Warwick and Burnelli Residents – please join me in demanding electricity refunds from Rendall and Rittner

For over a year the author of this blog (Mike O’Driscoll) been researching the way in which the CBW communal electricity contract was retendered by Rendall and Rittner  and how this led to unnecessarily large increases in electricity costs, which was one of the main drivers of service charge increases. These vary by building, but for Warwick the increase from 1 April 2023 was 40% (fourty per cent). According to the budget documents supplied by Rendall and Rittner, about 80% of that increase was due to the  projected cost of electricity in the period April 23 to March 24. 

The costs per kilowatt hour (Kw/H) used in the Warwick budget for 23/24 were 46p for Warwick 1-3 and 71p for Warwick 4 (I will explain the reason for this difference further down). In October 2023 Rendall and Rittner tendered out the electricity contract again (the process is done annually though it is not at all transparent). In the latest contract, the prices for Warwick 1-3 and Warwick 4 will be 26.8p per kw/h (day) and 21.52p (night). These prices are now much closer to the ‘going rate’ which is good news, however the standing charge has more than doubled for reasons that are very unclear (from £10.93 a day to £23.74 a day). 

Whereas most other blocks are on 6 monthly budget periods, Warwick and Burnelli are on an annual budget which runs from 1 April to 31st March. This means that although the price of electricity is now massively less than that which was budgeted for in March 2023, we have not seen any reduction in the service charge or any refund. In theory, Rendall and Rittner can make us wait for this refund until September 2024, when the accounts for the 23/24 year are presented. 

I have been asking that Rendall and Rittner do not make us wait till then but refund us now and / or reduce the service charge amount. I have raised this with the estate manager over many months, have met with him to discuss  and raised it at the last residents meeting with Rendall and Rittner (I note that the CBWRA committee did not mention it at this meeting) and I raised it at the ‘Leaseholder Forum’ on 4th October (CBWRA have refused to publish notes of this meeting). The estate manager has provisionally agreed with me (in very vague terms) that residents should not have to wait until September 2024 for a refund but to the best of my knowledge has not taken any action on this despite many requests from me. 

The reason why Warwick 1-3 and Warwick 4 have different electricity rates from Oct 22 to Sep 23 is that (according to Rendall and Rittner) the supplier failed to include W1-3 in the tendering process in September 2022. Personally I would have thought this was Rendall and Rittner’s responsibility to check. By the time the mistake was realised some months later, electricity prices had dropped and so a better price was achieved for W1-3 than for W4. So this ‘mistake’ actually helped W1-3 a little but only slightly offset the even bigger mistake (in my view) of bulk tendering the contract. 

Leaseholders in other blocks should see that their electricity costs have reduced substantially on their next budget statement, in December/January and (in theory) that should mean a reduction in service charge overall but of course expenditure under other cost headings may well have increased which potentially may partially cancel out savings on electricity.  

As well as the massively reduced electricity costs, the fact that the fountains have been off for at least a year should also factor into reduced electricity consumption which in turn should be reflected in budgets for all blocks whose budgets start in December/January. The pumps which power the fountains are one of the main costs on communal (estate) electricity.

Other refunds
Many Warwick residents have recently received small refunds (averaging around £40) which relate to a slight overall underspend on the budget for 2022/23. This is not directly related to electricity costs and it does not necessarily indicate efficiency or value for money (staying within an inflated  budget is not a great achievement) but nonetheless is very welcome. As ever, Rendall and Rittner failed to give an accessible explanation for this refund and failed to label it as such on the statements.