| |
Waiting for workmen
• I FIND it an unlikely coincidence that the one time I challenge the accusation that I failed to keep an appointment, Kier Islington had to concede that “procedure was not followed” and on that basis I would receive the compensation for a missed appointment – £15 (Probe into workers who fail to appear, June 6). They may call £15 for five wasted hours compensation, personally I don’t.
I find the figure of 99.36 per cent of appointments kept (as quoted in the article) astonishing and wonder if Kier Islington is not reaching that figure from the successful compensation claims made. If so, the problem with tenants is not that they miss appointments, but that they do not claim what is rightfully theirs.
The contract between Islington Council and Kier is an unholy one at best, where the council receives 50 per cent of Kier’s profit on the Islington repair contract. This offers no incentive on the part of either party to deliver value for money as the more Kier makes the more the council profits from the poorest people in society and indeed the borough.
Yet none of the proceeds is reinvested in housing, instead they go straight into council coffers. This contract is up for review in 2010. Tenants and tenant representatives should be voicing strong objections to a system which is tantamount to legal backhanders between council and contractor.
Tenants should know they are entitled to compensation for missed appointments. If for nothing other than the accuracy of the statistics, it’s important they make sure to claim, particularly when the contractors otherwise are so quick to shift responsibility onto tenants.
THOMAS COOPER
Area housing representative, Lower Hilldrop Community Residents’ Association
N7
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
| |
| |
| |
