A week ago I received three letters: one from each of the tenant management organisations on the same day. The fact that there are three separate such organisations created by the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBK&C) was reinforced by these letters arriving all at once and their content. Despite the fact of three separate organisations, there was evidence of concentration of power as well as the problem of responsibility and accountability with respect to essential services and financial control. There was the notification from the Lancaster West Estate Management Board (EMB) about the Annual General Meeting (AGM) for the Lancaster West Management Association signed by its Chair, Dr Evan Arkas, to be held on Tuesday, 28th February 2006. The formal notice enclosed with the oover letter had on its second page an additional notification indicating that the Lancaster West Tenants & Residents Association AGM would be held at the same location on the same date and time. There was no reference anywhere else to this other organisation holding its AGM simultaneous with the EMB AGM. Following the proposed agenda for this year's AGM, there was the minutes for last year's AGM held on 29th March 2005. There was no mention about the central heating problem which I had reported by Email and letter to the Leader of the Council and the TMO Chief Executive in early August and September 2003 on three separate occasions. These minutes covered the activity for the preceding year and did not reflect anything about this life threatening condition with the central heating remaining on during the summer of 2004 and what was being done about it. A problem occurred in 2005 as a result similar to the one in 2003. However, the very first item on the agenda read "Baseline Units- 3 units secured for EMB. Two have been rented out." These are the business units created in Barandon Road where Dr Arkas lives just above these at a total cost of over one million pounds sterling. Further, under "Capital Programme/Major Works" there was no mention of the central heating problem, but there was a description of the Grenfell Tower lifts which were then being refurbished. There was reference to a new pest control contract which, I assume, was with Rentokil although no name was given. This was a 3-year contract noted with a company known for its serious financial problems which have emerged at the end of 2005 and the beginning of this year. The minutes indicated that the pest control contractor has committed "considerable resources" to ensure that "targets" will be met. However, there was no mention of the rubbish disposal problem which has persisted in my experience since May 1996 and has been brought to the attention of tenant management and the Council with extensive correspondence by me. I have an extensive file on this which reflects gross mismanagement. There was a policy statement made near the end of 1997 stating that it was OK for tenants to leave their rubbish on the floors in bags near the rubbish chutes to be put down these chutes by contract cleaners in lieu of providing adequate rubbish disposal facilities. This was reinforced as an acceptable standard in writing at that time by the Chief Executive of the Council (RBK&C) and the Council's Environmental Health Department. These letters were sent to me as a result of my complaints in 1997. The result has been that during all these years since, the tenants have left their rubbish in all sizes of bags and manner of disposal by the rubbish chutes on the second and third floors near the front door. These were then disposed of by the cleaners. The amount of rubbish, garbage and liquid which accumulates all night on the floor is incredible. I have a large ongoing photographic record of this including efforts to cover up this health and safety hazard by putting this down the chutes as early as six o'clock in the morning. This is pretend management preserving its image. There is no way that any effective pest control can be accomplished until the rubbish disposal problem is solved first. Any efforts to eradicate pests is doomed to failure since they are fed nightly as a result of the policy determined as described above and reinforced more recently as the policy to be followed by the TMO/EMB in the Lancaster West Estate. Rubbish disposal facilities is an Estate wide problem. Another point in the minutes of the AGM a year ago was the use of CCTV cameras on the Estate. These are apparently being converted to a digital system with initial efforts and funds expended on the Verity Close and Grenfell Tower areas. This new system will be able to store the video images on a PC for retrieval. In addition, a wireless system is in the pilot project stage were a roving camera can be placed at required locations as needed. Another significant point was reference to a management review being carried out with respect to the Management Agreement with the Council. This is evidently an ongoing process involving the Council, EMB and the TMO and is included as a target for the past year with respect to completion. One of the proposed resolutions for the forthcoming EMB AGM is: "The Lancaster West Management Association wishes to continue to manage the Lancaster West Estate under the terms of the Management Agreement with the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea dated 1st August 1993."Why should it be allowed to do so? This is management for the benefit of the few at the expense of the thousands who reside in the 900 or so multiple dwelling units of this Estate. The name Keith Miles figures prominently in the formal EMB AGM notification. Keith Miles did a presentation of the financial accounts last year. He was and is an EMB Board Member having been elected or perhaps re-elected a year ago according to the previous year's minutes. Keith Miles is also Chair of the Lancaster Residents' Association and was a former Chair of the EMB for a short period. I believe Keith Miles resides in the Verity Close area. In the report by the Area Manager (not named) for the forthcoming EMB AGM a Mrs Teresa Miles was noted as one of the longest standing EMB Board Members . Is she related to Keith Miles? Further in the same report there was a note that members must be notified 24 days in advance of the AGM in order to submit nominations for the committee (what committee is not specified) and that the AGM notification should be sent by 3rd February 2006. I received this AGM notification on Tuesday, 7th February 2006. It was delivered by hand at 1124 on that morning. This was not in compliance with the Constitution of the EMB as described. I have been subjected to total invasion of privacy by surveillance technology in the hands of the tenants and general public thanks to tenant management for the past 7.5 years used in such a manner as to imprison and torture me continuously 24/7. There is no way I can participate in this organisation even if I wanted. My life has been completely shut down as of mid-August 1998. It is obvious that the EMB is Grenfell Tower and Verity Close centric and a tightly controlled organisation by a few people. I said this way back c 1997 as the same kinds of policies favouring these locations were being implemented at that time. The rest of the Estate was ignored. If fact, I put this in writing at that time. It is still a fact of life. There is no attention being paid to health and safety items like the central heating which is left on throughout the summer and adequate rubbish disposal facilities. Not only are these ignored to the detriment of the residents throughout the Estate, but the costs associated with this gross mismanagement are borne by all the tenants for this privilege of being abused by this multiple organisational management fiasco. A second letter also received by hand on this same date shortly after the EMB AGM notification was one from Keith Miles as Chair of the Lancaster West Residents Association announcing coffee mornings for the over 60s every Monday morning starting 20th March 2006. Is this the same organisation which will also have its AGM on the same date and time and in the same place as the EMB? What is the difference and purpose of these two organisations? Where are the notification pages for it about its agenda and previous year's minutes? As I can see it, there is no discernable difference between the EMB and the Lancaster West Residents Association with Keith Miles being an active, top EMB Board Member who presents the financial accounts and is also Chair of the Lancaster West Residents' Association. Why are there two separate organisation here for tenant management? I believe that the Lancaster West Residents Association created by the TMO for extralegal purposes as stated in their letter while forming this organisation has assumed a vigilante role under the guise of "security" for the Estate and is deeply involved in the stalking and harassment of me with the use of the surveillance technology. This would obscure the roles of the EMB and TMO in such activity by providing an organisation for tenants who could carry out stalking and vilification of someone they did not like as has occurred in my case because I report the problems these people and organisations who want to suppress the recognition of the problems for image management purposes and to pervert the course of justice. It is convenient to create an "enemy" by means of a smear and fear campaign which has been done explicitly against me by those using the surveillance technology for years in order to drive people into these tenant management organisations as a means to protect them under the "security" umbrella. There is nothing like creating a false threat to build an organisation based upon fear from something that does not exist. It's a variatoni on the them of "crying wolf."It is also a convenient way of eliminating someone who reports problems and ask uncomfortable questions. It is my belief that this is what is happening with regard to tenant management here. This, of course, enables those few to maintain their power at the expense of the manipulated many. The third letter I received a week ago at the same time was from the TMO providing a break down of the newly instituted "services charges." Prior to April 2005 all the funds for management of the Estate had to come out of the basic rent. Since April 2005, service charges have been unilaterally imposed on top of the basic rent. As of this 21st January 2006 letter from the TMO, these charges reflected a increase of more than 25% over the basic rent. Here they are as provided in this TMO letter: Weekly Annually (900 Units)Bulk Refuse 0.22 10,296Communal Electricity 0.01 468Concierge Services 0.41 19,188Contract Cleaning 3.71 173,628Estate Lighting 0.15 7,020External Site Work 0.47 21,996Grounds Maintenance 0.76 35,568Heating & Hot Water 6.32 295,776*Paladin Maintenance 0.25 11,700Pest Control 0.76 35,568Water Rates 3.86 180.648*Total 16.92 791,856 These are weekly service charges to me in addition to my basic rent by category. I have multiplied them by 52 weeks per year and 900 units to provide an approximate annual expense for these services charges at the Lancaster West Estate. This is only a rough approximation. Such items as water depend upon the size of a flat. These two charges are marked with an asterisk (*). However, some very interesting problems emerge. First this spending can be anything without any budget or basic rent amount control. Services charges are added to the rent in whatever amount they happen to be. This can support malfeasance and maladministration. Thus, the EMB can spend and spend whatever it wants, and the tenants as a whole have to pay. Further, the tenancy agreements are with the TMO who then provides this breakdown. This again raises the issue of legal responsibility and accountability. As I pointed out yesterday, the TMO has the responsibility but no power while the EMB has the power but no responsibility. Both organisations have a separate contract with the Council which is noted above. The EMB has a reputation and history of blackmailing and punishing tenants with a failure to repair as my balcony disrepair for the past 7.5 years attests along with the surveillance technology used against me during this same period of years. I made this point in writing to the EMB in June 1996 just after I moved in when the statement was made that a vandalised front door lock would be left unrepaired until those who were responsible were determined. The front door lock remained unrepaired for four and one-half months at that time. Everyone was punished with a high security risk in a high crime area for the vandalism of a few. The service charges can now by used as a means to punish and extort money from all the tenants despite the actions which come from only of a few and the failure of tenant management to properly manage. My balcony was "vandalised" with a deliberate destruction of Government property to make me conform to their demands in a situation where they got a problem all wrong and had to try to blame me for their own failure. There has been no money spent repairing this deliberate "vandalism" on the part of tenant management who deliberately created the disrepair. In that context consider the following: Consider rubbish disposal. The policy is that rubbish can be left by the rubbish chutes for the cleaners to put down these chutes. This costs extra money for which everyone pays as well as constituting a safety and health threat. Consider heat and hot water: central heating is left on year around with the tenants footing the bill for an extreme health hazard during heat waves such as have occurred in 2003 and 2005. In addition, the soaring energy costs can and are being passed right along to the tenants by means of this service charge. No effort has been made to repair this problem for the entire Estate to date. Consider water rates: in 1998 I requested that the free offer from Thames Water of a water meter be installed. I was refused since water is billed for the entire Estate and involves the heat and hot water. There are two separate water tanks in my flat each for hot and cold water. The central heating runs through pipes in the floor to the radiators. There is no reason why cold water and perhaps hot water cannot be individually metered at each flat at those tanks so that everyone pays for his/her own usage. The central heating water would have to be billed aggregately, but it is the same water recirculated throughout the system, and it is not actually consumed. It has to be separate from potable hot water. There was no legitimate reason to refuse me this request for the hot and cold water I consume. I met the Estate Officer about this time on the Estate, and he told me that they make money from the water charges. This was the real reason for not allowing me to meter my water usage. Now there is a serious threat from a water shortage once again this year. Without metered water at the point of usage, water is wasted in a significant amount, and people like me who conserve water pay for all the wasted water by others and some purported profit by the means of aggregate billing. Consider pest control: this is money spent on a hopeless activity that is knowingly wasted because of the inadequate rubbish disposal facilities and the policy whereby rubbish is permitted and condoned to be left on the floor. There never can be any adequate pest control until this problem is solved first. But, the EMB now has the service charge to spend and can do as it pleases. I submit that this is malfeasance of the worst kind and outright fraud using the service charge to create the illusion of management with regard to pest control when in reality there is no such thing. Rentokil happily partakes in this activity because it knows that it will have a permanently lucrative activity since it cannot get rid of the pests, and the tenants can be blamed for what is really a gross and deliberate failure of tenant management. This is the same as trying to blame me for the disrepair of my balcony when this can be accessed at anytime from the outside for repair as was agreed in the summer of 1998. This is how the disrepair was done in the first place by outside access to the balcony for the supposed purpose of repair. Each one of these categories for service charges needs to be analysed very carefully in the context of its need and in relation to the problems which lead to such expenditures making them unnecessarily expensive. This is hard evidence of maladministration with serious consequences for all involved. The focus of attention by tenant management is on administration of itself and the boondoggle created by having three separate organisations devolving from is a Council responsibility. The result from this excessive creation of organisations is that the few can manipulate in their own interest at the expense of the many and attack those who would complain about serious problems relating to safety and health, antisocial behaviour and criminal activity including that carried out by tenant management itself. This addition of organisation upon organisation also reflects the failure to manage and the need to cover up in the interest of image rather than results which also entails a far greater expense than honest, straightforward management would. Thus, the very serious central heating and the rubbish disposal problems are covered up and go unacknowledged while the EMB spends over a million pounds sterling on business units in a residential environment instead of meeting the critical needs of the residents. Then it engages in extreme repression of someone who brings these problems to the surface in order to destroy that person and maintain a fabricated management image.