THE GOOD, THE BAD and THE PRETTY UGLY

News

BREAKING:  The RTM have appointed a new DIRECTOR on 21st March 2023

The new Director, it is guessed, probably lives in PUFFIN HOUSE, perhaps the ground floor?

On the face of it, GOOD NEWS? It may be that that this owner already has a special relationship with the RTM.

Could it be that he is the beneficiary of a relaxation of the restrictions on the use of the garage. Could it be that a trailer is permitted to be kept in the garage? Not in a parking space, but out of the way, but not available to other occupants!

What is the basis of this use?

Does money change hands?

If so to whom?

And do the aggregate owners benefit?

A nice guy, but, independent or partial?

You decide……….. The proof of the pudding…

FIRE SAFETY

The spectre of GRENFELL is still there for anyone living in a block of flats.

In the context of known, but undisclosed safety, risks there is no choice but to assume the worst case scenario.

This makes the careless attitudes of the RTM more perverse. 

STOP PRESS: THE FAULT MESSAGE HAS GONE! At last some attention, but is this an issue resolved or just a behind the scenes fix? There has been no obvious activity, so, possibly a remote “FIX” !    WHY IS THE FIRE ALARM BOARD IN PUFFIN STILL SHOWING “FAULT”, ITS NOW MORE THAN 5 WEEKS?

WHY HAS THE INTUMESCENT STRIP ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF PUFFIN NOT BEEN ATTENDED TO?

WHY HAVE SMOKE DETECTOR HEADS BEEN REMOVED/DISABLED IN PUFFIN?

HAS THE ISSUE WITH THE SMOKE VENT DOORS IN PUFFIN BEEN RESOLVED OR JUST “PARKED”?

FINALLY, THE FIRE DOOR TO THE GARAGE IN PUFFIN SEEMS TO CLOSE, DESPITE CONTRACTORS EFFORTS TO BLOCK IT OPEN, WILL THIS STILL BE THE CASE WHEN THE WIND BLOWS?

So, is PUFFIN the only vulnerable block or are other issues just not exposed and reported? If you know or suspect something adverse then send a message to info@……….. 

If it is just PUFFIN, that begs the question, WHY? Indeed it goes further, as it implies that other blocks, particularly PELICAN, are favoured!

DUTY of CARE

THE RTM DIRECTORS DO NOT UNDERSTAND A DUTY OF CARE,

OR IF THEY DO, THEY JUST DON’T CARE!

 

CHECK YOUR WINDOWS

During the spring/summer of 2022 there was a programme of review and maintenance work conducted on the windows in all the blocks.

It is understood that this programme is at the behest of Taylor Wimpey. The programme was very obvious as it was in parallel with the EWS 1 assessment.

It seems that the majority of the works were undertaken and completed during 2022. There is, however, at least on exception!

An apartment in PUFFIN was reviewed in April 2022 and it was found that there was a significant issue with one of the big sliding windows that give access to a balcony.

The contractors removed all but the minimum hardware necessary to open and close the window, not surprisingly, leaving minimal function.

The contractor was seen to make more than marginal notes and assured the tenant that its function would be reinstated during the summer programme.

The tenant immediately sent a full description of what had happened and then watched the progress of remedial works in, apparently, all the blocks.

By the autumn, this issue had not been addressed and the impact of the failings became more obvious. As the winds grew more frequent, stronger and colder, the drafts in the apartment became very significant, requiring the use of heating to maintain even a minimal ambient temperature for living. This in parallel with the national fuel cost issues and the need of an OAP to maintain core temperature.

The matter was addressed with the landlord, who appeared unaware of the position, despite the early full briefing. Having addressed the issue with MINSTER and the RTM, he require photographs of the “missing” hardware. Photographing what is NOT there is not easy, but it seems the results were sufficient to surprise the Landlord and the RTM.

Surprise did not follow through to remedy and despite increasing pressure applied there is absolute resistance to addressing the issue. It seems it has been ‘kicked into the long grass” of the future for action. The advice is DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH. The landlord would not initiate even temporary action to make the position at least manageable and in the end he required the OAP tenant to do it himself, just providing some basic requested hardware.

THE RESULT