Venue: Committee Room 3 - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW. View directions
Contact: Nikki O'Halloran
01895 250472
Items
Note |
No. |
Item |
1. |
To confirm that the business of the meeting will take place in public.
Minutes:
RESOLVED: That all items be considered in
public.
|
2. |
Objections from Jupiter House Residents to the Change of Support Service Provider PDF 115 KB
Minutes:
Councillors Janet
Gardner, Phoday Jarjussey and Mo Khursheed attended as Ward
Councillors in support of the petition.
Concerns, comments and suggestions raised at the meeting included
the following:
- The lead
petitioner advised that the 90 residents at Jupiter House had not
been advised as to what was going on and that a decision had been
made without them. Residents had been
keen to be involved in the process but had not been advised of
which organisations had been shortlisted to provide the service;
- Some
residents of Jupiter House had previously lived in YMCA run
establishments and had not had a pleasant experience. They felt that there was a possibility that YMCA
might treat Jupiter House as a hostel and not think of the needs of
its residents;
- Residents
at Jupiter House often had complex care needs and were worried that
their needs would not be met once YMCA had taken over;
- Concern
was expressed about the continuity of services once YMCA had taken
over, e.g., would the IT facilities, education, training and
employment support facilities be retained;
- It was
stated that the number of complaints about Jupiter House had
decreased over the last two years and the number regarding YMCA
residents had increased;
- As a
result of discussions with residents, future procurement processes
would include consultation that strongly emphasised how important
it was for service users and stakeholders to respond; and
- The local
Ward Councillors would continue to hold monthly ward surgeries at
Jupiter House to address any concerns that the residents might have
about the changes as they were implemented or any changes in
standards.
Councillor Philip
Corthorne listened to the concerns of those present and responded
to the points raised. He advised that
he had no power to reverse the decision to let the contract to
YMCA.
The Young People and
Care Leavers Strategy had been developed in 2009 and had resulted
in an open tendering process taking place in 2010 in relation to
residential facilities across the Borough. With regard to the process that had been
undertaken, it was noted that the Council had consulted with the
Jupiter House residents (a focus group of Jupiter House residents
and a questionnaire) as well as with care leavers.
It was noted that the
YMCA-run Ventura House in Hayes was not comparable with Jupiter
House as it was a hostel rather than a foyer. Officers advised that they had not
approached tenderers to arrange
visits to one of their comparable foyers as it was likely that
they would have been shown an extremely good example rather than a
typical example which would not have been helpful.
Although the Council
had not been permitted to involve current service users in the
tender evaluation process (as there would have been a conflict of
interest), more could have been done to ensure that they were aware
of what was being proposed. The Head of
Democratic Services and the Borough Solicitor would be asked to
review the consultation process that had been
undertaken in ...
view the full minutes text for item 2.
|
3. |
Avondale Drive, Hayes - Window Safety, Suitability and Function PDF 910 KB
Minutes:
Councillors Lynne
Allen and Peter Curling attended as Ward Councillors in support of
the petition.
Concerns, comments and suggestions raised at the meeting included
the following:
- The
petitioners advised that there were several inaccuracies within the
report in relation to:
- the
opening size of the windows – the open space created by the
widows was now larger;
- the
information contained within the Council’s press statement
which was only changed after a complaint to the Press Complaints
Commission was upheld;
- the
petition having comprised one survey when it was in fact three
residents’ surveys; and
- the
statement about residents’ concerns being of utmost
importance to the Council – the lead petitioner suggested
that this would be best proved through actions and not
words;
- Residents
noted that there had be no representatives from the windows
programme, installers, etc, present at
their AGM in 2010 despite 8 or 9
individuals being invited;
- It was
suggested that, rather than fitting Jacklocs, it would be better (and cheaper) to fit
lockable handles which could probably be sourced locally;
- Children
had been seen standing at open windows in flats that were on the
upper levels of the blocks and an elderly lady had been seen
hanging out of her open window;
- Although
residents had been advised that the Jacklocs would be fitted by the end of August 2011,
the work had still not been completed.
When a Ward Councillor had contacted officers to find out what had
caused the delay, they had been advised that officers would chase
the contractor. It was subsequently
established that the contract had not yet been let;
- It had
been left to the residents to identify the safety issues in
relation to the new windows;
- When the
windows were fitted in the pilot property, residents had raised
concerns about safety but that nothing could be done as the windows
had already been purchased. There had
been no consultation even though it had been promised;
- Residents
insisted that there had been posters available at the open meeting
held in March 2010 but that there had not been a slide
show;
- The
windows at Skeffington Court were half
the size of the new ones which implied that they were half as
dangerous;
- Some
residents had had to ask the Council for poles to use to close
their windows once they had been opened. It was believed that these should have been given
out as standard;
- The
window replacement programme started on 20 September 2010 and the
operating instructions for the windows were received by residents
on 17 December 2010;
- One of
the residents had already reported a total failure with one of the
windows that had been replaced;
- Although
the sills were not low, there were a number of people that would
need to stand on a chair to clean their windows which would
increase their chance of falling out;
- It was
suggested that any funding available would be better spent on the
installation of window safety features rather than on an
...
view the full minutes text for item 3.
|
4. |
Austin Road Estate, Hayes - Petition in Relation to Heating Charges and Refund PDF 106 KB
Minutes:
Councillors Lynne Allen and Peter Curling
attended as Ward Councillors in support of the
petition.
Concerns, comments
and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:
- There
were inaccuracies within the report which included reference to a
petition that had been submitted in March 2010 (not July);
- The
petition had been submitted to Hillingdon Homes. Concern was expressed that Hillingdon Homes’
guidelines for considering petitions specified that they would be
considered within a specified period – this had not been
adhered to;
- Petitioners had been offered possible meeting dates in September
2010 by Hillingdon Homes but were given no more than 11 days’
notice. The dates offered were not
suitable as the petition organiser was unable to attend and the
meeting never took place;
- Although
Hillingdon Homes had gone back into the Council in October 2011,
the petition took another 11 months to get to a Petition
Hearing;
- The
Council was aware that there would be issues with regard to the
apportionment of energy costs in 1999 which was subsequently
documented in numerous Council reports;
- The
scheme of heating charges had increased by 4½% in March
2007. Although the Council had been
challenged on the subsequent refund, residents had not been
provided with an adequate explanation;
- There had
been a significant change in the amount of money refunded to some
residents in 2008/2009 which had then reverted back to the expected
level in 2009/2010;
- One of
the residents’ refund had been recorded as: 2007=
£294.35; 2008 = £244.35 (£184.86 + £59.39);
2009 = £36.95; 2010 = £318.49; 2011 =
£399.56. The amount paid by the
resident had not changed dramatically and it was queried why the
amount refunded in 2009 was so different to all other
years;
- The
temporary solution that had been put in place to apportion the
costs had lasted four years;
- The
current apportionment did not take into account the number of
people living in the property (and therefore using hot water) or
how frugally some residents might use energy. This led to some residents subsidising the refund
received by others that had not been quite so careful about their
energy usage; and
- It was
suggested that it might have been better to wait until the new
boilers had been fitted before the refunds had been given
out.
Councillor Philip Corthorne listened to the
concerns of those present and responded to the points
raised. He apologised for the
unacceptable length of time it had taken for the petition to be
considered. It was noted that the
petition had been overlooked in the transfer to the Council in
October 2010.
Residents had been charged a regular amount
during the year to cover the cost of the fuel, maintenance,
etc. If, at the end of the year, there
was a financial surplus, residents had been given a
refund. If there was a deficit, they
were charged for the difference. Once
the equipment had become obsolete, there had been no accurate way
to measure how much energy had been consumed ...
view the full minutes text for item 4.
|