Kensington Residents Forum Meeting Wednesday 28th September 2011 6.30pm – 8.30pm Portobello Road Annex – 370 Portobello Road, London W10 5RP Staff Attendance: David Belic (Resident Involvement Officer); Audley Phillips (Area Manager); Phil Bowyer (Planned Investment Manager) Resident Attendance: Coral Mitchell-Palmer; Steven Wall; Denise Clingham; Kristin Akinkugbe; Mae Marven; Gillian Garrison Apologies: Residents – Antonio Da Silva; Victoria Brignell Item Agenda 1. Welcome, Introductions and Apologies 1.1 As per standard procedure, the group members went around the table and stated their name and address for the purposes of the minutes. As members of staff, AP, DB and PB explained what their roles at Catalyst are. 1.2 DB to chair the meeting and write the minutes. 2. Minutes from previous meetings 24 August 2011 7 September 2011 2.1 DB explained that the meeting minutes of TWO prior meetings were sent, as there was a sub-meeting held on the 7th of September exclusively for the subject of formalising the group. 3. Matters arising from previous minutes 3.1 Minutes, 24/08/11, Agenda Item #3.6: ‘AP assured that he will get back to the KRP on what he finds out re: service charges issue; DB can also circulate AP’s results’. SW queried how the organisation was currently paying for communal lights and entry door systems; AP confirmed that Catalyst was paying for it, but not currently charging residents. In April 2012, Catalyst will then commence charging residents for these services. 3.2 CM-P queried whether a resident would be charged if they were residing in a basement flat; AP confirmed that, if the resident is part of the block, then they would be charged. 3.3 SW queried the definition of a ‘service’; a service should not be charged if you weren’t getting one, and that residents would not Action agree with the current policy. 3.4 KA believed that, if the electricity is turned off, why should it be paid for? Why should the residents pay for an entry-phone system if the door is left open? 3.5 AP asked KA her address in order to look into the matter. AP 3.6 PB stated that David Matzdorf (Senior Administration Officer) is looking into it. 3.7 SW asked if KHT/Catalyst will be sending a letter. 3.8 DC thought that a staff member would be coming round to conduct a survey of the properties, as the residents are paying for use of utilities. 3.9 PB confirmed that Asset Management do not service entry door systems – either they are fixed, or they are replaced. 3.10 PB stated that KHT have always picked up the cost of the landlord utilities cost. 3.11 AP stated that, if there is a third meter in a block of flats, then Catalyst gets billed for it. 3.12 SW believed that, if communal lighting is being converted into someone else’s flat, then a staff member should look into it via a survey into every property. 3.13 CM-P queried as to how she could find out if this was happening to her property; AP said he would look into it, and asked for the address; CM-P provided AP with details. 3.14 SW stated that there have been cases where residents have been paying for communal lighting that they don’t use for years. 3.15 AP disclosed that there wasn’t anyone checking all the properties, as it would have been too labour-intensive. 3.16 SW anticipates that a lot of residents will get in contact with Catalyst once they receive the service charge letter to say “I believe I’ve always paid a service charge, so come around and have a look at the property”; this will be the expected response. 3.17 AP confirmed that Catalyst already know which properties the organisation pays the bill for; SW believed that this should go into the AP letter to residents. 3.18 MM queried as to whom was paying for particular circuits of specific properties; AP confirmed that it was a communal meter that Catalyst pays for; MM believed that the letter going out to residents should explain what to check for in regards to their meters. 3.19 SW went further in explaining what the possible scenarios were, re: communal meters; AP stated that residents will see this in the letter. 3.20 AP stated that when the letters go out to residents, Catalyst will have to deal with any complaints then. 3.21 AP will go back to Steve Chapman and Chris Harris and explain that the residents do not agree; come back with a potential solution. Similarly, to do the same with non-serviceable items in street properties; SW suggested to take the feedback from this meeting back as well. 3.22 The question was asked how easy it was to get information about meters, etc; AP to take this back to management as well. 3.23 Minutes, 24/08/11, Agenda Item #6.3: ‘SW explained that a previous Local Offers consultation with Keith Lindup over the 3-year repairs programme had occurred; JK believed that – seeing how K.Lindup was no longer at Catalyst – it might be best to invite Jim McFadden (Head of Asset Management) to a future meeting’. PB to provide an update on the repairs programme as part of Agenda Item #4: 4. Asset Management Procedural Update 4.1 PB explained how the cyclical programmes work: In 2006, Catalyst’s housing stock was looked at; a repairs and maintenance to-do list was then compiled which stated that “this property will need to be done in 2008; this one in 2010; etc, etc…” 4.2 The order of the works is usually: electrics, then heating, then kitchens, which can admittedly be a bugbear for residents at first. 4.3 A 10-year programme is mapped out; the works are not done piecemeal. 4.4 Scaffolding is expensive; therefore, if works are being done on windows, for example, then everything else will be done as well whilst the scaffolding is erected, as it is more cost-effective that way. AP AP 4.5 The programmes are all on cycles; budgets are set every year. 4.6 Kensington is the only housing association under the current Group that are set for a 6 – 7 year programme. 4.7 There are some properties that have been missed, but the Asset Management team are trying to catch up. 4.8 The Promaster software system currently used by Asset Management is slightly outdated now, explaining some of the delays. 4.9 Kensington is doing the best so far, compared with others in the Group, eg: Fortunegate. 4.10 SW asked if it will be 100% like-for-like; PB explained that Catalyst is compelled to do what the planners tell it to do, especially in the K&C borough. 4.11 PB provided a list of the cyclical works to the group, and explained that this is what has been done for 2010/11 (PB also said that there were some on the list that was for Fortunegate, so these were to be disregarded by the group). 4.12 CM-P queried as to why her property was not on the list; explained that her building was painted, and that was all. PB explained that the work to the property was done as cyclical. 4.13 GG queried as to her property in St Charles Square, stating that it has not been done yet; PB stated that it will done next year, in the early part of the financial year. 4.14 PB explained that – as part of refurbishment works – residents get a selection of four different design choices. The resident will only be told they can’t have the one of their choice if it doesn’t fit. 4.15 Asset Management is undertaking some piloting work with a sustainability company in Kensington in order that residents have more environmentally efficient and energy-saving boilers. 4.16 PB explained that it would cost £280 each for a water-saving valve in any new shower; however, this was an option left to the resident. It would save Catalyst money if the resident did not want it, but would save the resident money if they accepted it. 4.17 PB stated that overall resident satisfaction from Kensington was excellent. 4.18 SW asked if this applied to wiring; PB admitted that wiring was still a negative issue. 4.19 AP elaborated further on the wiring issue and admitted it was bad; however, Catalyst were moving on from it, stating that it was flexible now – for example, if Catalyst are installing a new kitchen for a resident, then – if necessary – the tiles will be taken off in order to chase the wiring. Catalyst were still looking at cost-effectiveness overall. 4.20 SW believed that surface mounted wiring was cheap for the contractor, and that is why it is the favoured option most of the time. PB said that every local authority, council, etc, does it. 4.21 SW queried any money that came from government assistance; PB stated that the government does not provide any monetary assistance. The cost of installing kitchens and bathrooms comes from revenues, sales, etc. 4.22 PB explained that Catalyst can borrow money from a bank if necessary to pay for the reinvestment programme; the bank will happily lend the money as Catalyst has lots of assets. 4.23 PB mentioned light sensors; MM queried if these were inexpensive, and cited Evelyn Fox Court as somewhere that could benefit; PB noted down MM’s issue and details and will make enquiries with Paul Hudson (Sheltered Housing Manager). 4.24 GG queried about colour scheme for St Charles Square; PB explained that the planners dictate what the colour will be, as it is a conservation area. 5. Anti-Social Behaviour Case 5.1 DC presented an anti-social behaviour noise case to the group that was currently at the Third Stage Complaint phase; DC did not reveal the names or details of those involved, merely the broad details of what the case was about. 5.2 DC reminded the group that they would initially come together to hear about ASB cases when the group first formed, and queried whether it would perhaps be resolved quicker if the group members themselves acted as independent witnesses. 5.3 DC explained that the case had been going on for well over a year. 5.4 Noise recording equipment had been installed in the complainant’s home in order to adequately capture the noise from the PB neighbouring property. 5.5 The complainant contacted DC on Monday, 26th and requested she come over to hear the noise being perpetrated first-hand. DC recorded the noise which she will now be taking to the (Kensington) Trust. 5.6 DC asked for independent witnesses from the group members to also witness the disturbance. 5.7 SW enquired as to whether Environmental Health had been notified; he also queried if any other neighbours were willing to come forth. 5.8 DC stated that the neighbours are worried about repercussions, should they come forward. 5.9 DC asked if anyone from the group was willing to provide their phone number to her so that she could pass it on to the complainant, who would then call should the noise nuisance start up again. 5.10 SW told AP that there should be Housing Officers on the case; AP explained that – as it was a Wornington Green property – it was the responsibility of Farah Ebrahem (Housing Officer), and also Sue Hannah as her Line Manager. 5.11 SW believed that the Trust should be putting the recording equipment in the property to record the noise; AP admitted that not much noise is recorded on them. DC agreed, and said that the noise she heard was a more continuous, low-level sound, rather than loud. 5.12 SW queried as to what the noise was; DC stated that it was drilling, and furniture being dragged across the floor. 5.13 GG asked what the aims were of getting the perpetrators out of the property; DC stated that the perpetrators are not the names on the tenancy; that they’re part of the family. They are the ones who are causing the disturbance. 5.14 SW stated that he was somewhat concerned, as he didn’t know that members should be giving out their numbers to people. He said that DC could ring him instead whenever the complainant rang DC, and SW could then go out to meet them. 5.15 GG asked about possibility of soundproofing; AP stated that the Trust didn’t normally do soundproofing, as it was hugely expensive. 5.16 AP explained that, as a matter of policy, the Trust does not automatically grant a resident the option to move. Normally, the Trust will oversee a mediation, where the neighbour will agree to reduce noise. 5.17 SW queried as to when the new corporate policy on anti-social behaviour is coming out; AP stated that there won’t be a radically different policy to the one there is currently; perhaps some of the new national standards will be added to it, that’s all. 5.18 CM-P asked about front doors on blocks – if they’re being tampered with, what is done? She stated that she is from Lancaster Road and is also in need of independent witnesses. 5.19 CM-P briefly explained her situation: a neighbour has been playing music too loudly; the first time, the resident was caught in the act. The second time he was caught, he was given an abatement order. Environmental Health told KHT about this, but what happened? After two warnings, the resident now keeps an eye out for the Environmental Health van. 5.20 DB asked AP about witnesses being from the same block, or same area; AP said that Catalyst would not discount it if an independent witness is from the same area as the complainant. 5.21 The group queried about residents with mental health issues; AP explained that a judge would need to know all the proper action was taken prior to a Notice of Possession. Evicting vulnerable residents is harder, but it does happen. 5.22 AP stated that there was a colossal amount of money spent whenever the organisation goes to court - a minimum of £5k. 5.23 SW believed that, in the past, there has been no holistic approach after a case has been closed; AP explained that if everything is sorted quickly, then the case will be closed; however, the Trust reassures the complainant that - if the problem should recommence - then the case can be reopened. 5.24 SW queried if there are multiple complaints about one resident, how does that work? AP explained that there can be four complainants in one case against a resident. 5.25 SW and CM-P provided their phone numbers to DC in order to act as independent witnesses as required. 6. Resident’s Conference Feedback 6.1 DB provided a copy of the report written by Resident Involvement Manager Michael Simms to the group members re: the Resident’s Conference held on Saturday, September 10th, 2011, at the Ealing Ramada. 6.2 DB explained that, by all accounts, the day was considered a success. 6.3 MM believed that there should have been stewards to look after the children; DB explained that two staff members from the Oxford branch attended whose main role was to look after the children. At the next Conference, the possibility of hiring a mobile crèche may be a possibility. 6.4 DB stated that the next Conference may be held in 18 months’ time, instead of 12 months, as decided by Catalyst’s Leadership Team. 6.5 There was a general agreement that the venue was not suitable, particularly in regards to how hot the conference room was; DB explained that this point was taken onboard by the Resident Involvement staff and the venue’s unsuitability is further elaborated on in the report. 7. Resident Capacity Building Training Proposal 7.1 DB asked if the group members had the opportunity to read about the capacity building training programme proposal information, as provided in the agenda appendices. 7.2 The main aim of the capacity building training programme is to prepare new recruits to the Local Boards, as well as current members of the Company Board, Residents’ Forums and Residents’ Federation, to work effectively at strategic levels with Catalyst staff and to be fully conversant with the requirements on the new regulatory framework and co-regulation. 7.3 DB explained that the programme runs for 13 weeks; in the first week, the initial session (‘Understanding Performance Information’) will be held on October 17th. At the conclusion of that session, attendees will be asked if they will prefer daytime or evening sessions for the remainder of the course. 7.4 SW stated that the prior training programme for recruitment of the Board members were well attended. 7.5 There was a general agreement amongst the group members that programme organiser Kathryn Lammas was a good trainer. 7.6 SW and DC put their names down as interested candidates for the programme; DB to pass these names on to Resident Involvement Manager Michael Simms. 8. DB Electoral Processes for a new Committee 8.1 DB explained that two options for election of a resident committee for the Kensington Residents Forum was discussed on the 7th September at a special sub-meeting devoted to the topic of formalising the group. One option was the usual paper ballot; the other was online. 8.2 SW asked how members were to be nominated – to be nominated by others at the meeting, or to self-nominate. The group agreed to both options. 8.3 AP believed that there would have to be a good turn-out at the election meeting in order to make it worthwhile. 8.4 There will need to be three (3) candidates for three (3) positions: Chair, Treasurer, and Secretary. 8.5 In regards to a Committee Secretary, SW believed that DB could undertake this role for the time being until someone else wanted to be considered. 8.6 SW suggested sending out the nomination information via e-mail to residents and group members. 8.7 AP thought it a good idea to back up the e-mail with a ‘phone call. 8.8 SW believed that the nomination info would need to be sent out to all residents; otherwise, it would not be fair. 8.9 AP suggested customer information sheets. 8.10 The group generally agreed it should be an open panel, as that’s actually how the group got started. 8.11 SW suggested sending out the vote ballot information in two weeks’ time, in order to gauge the response; if there is little response, then try another method. 8.12 Kensington Residents Forum Constitution – DB has made amendments to template Constitution as agreed by the residents at the sub-meeting on the 7th of September. DB to send out DB Constitution to group members to see what they think. 8.13 DB to send out nomination information to group members and residents in approximately 2 weeks’ time. 9. Any Other Business 9.1 AP stated that Neighbourhood Management Team have now appointed all permanent staff for the Kensington & Chelsea area. 9.2 Patch changes are currently underway; letters will go out to residents to explain this. – AP 9.3 AP said that Doris Hassan (neighbourhood Manager) will hopefully get an extension of her contract. 9.4 In regards to Graham Cann (Estate Services Manager), he was previously on a temporary contract; Catalyst had created another post in order to look after two teams, which Graham is now doing. It is a slightly bigger role than the one he is currently doing at the moment. – AP 9.5 SW asked about the call centre and when it will commence giving out reference numbers; SW spoke to Nick at Catalyst, and the issue was subsequently resolved, but SW still did not get a reference number. 9.6 SW said he spoke to someone in the call centre recently who was very good on the ‘phone. 9.7 SW asked about reference numbers on repairs calls – if a resident needs to call back about the repair, how will the call centre refer back to the case history without a number? AP stated that not all repairs calls would need a reference number. 9.8 DC stated that this would be her last meeting as a resident before she officially became a Board member in October; she asked the members if they would still like her to attend the meetings afterwards. The members agreed. 9. End of Meeting; date of the next meeting The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 26th October 2011. DB
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz