Hyndburn Homes - security compromised.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by topographic

First remove the risk, fire safety, then address the lesser risk.

Why, when you have owned these properties for 5 years, has the risk only now been identified?

When you define which risk has greater or lesser priority, why did you not take into account that the only fire known to have ocurred in my block was caused by a night intruder?

Other questions have also been raised here. We have never been given a reason why our properties have not been brought up to Decent Homes Standard - we should have been told that the programmed schedule of works was no longer going to happen, and why.

[topographic]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

Why, when you have owned these properties for 5 years, has the risk only now been identified?

When you define which risk has greater or lesser priority, why did you not take into account that the only fire known to have ocurred in my block was caused by a night intruder?

Other questions have also been raised here. We have never been given a reason why our properties have not been brought up to Decent Homes Standard - we should have been told that the programmed schedule of works was no longer going to happen, and why.

It was the Fire service who inspected the properties and assessed the risk. You would have to ask them. I suspect they have a rolling programme.

If you want a response on the Decent Homes programme contact Hyndburn Homes Asset Management Section

[MargaretR]

This appears to be buck passing between HH and the fire service.
We can only judge and allocate blame based on our experiences of contact with both of you.
When we approached the fire service directly we were visited by two senior officers and the locking facility was restored with surprising speed.
I appreciate that there was some risk with the locks we had, and deduce that you were ready to expose us to an alternative (we consider a greater) risk from intruders if it did not involve expense.

I would like to know how soon all of us will have locks.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by topographic

Have work to do and can't be on the web 24/7

If I was you, I'd get back to your other work.

As you're doing an appalling job, public relations wise, on here.

Since you've chosen an anonymous username on this forum, yet seem to talk with some authority on behalf of Hyndburn Homes, would it not be good manners to at least give your position and title with them, if you'd rather not give your name?

[garinda]

Don't some houses owned by Hyndburn Homes have porches, presumably with a lock on an inner and outer door?

Are the fire service going to do a risk assesment on these homes, and subsequently someone from Hyndburn Homes will come along to remove one lock, to prevent people having to scrabble about with two keys if the toaster sets alight?

[Tealeaf]

Has anyone yet got round to the questions of who fitted the old locks, why that design was chosen and when were they fitted?

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Has anyone yet got round to the questions of who fitted the old locks, why that design was chosen and when were they fitted?

These flats were built early 70s for HBC

According to this -
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/tio/18055650
"The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 („the FSO‟), which came into force in October 2006, brought the common parts of blocks of flats within the scope of mainstream fire safety legislation for the first time"

I have not had time to peruse this doc in depth.
When I do, I will report anything relevant here.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

These flats were built early 70s for HBC

According to this -
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/tio/18055650
"The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 („the FSO‟), which came into force in October 2006, brought the common parts of blocks of flats within the scope of mainstream fire safety legislation for the first time"

I have not had time to peruse this doc in depth.
When I do, I will report anything relevant here.

The flats with communal halls didn't have locks on the exterior doors when they were built.

Mind you, there was less chance of a druggie shooting up and setting themselves on fire in the seventies.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by garinda

The flats with communal halls didn't have locks on the exterior doors when they were built.

Mind you, there was less chance of a druggie shooting up and setting themselves on fire in the seventies.

I suspect that these flats were built with entry doors in the stairwells.
I reason that due to the 'single brick, no cavity' walls in the stairwells.
It wouldn't be logical to expose such walls to weather.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by topographic

Because the fire Service requested it.

The regulations prohibit the fitting of a locking device on the /final exit door which, if operated, requires a key release to open it from the inside. This would exclude the use of standard mortice deadlocks if they can be operated from the inside. They specify that exit from the flat is achieved by the operation of a single action release, opening being accomplished by means of a handle or thumb turn.

If a fatality occurred because of an incorrect lock I'm sure everyone would have been on the case.

That's a total load of crap and you know it, the fire brigade did no such thing, HH jumped the gun, now they've ended up with egg on there face and are jumping through hoops to get out of it. The locks on the block of flats where I live could be locked and opened from the inside WITHOUT A KEY and opened from outside with a key, now they are replacing the very same locks they took off in the first place, they couldn't run a tap

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

I suspect that these flats were built with entry doors in the stairwells.
I reason that due to the 'single brick, no cavity' walls in the stairwells.
It wouldn't be logical to expose such walls to weather.

The flats you live in weren't built with locks on the doors to the outside.

You just walked in to the communal hall.

I used to visit someone there in the seventies and early eighties.

Though they had anti-social behaviour then, because there were no locks, mainly from people wandering in there drunk.

A stupid decision to have easy access to any passing undesirable, then, as now.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by topographic

This was a health and safety issue that Hyndburn Homes would be expected to deal with without delay, people would still have made their feelings known on here and elsewhere, when in reality there was no choice in the matter.

Please don't use the health and safety excuse. You removed safe locks from some of the flats. The situation was poorly managed and its a shame you can't admit that.

Originally Posted by topographic

First remove the risk, fire safety, then address the lesser risk.

That shows a very poor understanding for your customers. They believe the lesser risk is one from fire. You made your customers feel unsafe in their own homes which is an epic fail by you.

Originally Posted by topographic

RSLs understand that they have to do some unpopular things and that newspapers, forums etc are always quick to jump on 'bad news' stories. That's the world we live in.

The world we live in is one where people make knee jerk decisions when in reality a few weeks of planning and discussion would not have increased and perceived risk.

Originally Posted by topographic

Hyndburn Homes does listen to customers, involve them in estate inspections, have working groups for policies and procedures, a tenant group that reviews all policies before beimg put to our Board, which, incidently includes tenants as the biggest single group.

How many of your customers were liaised with on this matter and what was the percentage of for and against the removal of the locks?

[topographic]

Originally Posted by Neil

Please don't use the health and safety excuse. You removed safe locks from some of the flats. The situation was poorly managed and its a shame you can't admit that.



That shows a very poor understanding for your customers. They believe the lesser risk is one from fire. You made your customers feel unsafe in their own homes which is an epic fail by you.



The world we live in is one where people make knee jerk decisions when in reality a few weeks of planning and discussion would not have increased and perceived risk.



How many of your customers were liaised with on this matter and what was the percentage of for and against the removal of the locks?

I'm not getting into arguments, I came on here to give information that people were asking about. If tenants want to make an official complaint they should go through HH complaints procedure.

HH is a small organisation, If I gave my position it would be easy to guess.

Sorry if you feel that way John but it is true.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by topographic

I'm not getting into arguments, I came on here to give information that people were asking about. If tenants want to make an official complaint they should go through HH complaints procedure.

HH is a small organisation, If I gave my position it would be easy to guess.

Sorry if you feel that way John but it is true.

Well its obvious that some one at HH knows me, in which case they will also know I don't suffer fools gladly either, maybe if HH spent a little more time sorting out their accommodation allocations it would help. I can never understand the logic in placing an alcoholic in a block of flats, for two years one such person made our lives hell, not only him but the baggage that came with him, taxis rolling up at 4am filled with drunks shouting bawling, kicking doors in, we had the police and HH enforcement officer on speed dial. Its not very nice when you open your curtains at nine in the morning to be confronted by the overspill from your neighbours flat stood against a wall, can of larger in one hand peeing against the wall, maybe if a few people who are employed by HH lived on these premises, this sort of thing wouldn't happen, unfortunately most of them don't even live in the borough never mind in one of their properties

[Neil]

Originally Posted by topographic

I'm not getting into arguments, I came on here to give information that people were asking about. If tenants want to make an official complaint they should go through HH complaints procedure.

HH is a small organisation, If I gave my position it would be easy to guess.

Sorry if you feel that way John but it is true.

I have not asked for an argument, what would be the point in that?
I just politely asked you the questions that many on here were asking.

You have no need to give your position away, I know exactly who you are.