barber has dealt with a lot worse than a few people on an Internet forum being rude to him.

[Undisputedtruth]

I was at the Peckham Community Council meeting last week and saw how the councillors dealt with a difficult situation where a local resident felt there was no consultation on the Old Kent Road recycling centre.

But yeah, I'd like to other councillors appear on this forum since local authorities have more power than ever before these days.