tomo, from The Guardian article:

"A spokesman for the organisation said: “The TMO has informed residents that its board has reluctantly decided that, in current circumstances, it can no longer guarantee the delivery of services to a standard that residents should expect. Therefore, in the best interests of residents, services which the TMO currently provides are to be temporarily handed back to the council while the consultation about the future management of its housing stock is completed. It remains a priority that the answers, which we all want about the Grenfell tragedy, are obtained.” "

"A spokesman for the borough said: “We are aware of the update from the TMO to residents and we will be writing to all residents to make sure they have clarity on next steps. We are clear, though, that this is only an interim measure.” "

"Seraphima Kennedy, a former neighbourhood officer for KCTMO, said: “They do not care about the impact of their decisions on the lives of those who live in the homes they are legally required to look after.” "

I think this means that KCTMO has a cash, confidence and staff flow problem. If KCTMO is a separate entity to the London Borough of K&C, KCTMO has in effect voluntarily suspended (terminated?) the Contract to "Manage".

My guess would be that it would not be deemed appropriate by anyone, to retain the services of the upper tiers of management of KCTMO. It may be that the Borough had sought various confirmations by the end of December ..... etc etc

Bt the time the Borough is in a position to reprivatise the management of its housing stock, KCTMO will have ceased to exist.

tomo, further to the above ...

I have no idea whether KCTMO were able to request and receive emergency funding from the Government to deal with the consequences of the Grenfell Tower Fire, or whether any (?) Insurance Policies held by KCTMO have proved inadequate to meet the demands made.

KCTMO may also be surrendering a lot of unpaid bills.

Someone did a back of the envelope calculation and came up with a payback of over 100 years for the outside insulation cladding, IIRC, so if we don't get an official value for this, and a reason for doing it, what ever the value, ithe report won't have been ' laid out in a transparent manner'.

Dec 27, 2017 at 9:38 AM | tomo

Not disagreeing with the points you raise at all. Running a "not for profit" is easy if a few fat cats swallow all the cream.

Politicians from all sides have generally kept quiet since the Inquiry started. I think ALL politicians risk ending up with egg on their faces, if they start something now, so many of them probably will.

KCTMO have failed to cope, and given up trying. If the Grenfell Tower accelerated the inevitable, then others may follow.

I think it is time for all contracts, bids, tenders etc to be fully visible. It is taxpayers money after all!

I note that many 'large' companies cite commercial confidence in there bids for council work. Well, if they want to bid for the work, they should be prepared for their bid to be subject to public scrutiny. There are plenty of companies that would like to bid for public sector orders.

Could you imagine if a request to tender had been displayed on a council website, requesting bids to insulate a certain tower block?

The requirements would be listed, ways that a companies bid met those requirements etc.

You could imagine an eagle eyed member of the public picking up on obvious flaws in the rfq and any bids submitted!

Payback time for the discussed cladding would be an obvious catch, with the suggestion that supplying a portion of 'free' electric heating for the life of the building would be far more cost effective.

Every bid, every response must be published as soon as they become available.

tomo - Thanks! I typed in 200 years but, because it was difficult to check, as I am on my smartphone, I put 100 years - which is still ridiculous.

There needs to be a duty on all, individually, within the group to endure that the required expertise is present within the group, and that it is used effectively!

tomo, KCTMO have shirked everything.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Interestingly, you can still report Anti-Social Behaviour to KCTMO:

http://www.kctmo.org.uk/online-forms-antisocial-behaviour

tomo, there is also the possibility that some from the top tiers at KCTMO, have been advised to say nothing, without legal representation.

K and C will need to understand the scale of the mess asap, and distance themselves from it, so external accountants/auditors may be brought in.

tomo, as I understand it.......

RB Kensington and Chelsea still owns the rented properties. (Some Housing Associations bought the entire property portfolio off the local council) KCTMO contracted to manage and maintain etc, and receive the rent. KCTMO have terminated the Contract. It is likely that RBKC had a clause entitling them to terminate the contract with KCTMO, but not necessarily the other way around.

As a "Not For Profit", KCTMO may have no assets worth seizing, and very limited cash reserves following the fire.

As a Social Landlord, I assume that KCTMO were liable for rehousing the "Tenants" of Grenfell Tower and paying reasonable costs, but these costs may not include personal possesions etc that tenants should have had their own Contents Insurance for.

KCTMO will have rehoused some tenants in accommodation costing considerably more than the rent for a flat in Grenfell Tower, of similar size. In instances (for example) where two families totalling ten people were sharing a two bedroomed flat in Grenfell Tower, the private sector may not have been able to rehouse them in a single two bedroomed flat.

I have no idea about any insurance policies held by KCTMO for the building known as Grenfell Tower, or for rehousing the legal tenants and occupiers of the flats, but it is possible that KCTMO now have financial liabilities far in excess of any insurance cover or rent from Grenfell Tower.

Sub

Sub

Dec 28, 2017 at 3:17 PM | golf charlie

Apologies, I was going to add something about sub-letting.

tomo, yes! That is before sub-letting.

I presume KCTMO did have a legal obligation, as Landlords, to rehouse THEIR Tenants, ie the people with whom they had signed a tenancy agreement. It would seem sensible that they had some form of insurance policy to cover such costs.......

Historically, Local Authorities were insured with Municipal Mutual Insurance. From Wikipedia:
"Municipal Mutual Insurance (MMI) is an insurance company registered in the United Kingdom. It was established by local authorities, and was formally incorporated on 13 March 1903.[1]

Over the following decades it became responsible for insuring most public sector bodies, including councils, police and fire authorities.[2]Between 1990 and 1992, the company suffered substantial losses, and its assets reduced to below the minimum level for solvency.[1] In 1993, it was bought by Zurich Insurance,[1] although MMI itself continues to pay all its outstanding liabilities.[3]"

I presume KCTMO and RBKC insure with the same company, and that is Zurich (?)

Sub-letting is not favoured by Landlords or Mortgage Lenders, as they cannot evict or repossess without going through the legal process of making the sub-tenant's lodger's elderley relative's step grandchildren homeless. If people are legally made "Homeless" a Local Authority may become responsible for housing them. A local authority such as RBKC would then turn to a Housing Association such as KCTMO ..........

It seems likely that some of the Grenfell Tower flats were sub let, possibly without any formal notification or agreement between the legal tenant and KCTMO. The sub tenants may have signed paperwork such that they had a tenancy agreement with the Tenant of KCTMO, but they were not the Legal Tenants OF KCTMO. Such tenants may not have been entitled to rehousing by KCTMO, irrespective of any insurance policy, but would be entitled to rehousing by the local authority, RBKC, having been made homeless.

Any insurance policy for temporary rehousing will normally be upto a financial and/or time limit. I have no knowledge of any details of any policy or insurance company involved with Grenfell Tower, KCTMO or RBKC, but I suspect KCTMO will find itself with debts and no assets, RBKC is going to be short of many millions, and "Insurance Officers" in Councils and Housing Associations are being asked many questions they struggle to answer.

Yes it is a mess, and nothing significant has yet emerged from the Inquiry. I am not yet aware of any Legal or Criminal Proceedings against KCTMO "Management", or if any financial recovery/legal liability would be effected by prompt winding-up of KCTMO.

If KCTMO has ceased to function effectively it's not difficult to imagine that some of the tenants of the 10,000 or so properties see the chaos as an opportunity to withhold their rent
Dec 28, 2017 at 1:32 PM | tomo

It would depend on the percentage that pay rent from their own earnings, rather than have them paid direct from some form of benefit.

It will be upto RBKC to liase with KCTMO to ensure rental income flows direct to RBKC, and does not get "held" against any debts.

There are going to be maintenance contractors that have done alright out of KCTMO. It will be their numerous sub-contractors who are likely to be the first to suffer any delayed payments, if they are not already.

tomo,
I remember a statistic from 15(?) years ago about "social housing", that 5% of the tenants cause 95% of the problems. I don't know how true that figure was then, or if it is a fair reflection now, but it is a handy rough rule of thumb. Whether it is social housing or very expensive rented property, landlords/owners/agents do like a Direct Transfer of money, bank to bank, on the same day every month! It would be depressing to know how much KCTMO spend on chasing latepayers, because "Benefits" are not paid direct.

Legal Tenants of KCTMO should not be sub letting their Social Housing to someone else, if they have somewhere else to live. That is the theory anyway!

The Government (?) did agree to pay some rehousing costs, probably because the scale of the homelessness emergency became clear very early on.

I expect the Police obtained details from KCTMO about Legal Tenants, and from RBKC about Registered Voters, for each flat, very early on, to help them confirm the number of people missing, and unaccounted for. Should a Legal Tenant try to claim for loss of rent from a sub-tenant, they would need to prove it with some documentation and financial records. As this may involve taxpayer funding, I expect the Inland Revenue would be happy to double check whatever records they have available.

The Inquiry has now started, and more information will come forward. Just as the Titanic was unsinkable, the scale of this fire and consequent loss of life, was unthinkable, so nobody thought it would happen.