Bastard Housing Association Leaving Me With No Heating!
- Thread starter scifisam
- Start date
Apparently there's some compensarion coming our way, but I'll believe it when I see it.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
bluestreak said:
According to my handbook and the one that I quoted from the Peabody Trust's website, the response time for heating problems during the heating season is 24 hours.
jesus christ
New Member
.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
oryx said:Who is no doubt on well over £100k a year.....
Howlett's on £170,000 per annum. He wasn't popular at Swale (his last place) either.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
I think people are getting a bit confused. As far as I can tell, there should be no reason for disagreement with Oryx. There is no LEGAL obligation on social landlords to follow the "right to repair" regulations, so there is no "law" that they have to follow. There is, however, a duty under their relationship with the Housing Corporation, which is the body which funds and monitors housing associations, and which can take action against a housing association which fails to adhere to the regulations.
The idea is that social landlords, like the Peabody Trust, should behave as if the regulations apply, but the remedy, should they fail to do so, is not through the law, because there is no legal requirement.
There is quite clearly a duty on the landlord to sort out the heating, and I would complain not just that they failed to do so, but that they have not trained/informed their staff correctly. Complain through the internal process, though, keeping copies of all correspondence, and don't try and say that they have broken the law, because they haven't, and it merely diverts from what I believe to be a genuine complaint which should be dealt with.
The idea is that social landlords, like the Peabody Trust, should behave as if the regulations apply, but the remedy, should they fail to do so, is not through the law, because there is no legal requirement.
There is quite clearly a duty on the landlord to sort out the heating, and I would complain not just that they failed to do so, but that they have not trained/informed their staff correctly. Complain through the internal process, though, keeping copies of all correspondence, and don't try and say that they have broken the law, because they haven't, and it merely diverts from what I believe to be a genuine complaint which should be dealt with.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
nino_savatte said:
Do you think he's better or worse than the last guy. When I worked for Peabody there was a general feeling that he was a lot better, and that most of the staff felt that the place was improving rapidly. There was also a sense that incompetance was no longer tolerated. From a performance management POV he actually made directors reponsible for managers and managers respnsible for their staff.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
nino_savatte said:
Not sure of the relevance of his salary on this debate, but didn't he come from the Amicus Group?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Guineveretoo said:
I answered Oryx's question. That's okay, isn't it?
No, he came from Swale iirc, I was talking about him with a plumber who came around. He also worked for Swale.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
nino_savatte said:
Of course it is okay. I was making a point, not asking a question, although I was asking a question about the Amicus Group thing, because he definitely worked for the them before joining Peabody Trust. Perhaps he worked at Swale before that? Or is Swale part of the Amicus Group?
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
No, he came from Amicus, but Swale were part of the group that formed Amicus.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
bluestreak said:
From a tenant's point of view, no. He's worse. Peabody Direct is one of the worst features of the new Trust that he's designed: the staff are generally incompetent and because they're under pressure to save money, they give out the wrong response times to repair jobs. Things were never ideal at the Trust, I will readlily admit this but they aren't a whole lot better either.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
Here you go, from the Peabody Trust website http://www.peabody.org.uk/pages/GetPage.aspx?id=112:
Stephen Howlett BA
Chief Executive
Joined Peabody in March 2004 from the Amicus Group where he was Chief Executive since the group was established in 1999. Prior to that he was Chief Executive of Swale Housing Association which founded the Amicus Group.
Stephen Howlett BA
Chief Executive
Joined Peabody in March 2004 from the Amicus Group where he was Chief Executive since the group was established in 1999. Prior to that he was Chief Executive of Swale Housing Association which founded the Amicus Group.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
bluestreak said:
There it is.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Guineveretoo said:
But he was at Swale though, wasn't he?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Guineveretoo said:
So why did you say this?
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
nino_savatte said:
Because I am not sure of the relevance of his salary to the discussion.
Which bit of that don't you understand?
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
nino_savatte said:
So it would seem. I answered my own question by doing a bit of research, and posted it up on here for others to see. I am nice like that
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Nino, is he better or worse than the last guy? Or rather, do you feel that Peabody has improved under him?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Guineveretoo said:Because I am not sure of the relevance of his salary to the discussion.
Which bit of that don't you understand?
I was replying to oryx's question, which bit of that did you not understand? Why the bitchiness?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
bluestreak said:
As a Peabody tenant, he's worse. I don't think I know many Trust tenants who approve of what he's doing: the closure of estate offices; the selling off of Trust properties for a profit; Peabody Direct...and those are just a few reasons.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
nino_savatte said:
I did get that you were replying to oryx's post, not least because you said that already, but I still don't see why his salary is relevant. That's not a dig at you, it's a statement, and one I will stick to. I don't see why the guy's salary is relevant to whether or not there is a legal obligation upon social landlords to carry out repairs to a particular schedule, nor whether there is any moral obligation upon them to do so. I wasn't saying that you raised it, I was merely making the point that I didn't think it was relevant.
I am not being bitchy, but you can read it how you like. I can't be bothered caring that much, frankly
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Guineveretoo said:I did get that you were replying to oryx's post, not least because you said that already, but I still don't see why his salary is relevant. That's not a dig at you, it's a statement, and one I will stick to. I don't see why the guy's salary is relevant to whether or not there is a legal obligation upon social landlords to carry out repairs to a particular schedule, nor whether there is any moral obligation upon them to do so. I wasn't saying that you raised it, I was merely making the point that I didn't think it was relevant.
I am not being bitchy, but you can read it how you like. I can't be bothered caring that much, frankly
Nah, you were nitpicking. I replied to oryx's posts, so your point about his salary not being "relevant" is somewhat pointless. However, now that I think about it, it is rather relevant; not least because money has to be found to pay him £170,000 per annum.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
nino_savatte said:
Oh grow up, will you!
I was making a point/statement, call it what you like, because I do not think that the salary of the chief executive is relevant. It's not nitpicking to make a point. I repeated that point several times because you were not able to understand it. Is that nitpicking?
You are taking this personally for some reason known only to you (and perhaps to other readers of this thread, who knows, but certainly not to me!
)
_angel_
.
Guineveretoo said:Oh grow up, will you!
I was making a point/statement, call it what you like, because I do not think that the salary of the chief executive is relevant. It's not nitpicking to make a point. I repeated that point several times because you were not able to understand it. Is that nitpicking?
You are taking this personally for some reason known only to you (and perhaps to other readers of this thread, who knows, but certainly not to me!
Don't worry about it G2 it's Nino's unique talent of starting a fight in an empty room.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
I am not worried - I am off doing other things and just popping back occasionally out of a vague interest to see how offended this person is now
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Guineveretoo said:Oh grow up, will you!
I was making a point/statement, call it what you like, because I do not think that the salary of the chief executive is relevant. It's not nitpicking to make a point. I repeated that point several times because you were not able to understand it. Is that nitpicking?
You are taking this personally for some reason known only to you (and perhaps to other readers of this thread, who knows, but certainly not to me!
This is pathetic. You were nitpicking and now you're denying it. I also said later that his salary is relevant...or perhaps you missed that too? You say that you were "making a point/statement" but you did so in order to try and make me look stupid. Pity it backfired - eh?
You never said anything to oryx for rasing the issue in the first place...odd that.
You're the one who needs to learn to grow up. You could do with learning how to communicate too. It's not one of your strong points.
Similar threads
