| |
Value for money?
• AFTER months of correspondence, queries and a meeting with Homes for Islington (HfI) at my estate, I was told to go to London Valuation Tribunal over unreasonable costs for a door-entry system installed by HfI and its partner Kier. How is 26 per cent just in fees for major work (Kier’s 15 per cent and HfI’s standard 11 per cent fees) providing estates with value for money?
I was then told “the security system does act as a deterrent to incursion into the estate” in reference to plants a third the size of the gates put in place to prevent security breaches. The same gentleman from HfI told me its satisfaction level was exemplary last year and that it looks to save us money. I attended my first Islington Leaseholders’ Association meeting on November 11. I didn’t see one satisfied resident. Instead, I saw instances of leaseholders being ripped off time and time again, for unreasonable amounts much worse than mine.
When I asked HfI for simple maintenance for my estate, it let me know my request wouldn’t be good value for money, “especially when all available resources are going into the programme to improve residents’ homes”. If this is the case, why does HfI still allow its framework contractors to maintain estates at inflated costs? If HfI aims to provide value for money, it should review work done by its framework contractors and put those contracts on hold until results are forthcoming. I challenge HfI chief executive Eamon McGoldrick to reassure residents that HfI will do everything in its power to save us money, and provide better services at fair costs.
Don’t take the cowardly approach and assume that silence is golden. HfI, remember that if you bite the hand that feeds you too many times, you will eventually starve.
Hai Hoang
Dissatisfied leaseholder, EC1 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
