100 signatures reached
To: All residents of Metropolitan South's properties.
To obtain fair treatment for Metropolitan Housing Trust residents.
Join together in a demand for the delivery of services' paid for by residents, and the scrutiny and holding to account of management and Board for poor performance at all levels. Even if you have not yourself been a victim of this organisation, please forward the petition to your friends and others who may want to support the cause of Metropolitan customers like us who feel we have serious grievances against this organisation.
Why is this important?
During more than 40 years as a resident of Metropolitan Housing Trust (previously Granta Housing Association), I and other residents have experienced failings of the organisation which, in-spite of repeated efforts to obtain redress, including by a residents’ association expressly set up for the purpose, have been met with either total indifference or un-kept promises. These failings include:
1. The failure to deliver satisfactory cleaning services paid for through the Service Charge.
2. False claims for items on the Service Charge, remaining after attention has been drawn to them.
3. Over-payments recorded on one period’s statements, not deducted on subsequent statements, as promised by management.
4. Failing to hold to account managers who do not uphold the organisation’s own expressed aims, for example, to deal appropriately with residents who commit anti-social behaviour.
5. Failing to implement residents’ preferences even after they have been officially accepted.
6. The ignorance and incompetence of management, resulting in residents being deprived of intelligently constructed surveys and valid elections, for example:
In a survey of the usage of the car-park on my site, over 100 car parking places were offered for the existing 26;
In an election for estate representative that should have kept anonymous the participants, the organisation demanded the names and addresses of the respondents;
One of the 2 candidates for estate representative (myself)was not informed of the election, which subsequently took place without her knowledge, thus preventing her from canvassing and being considered for the position;
The non-anonymous votes were obtained and compiled by telephone by a non-neutral member of staff.
I do not believe that other organisations in receipt of huge quantities of tax-payers’ and charities’ monies as Housing Associations are, would accept the lack of accountability and scrutiny of the failures of its employees as this organisation does: a Housing Manager censured by the Board of Granta for failures in that job was, instead of being excluded from consideration by Metropolitan’s Board, promoted on his application for the post to the more senior position of Head of Housing, where he is in a position to unfavourably influence the conduct of those accountable to him.
The current contractor for cleaning services over many years, for a huge number of Metropolitan’s properties, (previously Granta’s) in spite of repeated complaints with accompanying photographs about the unacceptably low standard of the work provided, continues in possession of the contract. The most recent complaint drew attention to the current cleaner being under the influence of drink while doing his job, as clearly having a drink problem, yet being allowed to drive the contractor’s vehicle and to continue being employed by the contractor.
If other Metropolitan South residents, (who have a separate Board and management to Metropolitan North residents), both tenants and lease-holders, share some or all of the experiences described here, please support this campaign to obtain improvements in the organisation’s governance and practices.
1. The failure to deliver satisfactory cleaning services paid for through the Service Charge.
2. False claims for items on the Service Charge, remaining after attention has been drawn to them.
3. Over-payments recorded on one period’s statements, not deducted on subsequent statements, as promised by management.
4. Failing to hold to account managers who do not uphold the organisation’s own expressed aims, for example, to deal appropriately with residents who commit anti-social behaviour.
5. Failing to implement residents’ preferences even after they have been officially accepted.
6. The ignorance and incompetence of management, resulting in residents being deprived of intelligently constructed surveys and valid elections, for example:
In a survey of the usage of the car-park on my site, over 100 car parking places were offered for the existing 26;
In an election for estate representative that should have kept anonymous the participants, the organisation demanded the names and addresses of the respondents;
One of the 2 candidates for estate representative (myself)was not informed of the election, which subsequently took place without her knowledge, thus preventing her from canvassing and being considered for the position;
The non-anonymous votes were obtained and compiled by telephone by a non-neutral member of staff.
I do not believe that other organisations in receipt of huge quantities of tax-payers’ and charities’ monies as Housing Associations are, would accept the lack of accountability and scrutiny of the failures of its employees as this organisation does: a Housing Manager censured by the Board of Granta for failures in that job was, instead of being excluded from consideration by Metropolitan’s Board, promoted on his application for the post to the more senior position of Head of Housing, where he is in a position to unfavourably influence the conduct of those accountable to him.
The current contractor for cleaning services over many years, for a huge number of Metropolitan’s properties, (previously Granta’s) in spite of repeated complaints with accompanying photographs about the unacceptably low standard of the work provided, continues in possession of the contract. The most recent complaint drew attention to the current cleaner being under the influence of drink while doing his job, as clearly having a drink problem, yet being allowed to drive the contractor’s vehicle and to continue being employed by the contractor.
If other Metropolitan South residents, (who have a separate Board and management to Metropolitan North residents), both tenants and lease-holders, share some or all of the experiences described here, please support this campaign to obtain improvements in the organisation’s governance and practices.
How it will be delivered
We will probably use the comments of the signatories to this petition, as well as what we hope will be the large numbers of expressions of discontent with Metropolitan, to support any legal action or further complaint we make to the appropriate organisation.
