Grenfell Tower style cladding found at Chelsea Bridge Wharf – fire wardens costing £3,500 a day
UPDATE (Dec 2017): Although no information has been given to residents by Rendall and Rittner, it appears that a major programme of ‘risk management’ is taking place in the blocks with the flammable cladding. This includes 24/7 patrols by ‘fire wardens’ at a cost of £3,500 a day. While this cost is currently being paid by Berkeley Homes, it may be passed to residents at a later time. Residents have not been given any information about this potential huge bill coming their way. Residents are encouraged to contact Rendall & Rittner and demand an urgent update.
Original post (Sep 2017):
Following numerous enquiries from residents, Rendall And Rittner and Berkeley Homes begrudgingly and belatedly commissioned an investigation to establish whether there was any cladding in Chelsea Bridge Wharf of the type which was used on Grenfell Tower (aluminium composite material) and which tragically led to the wholly avoidable deaths of an as yet unknown number of people.
The enquiry found that this cladding, which has been proven to be flammable, IS PRESENT on several blocks at Chelsea Bridge Wharf. Incredibly, Rendall and Rittner WILL NOT BE REMOVING this cladding.
It is not clear what proportion of the effected buildings are covered in the cladding and residents will no doubt be keen to know this as soon as possible. It may be that these buildings are only partly covered by the flammable cladding, and so the situation is not the same as Grenfell Tower, nonetheless could you sleep easily knowing that the outside of your flat is clad in such potentially deadly materials?
See copy of the letter dated 4.9.17 below:
I have written on the ‘protecting consumers’ item on the main page – might be worth reading that?
Don’t get me wrong, I have an innate suspicion about the way these things are handled, but this one’s so big and Berkeley are well in the firing line, so actually I think they and R&R are actually trying hard to do a decent job?
Probably me being fooled, but that’s what I think.
Basically, the London Fire Brigade (LFB) were the ones who, following the terrible tragedy of Grenfell, inspected all high rise across London. They’ve found similar material at different buildings.
While that is slightly concerning a lot of the fire potential will be to do with design and fitting. Not all structures will perform in the same way. Ripping cladding down is not necessarily the right thing to do and it’s there for a reason, not just to ‘prettify’ the building.
So, we’re now in a ‘holding pattern’ until the report on Grenfell comes out. Until then it is unclear what will be agreed as the best resolution and of course the report may well decide who pays.
I started off feeling quite alarmed and I have struggled to get information, but I suspect Berkeley and R&R want to minimise what they put in writing, to limit any knockback – that may well be to our advantage as well.
In a way we all need to work together on this, because we all stand to lose. See the information on costs that are currently being incurred that I wrote about on the other blog.
Do I sleep easily knowing the block has some of this material? Actually, yes, I do. Obviously there is some concern, but these blocks are all far lower. They all have more than 1 stairwell. They have a far lower population density. They are much newer and the cladding was not retro-fitted. We have good alarm sensors and systems. We even have fire wardens at the moment (see the bit on costs!), but once the sensor upgrades are completed I think they might finish. It’s a very different arrangement; you can’t necessarily compare them exactly.
What we all need to do is keep asking for clear, concise information.
Again, if you read the other blog you’ll see what I mention there about other landlords and management companies. Inevitably, as their tenants, we often find things to get very irritated about, but I actually think they are working to sort this in an orderly way.
We’ll see!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Keith – I have indeed read and replied to your other comment earlier today. For any other readers they can see your comment at the end of this post
https://wordpress.com/post/chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/1330
I do not think that the situation at Chelsea Bridge Wharf is the same as Grenfell – very very different as you say. For that reason I originally took down my post about this (shortly after I made it ) but given what I have learned from you about the fire wardens etc I think this makes it a live issue for residents, if only with regard to possible charges and difficulty in buying / selling. Whatever Rendall & Rittner/Berkeley are doing about this, there is no excuse for the total lack of information to residents (those not in the effected blocks have been told nothing at all apart from the letter I published). So what they are doing exactly is hard to judge and my previous experiences lead me to believe that we can expect zero transparency or consultation from Rendall & Rittner/Berkeley.
Others may see it differently – that is fine. I guess one’s views depend heavily on the extent to which their decisions and behaviour have impacted on one’s life and in my case that is a very big impact, with consequences for my work and personal life. I know many other residents in the same boat. However many residents are unaffected by the issues that have effected me, because they live in other blocks, or higher up and away from the hell that Sopwith Way has become.
Rendall & Rittner have never done a satisfaction survey in all the time they have been managing agents. I offered to work with them on that and they said that they had it in hand and that ‘someone in their PR department would do a survey’. That was about 3 years ago!
Fact is, as per my post on the government consultation on regulation of managing agents, once a form like Rendall & Rittner are in place it is almost impossible to meaningfully input to their decision, to hold them accountable for poor performance or to have a say in whether their contract is renewed or not. Personally I have no confidence in them at all and that is for very good concrete reasons to do with their unprofessional and high handed behaviour over many years. I am in touch with residents on other development which they manage and the verdict generally is extremely negative. Basic problem is that they do not answer to the residents but to Berkeley Homes and we have no way to change that currently.
LikeLike
Hi ‘Vincit’,
It’s all so terribly complicated, isn’t it? As I put in my reply to your blog, I feel ‘better the devil you know’ and when (long before our time, so I may have this wrong) Peverel were managing the estate they were so awful that the residents did get them booted off. Look at the people behind Peverel and you’ll see that places they’re involved in these days are being clobbered in the service charge for fire wardens and other costs. At least Berkeley aren’t doing that (yet …..!) and they are working with R&R to try and manage this, because the impact on them could be huge, financially and in terms of PR.
Like we’re doing now, picking through all this stuff, each time R&R go into print with anything, it all gets picked over (fair enough), so in a way it’s probably best that they keep information low key, otherwise it might actually be more detrimental to the residents. Finding a balance is hard. I was getting quite vexed about it all, but slowly and surely I feel I am piecing it together.
The government are trying to reset legislation on the whole ground rent issue as well, because of some terribly sharp practice (particularly in places like NW England) so, with us waiting for the Grenfell report and all that stuff bubbling away, I actually think we are in the best position we can be, given that we have flats/apartments under a landlord, with cladding ‘issues’!
What I have found is that there is this slightly nebulous organisation called CBWRTM (Right To Manage), which every tenant pays (voluntarily, so some might not pay anything) about £20 a year to. After a lot (now I am playing into your views on R&R!) of attempts I finally got R&R to find the contact details. Apparently Mr Garton-Jones is involved in this, so I emailed him and he replied immediately. We have agreed to speak in early January, so that I might understand more about what the RTM actually does, but it strikes me that we should use this as our vehicle to ensure the best outcomes for tenants, because it is 1 contact, instead of hundreds. What’s more, I assume it has some money to help administer our efforts.
I know, there’s some fairly salacious stuff on blogs about the car park and costs of upgrading security and how Mr Garton-Jones supposedly supports ‘his mates with flashy cars’, but I think we need to get over that. Providing we work together, we will have a far higher chance of getting the result we want.
I do hope this doesn’t come across as me being protective of R&R, or Berkeley, or for that matter CBW RTM, but I just feel that whoever runs these things will never please everybody; that’s impossible.
You’ve obviously been living in CBW for some time and have a much longer experience of this – what do you reckon?
LikeLike
Hi Keith thanks for your post. You are perfectly entitled to your view and no problem with that. As I said it rather depends on what one’s own experience has been and my experience of Rendall and Rittner has been that they have so mismanaged Sopwith Way that the noise and vibration from traffic makes it impossible for me to live in my own property, They have totally destroyed my pleasure in living at Chelsea Bridge Wharf and if I could easily move, I would do so. Many other residents are in the same position. If that has not effected you then naturally you would see things differently.
I also find that they are not accountable to residents and that they will go so far as to redact residents’ meeting notes to delete difficult questions or criticism of themselves or Berkeley Homes. They do not act as an organisation which is being paid a large sum of residents’ money each year – their attitude seems to be that they are doing me a favour by even communicating with me.
You are OK with Rendall & Rittner not informing residents that they may face a massive addition to the service charge because of fire wardens / sensor upgrades and that residents may face difficulty in selling their property until the matter is resolved – I am not OK with that. I think the residents are grown up intelligent people who have a right to this information. The idea that R&R should not worry the residents’ poor little heads with such complicated matters is not one I can relate to.
Regarding the matter of residents being charged £750,000 for unnecessary door replacements – I do not consider that reporting the facts in this matter is ‘salacious’. Most residents were completely unaware of this conflict of interest regarding Mr Garton-Jones and most residents did not want the door replacement. So while I will not go so far as to call it corruption it is extremely inappropriate use of residents’ money which is not at all in their interest and does not have their consent. If you are relaxed about your money being spent in this way then that is absolutely your choice. I am not.
I hope you get some useful information regarding the RTM organisation; as I said – no website , no meetings that I am aware of and if they do any work on behalf of residents then I have no idea what it is. Perhaps you can let me know if you do find out.
The residents of Chelsea Bridge Wharf have no meaningful input into decisions that effect their lives and there is no scrutiny of Rendall and Rittner’s performance and neither do residents get a say in renewal of their contract. I consider all of these things to be unhealthy, bad governance and undemocratic. The main point of this blog is to provide some information and scrutiny.
Hoping you enjoy your Xmas and New Year
LikeLike
Thanks ‘Vincit’, I really appreciate the comments, because you have experienced this over such a long length of time. I apologise for the way I described the garage works; bad choice of phrasing on my part.
On the communication front though, when I have contacted R&R they have been very willing to speak quite openly and informatively (well, to a novice like me, it felt that way). I certainly could sense though that they tread on eggshells with Berkeley, who seem to micromanage every word that is put in print. Yes, they are the messenger and servant in this relationship. They don’t want to lose the contract.
Again, trying to be totally fair, I rang Berkeley and asked to speak to their MD and was put straight through to his mobile and he answered. He was in a meeting and agreed to call me back, which he did (leaving me a message – we all live busy lives!) but by that time a Director of R&R had called me and clarified my questions, so I texted him and said I did not need to talk. He texted back to acknowledge.
I guess I’m just trying to say that the only way that some 1000 or more property owners, many of whom don’t live on site (probably even the same country) is by working as a collective, focused on the issue at hand. I agree that it will be damn nigh impossible to get any synchronised response and of course most issues will have views that oppose. But every now and then something comes along which is a game changer.
What I was trying to say was that I think our best chance to hold R&R/Berkeley feet to the fire is by working through 1 voice (CBW RTM possibly) and even though there’s a background of bad feeling (looking at the blogs and comments made, hence my previous poor use of the word salacious), the magnitude of the cladding issue is of a totally different magnitude.
It affects everyone and might actually be an opportunity to reset the relationship between parties?
Berkeley/R&R have a huge potential cost, monetarily and reputationally. People like Mr Garton-Jones cannot be pleased about the drop in sales/rentals while this issue is in limbo.
We are all embroiled in this and perhaps we can try to work collectively? Hence why I want to try and get a grip on what CBW RTM really is and whether it might be an effective vehicle for owners/residents to work through, so we have one voice when speaking to R&R/Berkeley and in this instance we might be able to sit down as equals – sharing the burden of finding the best way to resolve the problem.
It might (might!) improve dialogue, which you have clearly explained as being very poor and unreasonable.
Judging by the way things have been for so long now, I have to bow to your far greater experience and I am probably being far too optimistic, but in my view it must be worth a try.
I have no background experience or proper understanding of RTM’s but would have thought that as they hold some form of legal entity status, if one already exists for CBW then at least we have a formal framework that could be dusted off and restarted? If so, it will require some people to get up and be counted. None of us will relish that prospect, but I know there are a few people who are already beginning to activate (thank goodness).
Please be assured that anything I find will be notified to you and therefore to whoever reads these blogs – we must look like a right pair of ‘saddo’s, churning all this stuff out, especially for me on Christmas Eve!! But maybe it gives some people a chuckle!!
Likewise, I hope that you and yours have a wonderful Christmas and a happy, healthy New Year. I’m parking all this for now – very best wishes,
Keith.
LikeLike
Thanks very much Keith. Yes I agree it would be good if residents could have a collective voice – but as I say I have heard nothing from the RTM organisation since Rendall & Rittner were appointed. They have no website, hold no meetings, send no leaflets, do not visit residents’ properties, and do not attend the meetings between Rendall and Rittner and residents which are approximately twice a year. I cannot imagine what it is that residents get for this £20 a year subscription.
Naturally therefore when I have an issue to deal with I do not try and work through the RTM organisation (I did not even know they were still a functioning body to be honest). What I do is organise other residents myself (e.g. through door to door canvassing, petitions) and liaise with the council, Rendall and Rittner , Berkeley Homes or whoever else is involved, In in the case of the illegal depots which Berkeley Homes set up on Sopwith Way in April 2016, this sort of action, in the end, was effective but it took the best part of a year, and a great deal of my time and caused me a lot of stress and damage to my business.
I am not convinced that any organisation led by Garton-Jones can represent the interests of residents because, as an estate agent on the site, rather than a resident, he has an obvious conflict of interest as shown in the matter of the £750,000 doors that no one except Garton-Jones wanted. Mr Garton-Jones is far too close to Rendall & Rittner in my humble opinion – an unhealthy relationship whereby he gets what he wants nodded through by R&R and they can claim that they have consulted with residents or that the matter has resident approval. Something of a pantomime. Harry Fenner of Rendall & Rittner admitted this conflict of interest at the last residents’ meeting I attended though it was for some reason redcated from the notes of the meeting along with other criticisms of Rendall & Rittner and difficult questions which they had no answers for.
Anyway thanks for sharing your thoughts and information and I guess we must park it there until the New Year at least.
All the Best
Vincit
LikeLike
Hi There, Just to correct a few factual points:
1. The annual (voluntary) levy to the CBW RTM is £10 not £20 and has only been collected 3 times in the last 7 years ( £4.29 per year). I am happy to share expenditure costs should anyone be interested. The vast majority is on directors liability insurance.
2. I (Mr Garton-Jones) did not support the £750,000 expenditure on new security doors as anyone involved in that decision can testify. Since I don’t live at CBW I thought it was inappropriate for me to publically oppose the wish of the Residents association (it was more active in those days and had a functioning committee which I was not a member of).
3.I (Mr Garton-Jones) have now sold 70% of Garton Jones Real Estate Limited so the “Conflict of interest” as such there ever was is less of an issue now.
4. The CBW RTM has the legal ability to terminate the appointment of R & R from their role as managing agent in 5 (but not all) of the buildings at CBW.
LikeLike
Dear Mr Garton Jones
Thank you for those comments.
Regarding the levy – I have little doubt that it is used appropriately. My ”issue” for want of a better term is that I see no communication or action whatsoever from the RTM and was not even sure that it still existed.
Regarding the 750,00 door / entry replacement. I was told by Rendall & Rittner at a residents’ meeting that this had been pushed through by the residents’ association with a tiny proportion of CBW residents supporting (and indeed that is a matter of record given the pathetically low percentage of residents who even voted). If you were not a member of the residents association at that time then I apologise for the suggestion that you supported this door entry / replacement scheme and will amend posts to that effect as soon as possible.
The extent to which you have a conflict of interest as the part owner of an estate agency and being chair of the CBW RTM is not reduced by selling some of your business – I think it is still reasonable to assume that you would still be keenly interested in it even if not owning the majority of it. I do not suggest anything sinister but simply that if a situation arise where the interests of residents were not the same as those of your business then you would have a conflict of interest.
The situation currently seems to be that we have defunct residents’ association and I have no idea at all what the CBW RTM does either (no website, no communications, does not attend residents meetings with R&R as far as I am aware). I am glad to here that the CBW RTM has the right to terminate Rendall & Rittner’s contract in 5 of the CBW blocks. However, as far as I am aware there has NEVER been any consultation with residents about satisfaction with Rendall & Rittner and whether residents do or do not wish to continue with them.
Karen Ann Grey of Rendall & Rittner has told me that the contract between Rendall & Rittner and Berkeley Homes )(i.e. the contract to manage CBW) is private and cannot be seen by residents.
In summary my aim in publishing about these matters is to draw attention to, and hopefully improve, a massive democratic deficit whereby Rendall and Rittner can continue to perform at an unacceptable level in many respects and yet have little to fear in terms of resident scrutiny. They act solely in the interests of Berkeley Homes in my experience, not the residents who actually pay their fees. I would like to have a managing agent that is accountable, not one that is so scared of residents that they only answer to them for approximately 2 hours a year at residents meetings. Rendall and Rittner have made CBW a very unpleasant place for me due to their mismanagement of Sopwith Way in particular.
Rendall & Rittner have also decided not to inform residents what is going on in relation to the flammable cladding. Apart from the letter above, in September 2017, nearly 6 months ago, there has been literally no information to residents outside of the effected blocks and very little to those inside those blocks. I understand that rather than look at removing this cladding Berkeley Homes are employing private fire marshals at what are reportdleey costs of several thousand pounds a day and there is no information available on whether these costs will be recouped from residents or not. Yet another example of Rendall & Rittner acting purely for Berkeley Homes and not the residents of Chelsea Bridge Wharf.
LikeLike
Pingback: Fire at Chelsea Bridge Wharf | Chelsea Bridge Wharf Residents Online