8/7/18: It
won't be too long until the 2018 AGM is held and the
unresolved matter of the Painting Contract during
2015/16 will be raised again with regard to the
circumstances
surrounding
it:
|
- What was the criteria used when
allocating the original contract?
|
|
-
Was the completion contract
automatically given to the
secretary's son-in-law without
obtaining further estimates and if
so why?
|
A report into all of
these questions had been promised by the then
managing agent on a number of occasions namely on
26/8/2016, 5/9/2016, 7/10/2016 with varying excuses
why he had not compiled the report. When the
matter was raised again at the AGM 2017 he stated
that:
“The managing agent advised that the
committee had told him not to give out this
information as it was before her time.
”And on a
second occasion stated “the
managing agent again advised that the committee
had instructed him not to comment.
This is
not the the actions of a committee who are
accountable or transparent and the question has to
be asked WHY?
The
value
of the original contract has never been disclosed so
it is difficult to assertain if the amounts actually
paid out (see below) bear any resemblance to
what was budgeted for initially, or if other
estimates were obtained prior to the original
contract being awarded. The final cost of the work
appears to be as follows:
£22,500.00 |
paid to the substitute
contractor. |
£2,700.00 |
paid to the secretary's
son-in-law |
£332.50 |
extra for Santex Paint |
£25,200.00 |
Total (known) cost of the
Painting Work |
For some unknown
reason the director and committee did not want close
scrutiny of the circumstances
surrounding the events or the costs involved
which on the surface appears highly suspicious as it
leaves the matter open to speculation and begs the
question -
WHY?
Perhaps the director and committee believe that
because
the painting work itself happened in 2015/16,
that
the matter is history and hopes the residents have
forgotten about it. Until this matter has been
adequately addressed, it will continue to be raised
as this kind of expenditure needs to be justified
and accounted for. The residents need to see
that their monies were, and continue to be, spent
wisely and with due care and attention.
It is hoped that in
future when there are works to be carried -
especially major contracts to be awarded, that
proper procedures are followed, that a number of
quotes are obtained before a decision is made, and
the practice of awarding contracts to family members
of the committee ceases.
7/11/17 When asked at the agm meeting about the
promised report on the circumstances surounding the
Painting Contract, the Managing Agent passed the
query on to the Director of the SRA to respond.
The Director stated that all had been done correctly
at the time Please see item 4 of
The AGM 2017 Minutes for
further details on this particular matter.
*
AGM 2017
The Painting Contract
– (Page 9 of the Minutes)
A number of questions were sent
previously to the managing agent
and committee relating to the
circumstances surrounding the
original Painting Contract, and
raised at the agm again.
The minuted response on 2
occasions were during the
meeting were – quote:
“The managing agent
advised that the committee
had told him not to give out
this information as it
was before her time.
”And on a second
occasion stated “the
managing agent again advised
that the committee had
instructed him not to
comment.”
Omitted from the minutes:
The reason given by the director
and committee, was that I wasn’t
a resident at the time. I was
in fact a resident during the
last 6 months of the painting
contract in 2016.
The director and committee’s
continued refusal to disclose
the circumstances surrounding
the painting contract, coupled
with their instructions to the
managing agent, (who had
promised to compile a report and
minuted at the 2016 agm),
indicates that the director and
committee may have something to
hide after all, and that perhaps
something untoward may have
taken place that they don’t wish
to be made public. The matter
remains outstanding and will
not go away, it will continue to
be raised until the director and
committee disclose the
circumstances surrounding event.
Once again the author of the
minutes has been selective in
what has been included and this
reflects very badly on the SRA
director and committee as a
whole.
*
7/10/2016 A further request was made as to the
progress of the report and to arrange a meeting to
discuss the matter, the Managing Agent responded
with he would attempt to have the report ready by
the end of September but as he have been short of
two staff he had been too busy to complete it .
Any report would be circulated to all residents and
he did not see any point in having a meeting at the
present time.
*
5/9/2016 When questioned on the progress of
the report at the council meeting 5/9/16 the
managing agent stated that he hadn't had time due to
pressures at work and staff changes to compile the
report on the matters outlined above, however he
would have it ready by the end of September 2016.
*
26/8/16 At the AGM the subject of the painting
contract was brought up in relation to the decision
by the director and committee who had given an
ultimatum to the contractor that if he hadn’t
returned within a specified time he wouldn’t be
allowed to finish the work. The questions sent
previously were not addressed at the time, however
the managing agent stated he would prepare a full
report on the matter.
*
25/8/16 A number of questions were sent to the
director and committee prior to the agm in the hope
that full details surrounding the problematic
painting contract would be answered.
*
Back to the top of page
