Discussion in 'Brixton' started by teuchter, Sep 15, 2013.
Just seen this
How many people are on the Loughborough Estate Management Board? Only eight including Peter are listed on the LEMB website:
Do they represent each different area of the Loughborough Estate with each different areas issues as well as estate issues? Are they representative of each age group and nationality on the estate?
Would be good to know all the names and faces of those unqualified residents who are responsible for the running of the Loughborough Estate and making decisions that affect all on the estate (with professional photographs unlike the current photos).
Why does the Loughborough Estate website have a box that pops up to Chat Live but always states each day there is no one available?
Can't help with exactly what you are asking, but here are the latest accounts (to 31/3/18) and the latest constitution as filed at the Financial Conduct Authority Mutuals Public Register
Thanks for the info. I had a quick look through it and unless I'm my counting is off that is only 8 Board members. 8! Definitely doesn't seem representative of the estate in terms of age and nationality. An estate as diverse as this should be really diverse across the board. 8! Crikey! I would have thought 12 members would be the minimum. Where are the 18-25 and 25-30 year olds representatives included within the Board? The estate is large so a diverse board of 15 would surely be better! 8! Wow!
According to the way I read the documents they claim about 400 members of the EMB, though as you say there are only 8 management committee members.
I know nothing about EMBs, but I have been involved in some local charities.
It would seem that 8 MC members is a bit lean, considering there are apparently 1220 properties they look after, and of those tenants about 418 are considered EMB members.
The rules lay down a minimum quorum for AGM/EGM decisions of 20 - and then oddly state an absolute minimum of 6. This seems ambiguous to me, and looks like the management committee is thereby guaranteed the right to over-rule a members meeting - provided they can ensure low attendance.
I see a lot in the rules about expelling shareholders - but nothing about sacking the chair.
I'm surprised and a bit shocked. Surely the rules need to be revised. How can that few make decisions for that many people on an estate? It's laughable. 8 people and only 20 people needed to make decisions? You couldn't make it up it's so bad.
The Board does not reflect the estate and it should in all ways.
Is the Shareholder thing the same as being as being an EMB member? I know someone who is an EMB Shareholder (50p charge?) and asked several times for minutes etc but was never sent them and information not provided. It's a TMO not a secretative cult unless everyone has been misled!
Surely all estate residents should be considered EMB members. It all seems a bit nonsensical that some are and most residents are not. Does the Board have some kind of superiority complex? Does the Shareholder fee pay for the Board's biscuits while they make poor decisions for the estate?
Lambeth Council definitely needs to step in somehow and stop this charade. A new larger diverse Board and Chair needs to be voted in instead of the secretative current group that are responsible for the estate.
It is 2019 isn't it? The Loughborough Estate really is a separate island to the rest of Lambeth. LEMB Island.
If anyone is looking for a free gym to use there is expensive gym equipment in the gardens by Woolley House. Not used. Expensive and not used.
Lays out rule for removing a board member at a general meeting. Two thirds of a quorate meeting needed. It would need to be on agenda.
Mambers can request a general meeting if 25 members ask board. Rule C21.2
So in that way it is possible to remove a board member.
The other way is to wait for AGM and put up own candidate for chair.
Thanks for the info. Are all TMO's run this way?
In response to a few of the posts above: i believe the rules are provided by Lambeth Council as part of the management arrangement. Board members are elected at the agm and not many people stand so to get a more diverse board more diverse people need to be prepared to stand (as with all democracies). I think the chair is elected purely by the board from the board members. Any resident can buy a share (50p) to become a shareholder and vote at meetings - part of the legalities of the type of entity that the LEMB is.
LEMB is not a TMO it is an estate management board and I think legally is governed by different rules and a higher level of delegation from Lambeth Council for the management of the estate. The residents have twice voted to be managed by an EMB rather than directly by Lambeth Council.
Appreciate the information. All eye opening. I am better informed but dismayed by the set up.
All residents should be considered members (the 50p charge is pointless) and the Chair should be elected by residents and not by the Board.
Buying a share is probably necessary to have a legal say in the organisation- fairly standard and probably in an Act of Parliament or statute. Ths rules for the management are laid down by Lambeth Council.
It would be a good idea that when residents move to the estate and sign their tenancy agreement etc. that they are advised to spend 50p on becoming a Shareholder or a community note delivered to all residents advising them to do it so they can all have a say.
Hopefully someone will set up a new Tenants and Residents Association on the estate soon. Someone who has the measure of Peter Shorinwa and be instrumental in removing him permanently from the Board and helping to vote in a fresh and motivated Board.
Current core values of LEMB:
Our core values
When are these going to be implemented?
My mistake, LEMB is a TMO. TMOs seem to vary in the level of management responsibility and autonomy that they have.
Are you on the Estate?
Rule D19 of the Constitution deals with this. Allows representation from groups to ensure diverse representation.
Reading the LEMB Constitution and rules they are good.
They cover all the issues.
So the question is why the residents of the estate don't use the rules that LEMB work under to ensure a good management of the estate?
Having looked at the rules LEMB has there is ample opportunity for members to change things.
If they get up off their arses and work together.
I've heard so many complaints about the Peter and the present Board that IMO there are plenty of people on the estate to vote them out. If they all worked together to do it. And if some of them are prepared to take over roles.
If that is not the case then IMO the residents should hope that Council remove LEMB and directly manage the estate.
I don't understand why residents vote in favour of keeping an EMB then complain about it.
To be frank I don't think people want to manage things. This isn't just about the estate. Its general observation. What people want is affordable goods and services with some community oversight.
This was traditional Council housing.
After all Marxist communism was supposed to be about the necessities of life being met whilst we go off and spend our days using our human potential. Id be quite happy living my life not having to concern myself about organisation of necessities of life.
Automation etc. As in Ian Banks Science fiction. "Culture" are post humans who live in civilization where technology looks after all their needs. Organisation is no longer necessary. They never die. They are uploaded to new bodies. The recent TV dsytopia "Years and Years" used uploading.
Maybe residents voted for it because they thought the estate would evolve and move forward but under the current Chair and Board management it has fallen into a deep rut and needs proper management. What do they actually do?
An estate as large as Loughborough needs energy, community and people who care about the estate to run it instead of Peter Shorinwa who appears to enjoys the title of Chair of LEMB while doing very little.
I've looked at the Constitution/ rules of LEMB that CH1 has posted up and posted up practical things that residents can do using this existing Constitution.
So why are you asking me what they can actually do? Its a large estate. Quorums for changes to Board are low. It would take 25 committed people to remove the board. On such a large estate that's not much.
Are you on estate?
I agree with the points that have been made.
The question was a general one asking what do the Board actually do/what have they actually done/achieved in reality rather than it being directed at you.
This Twitter account is all about Nigeria. Is this really Peter? On LEMB board?
That twitter feed has to be a different person to the EMB chair.
There is simply nothing at all on it to do with life in London.
Hot off the press, This morning I received this little snipit of interesting news.
TMO chair and ex-council officer accused of £56,000 fraud
News23/07/197:00 AM by Nathaniel Barker
A tenant management organisation (TMO) chair and ex-council officer are on trial for allegedly defrauding a London council out of more than £56,000.
Tower blocks on the Loughborough Estate (picture: Google Street View)
TMO chair and ex-council officer accused of £56,000 fraud #ukhousing
Peter Shorinwa, 65, chair of the Loughborough Estate Management Board (LEMB) in Lambeth, and Folasade Adedotun, 55, worked together unlawfully to pay the money into Ms Adedotun’s bank account from Lambeth Council funds in November 2016, the Inner London Crown Court heard on Tuesday.
The pair have pleaded not guilty to fraud by abuse of position under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, while Ms Adedotun has also pleaded not guilty to a second charge of fraud by failure to disclose.
Lawyers acting for the defendants claimed they believed the payment was legitimate, made in order to retain the valuable services of Ms Adedotun to LEMB. At the time of the alleged crime, Ms Adedotun was working as a neighbourhood services director for Lambeth Council on a salary of around £45,000 and was seconded to LEMB.
Robert Fitt, prosecuting, told the court: “This case is about more than the fraud, it’s about corruption.
“Each of these defendants occupied an official position and they abused their positions in order to enrich themselves.”
Lambeth Council had taken back financial control of the LEMB in the summer of 2014 and appointed Ms Adedotun on 7 July 2014. Mr Fitt said that five months after it took back financial control, a property services manager working under her at the TMO on a salary of around £36,000 resigned.
Instead of appointing a replacement, the defendant emailed her line manager at Lambeth Council, Tim Fairhurst, to say that she would cover the role herself in addition to her other duties and use the money saved to employ an electrician and plumber, the court heard.
“She took on the role voluntarily and knew full well she was not going to be entitled to any further salary,” Mr Fitt told jurors.
But the court heard that in February 2016, Ms Adedotun emailed Mr Fairhurst claiming she had just discovered she was covering the property services manager position and asked for extra money to reflect the additional duties.
Mr Fitt said the email was the “first evidence of Ms Adedotun lying to her line manager in order to enrich herself”.
Mr Fairhhurst had responded: “Are you for real? Absolutely not. I’m surprised you have the audacity to ask.”
Replying, Ms Adedotun claimed she thought there was “no harm in asking” and that she “just sent it as a joke, not for real”.
However, Mr Fitt argued “that she was not joking – she thought she deserved it and she wanted it”.
The prosecutor then told the court that Ms Adedotun “saw an opportunity” when Lambeth Council handed back financial control to LEMB on 1 October 2016.
He described how just over a month later, Mr Shorinwa authorised paying Ms Adedotun the full salary amount of the property services manager for the time she had been doing the job, claiming that the LEMB was “happy” for it to go ahead, as well as questioning later why it was not more than the £56,308.32 calculated.
But Mr Fitt said it was “lies” that the board had discussed the payment, despite LEMB rules requiring any payments of more than £10,000 to be approved by the board.
The money was paid by LEMB to Mr Adedotun’s bank account by 16 November, the prosecution said.
Mr Fitt claimed that Ms Adedotun failed to inform Lambeth Council about the payment, “not because she was forgetful but out of dishonesty”, constituting fraud by failure to disclose.
Jurors were told that at the same time, Ms Adedotun intervened in a compensation claim made by Mr Shorinwa to Lambeth Council for flood damage in April 2011 which had been denied.
Mr Fitt contacted the council’s risk and insurance department on 2 November 2016 and told them that the council now accepted responsibility – resulting in Mr Shorinwa being awarded around £12,000.
“This is a case of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, Mr Fitt said.
The court heard that Phil Morris, a financial advisor to LEMB, raised concerns about the £56,308.32 payment to Ms Adedotun and that the board agreed on 22 November 2016 that she should pay it back, which she did so by 25 November.
Mr Fitt added that Ms Adedotun then showed her line manager a document signed by Mr Shorinwa purporting to be minutes of a confidential item at LEMB meetings on 11 October and 8 November where the payment was authorised.
But the prosecutor claimed “these are false documents” and that other board members had never seen them until the criminal investigation, accusing Ms Adedotun of “trying to cover her own back”.
Lambeth Council suspended Ms Adedotun and she resigned on 24 November 2016 – which Mr Fitt argued was “before the disciplinary could begin in earnest”.
Just two weeks later, the court was told, Mr Shorinwa suggested at an LEMB meeting that Ms Adedotun be hired as a contractor on £270 a day – equivalent to £70,000 a year. Ms Adedotun was hired by LEMB after this, the court heard.
Martin Taylor, defending Ms Adedotun, told the court on Thursday that October 2016 was “unchartered territory” for LEMB.
He added: “You may think there was an obligation from Lambeth before the transfer to set some rules so these people wouldn’t have to muddle through on their own, which is what happened.
“There were no established procedures for making the payment.”
He described how the board had not wanted to lose the “workaholic” Ms Adedotun, who sometimes worked 70 hours a week and had turned around LEMB over a two-year period, getting the organisation out of significant debt.
Using a football analogy, Mr Taylor said: “She is their star striker, they got promoted and they don’t want to lose her.”
He continued: “Her main weakness was doing things herself to save money because it is for the greater good.”
Mr Taylor claimed that Adedotun had actually advertised the role of the services manager twice, but because it was a temporary role, no qualified candidates came forward.
Laura Hocknell, defending Mr Shorinwa, said that at the heart of the case was a “David and Goliath battle” between the council and the TMO.
She said: “You heard from the prosecution that this was a case about corruption and about abuse of position.
“The defence position is that the reality is actually about two people working together to try to do their best for the community they were working for at the time.”
Ms Hocknell told jurors that Mr Shorinwa is unpaid as LEMB chair and had no previous experience of managing finances before October 2016.
She claimed he had “believed he was doing the best for LEMB” by making the payment to Ms Adedotun, as he felt retaining her services was instrumental for the organisation’s success.
And she said Ms Adedotun returned the money following legal advice sought by Mr Shorinwa.
Regarding the £12,000 insurance payment to Mr Shorinwa, Ms Hocknell rejected the prosecution’s claim that this was a case of “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours”.
She pointed out that Mr Fitt did not argue the compensation claim was fraudulent or that Mr Shorinwa was not entitled to the money.
Mr Shorinwa, of Barrington Road, Loughborough Junction, remains chair of LEMB having been in the role since 2011.
LEMB was established in 1995 and manages around 1,200 tenanted and leasehold homes on the Loughborough Estate, near Brixton.
Proceedings are expected to last three weeks, with the first witnesses giving evidence tomorrow.
The two counts against Ms Adedotun, of New Addington, Croydon, are alternative – meaning she can only be found guilty of one if convicted.
The trial continues.
Additional reporting by Central News
Really appreciate you keeping us up to date on this. I wouldn't have known about this otherwise.
Even if its not fraud I don't think many residents on the estate are aware of how large payments are made to people supposed to manage their estate.
Large payments of money that belongs to them....
You do realise I'm being a bit careful of how I put things on public board.
Anyway keep up the good work here
They dont listen to the residents either!!!!
Shocked beyond belief! £70,000!
Thank you for posting this.
Separate names with a comma.