The Painting Contract

(this has been ongoing since 2016)

*

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:

  • Were a number of estimates sought prior to the work being carried out?

  • What was the criteria used when allocating the original contract?
  • How and when were payments made to the contractor who carried out the original work? (No details were given in the annual accounts)

  • 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

 

 

May 11, 2020

Copyright  L Sherwood,  All Rights Reserved, 2017-2020