Agenda item

5.1  Councillor Edwards introduced this item by explaining that concerns about the fire safety work at Canada Water estate had been brought to the attention of himself and the vice-chair, who had agreed to undertake a short scrutiny of the issue, and that the purpose of this agenda item was to understand the issues fully, from the perspective of the residents and the council, and to draw up a report making recommendations for the future

5.2  He welcomed Barry Duckett and Michael Robertson from the TRA, and residents from the estate, to the meeting and invited them to introduce issues from their perspective.

5.3  Barry Duckett explained that he was concerned when the contract was awarded to Standage that the TRA was not informed, and that meetings with residents for updates on the contract were not offered at times that suited residents on the estate.

5.4  He went on to explain that he had been asked to act as a conduit for complaints from residents, but did not have good communications with the staff from the council overseeing the contract.

5.5  He further explained that the contract was not fulfilled in an acceptable way, and that Councillors Ian Wingfield and Richard Livingstone had both visited the site to see the problems for themselves.

5.6  Michael Robertson explained that as a result of the incident at Lakanal in July 2009, Southwark Council had commissioned the consultants Tuner Townsend to undertake a fire risk assessment at Columbia Point on the Canada Estate.  Several of the repairs highlighted in the report had been a result of previous poor repair standards at the estate.  There was photographic evidence of some of these in the “Turner Townsend” report.

5.7  In February 2010 the Fire Brigade issued Southwark Council with a formal notification of fire safety deficiencies on the estate with a deadline for remedial work to be undertaken.

5.8  The fire safety notification brought added urgency to the work required on the estate, and resulted in the contractors Standage being used to undertake the work as they already operated for the council as “voids” contractors, rather than going through the usual procurement procedures.

5.9  There was a feeling that, as some of the work now required was as a direct result of previous poor work standards and ineffective contract management on works done on the estate, residents at Canada Water estate were now effectively being required to pay twice for work to be undertaken to an acceptable standard.

5.10  Michael Robertson summarised that the core issues for residents on the estate were poor management and communication around the work undertaken on the estate, and issues in respect of work specification and procurement which had led to high unit costs and high overall costs for work undertaken.

5.11  Councillors then asked some questions.

5.12  In response to a question about who had undertaken the work, it was confirmed that instead of going out to tender for this work, Standage, the voids contractor had been appointed due to the urgent timescales.

5.13  It was confirmed that the work had been commissioned over 8-9 calendar months from May 2009.

5.14  Councillors made reference to paragraph 22 of the report circulated to the sub-committee, which suggested a small number of residents’ queries and complaints, when in fact there were many complaints and concerns about the poor standard of the work.  It was confirmed that in fact some 72 e-mailed concerns had been raised.

5.15  A further issue discussed was that of clarity and openness with residents and leaseholders about work being undertaken and the release of information about contract costings.

5.16  Councillor Edwards invited officers from the Housing Department to explain the situation from their perspective.

5.17  Gerri Scott, strategic director of housing services, made some introductory comments, highlighting that some analysis had been done of how this work had been handled.

5.18  She confirmed that fire safety issues at that time had resulted in an exceptional situation at the estate in terms of the procurement of works, and that formal requirements on consultation (S20) had been complied with but that there had been a lack of effective communication with residents.

5.19  In addition to meeting the fire safety standards, there was a further variation to the contract to install suitable venting.  This was not communicated to or discussed with residents.

5.20  The strategic director also confirmed that the work required by London Fire Brigade was completed to the required timescale, but that the quality of the work was of considerable concern.

5.21  There were no financial penalties to the contractor, but the contractors were not paid until the work was done to a completely satisfactory standard.

5.22  The director informed the sub-committee that a residents’ satisfaction survey has since been undertaken, and the outcomes of this would be made available to the sub-committee.

5.23  Members of the sub-committee queried the involvement of building standards around the issue of ventilation.

5.24  It was confirmed that the need to vary the contract was unexpected but that building control were involved in the usual way.

5.25  David Lewis, head of asset management, confirmed that although FRA works were done to a very good standard, the work around finishing and painting was sub-standard.

5.26  Members of the sub-committee asked whether it was usual for contractors to do such poor quality work, what monitoring had been done throughout the process, and why the work had been considered to be good enough.

5.27  David Lewis informed the sub-committee that there was no expectation that the work would go wrong and that the monitoring arrangements reflected that.

5.28  He went on to confirm that the contractor had performed well in the past, and that some of the issues on this job might have arisen due to lack of capacity.

5.29  Sub-committee members raised questions about value for money, and officers confirmed that unit costs were similar to the same items in other blocks.  Officers agreed to share this information with the sub-committee.

5.30  Following further questions from the sub-committee, officers confirmed that under section 20, leaseholders had a right to see costing for work undertaken.  It was agreed that this information should also be available to other residents.

5.31  Councillor Wingfield accepted that the concerns raised in relation to this work were valid.

5.32  He highlighted in particular a need to address contract management issues and the need to include and inform residents.

5.33  Councillor Wingfield confirmed that recent changes in the Housing Department around the performance management of staff overseeing contracts, and a focus on major works as a separate entity would result in improvement, but that it was too early to see the results of this yet.

5.34  Councillor Edwards thanked everyone for their input and confirmed that he would produce a draft report with some recommendations for change.