“Crooks Cowboys and Conmen: MP’s damning verdict on Persimmon over its appalling building work”

“Toxic developer Persimmon was branded ‘crooks, cowboys and con artists’ as yet another scandal unfolded over its shoddily built homes.

Persimmon was attacked in Parliament after a block of its flats was found to be riddled with damp, causing misery for families.

Robert Halfon, Tory MP for Harlow, said he was horrified by the conditions endured by some of his constituents.

During Prime Minister’s Questions he said: ‘Homes built by Persimmon… are shoddily built with severe damp and crumbling walls. In the eyes of my residents, Persimmon are crooks, cowboys and con artists.’

In response, Prime Minister Theresa May said: ‘We expect all developers to build their homes to a good quality standard.

These are homes that people will be living in for many years and they deserve those standards.’

It is the latest blow for Persimmon as it fights to keep its place on the lucrative Help To Buy loan scheme which uses taxpayer cash to support families trying to get on the property ladder.

Furious ministers threatened to strike the company off a list of developers able to sell properties through Help To Buy if it cannot clean up its act. [Owl: if you expect that to happen … dream on!]

The Daily Mail has previously highlighted a litany of defects found by buyers of Persimmon homes, including leaks, exposed nails, doors that do not close and toilets that flushed boiling water.

Roger Devlin, Persimmon’s chairman, has vowed to repair the FTSE 100 firm’s battered reputation after scandals which also saw it blasted for corporate excess due to an £85million bonus paid to former boss Jeff Fairburn.

A new homes ombudsman is being introduced to tackle problems in the industry.

Labour MP Clive Betts, chairman of the Commons housing select committee, said: ‘The regime needs to be very tough and regulators need to be able to fine developers and force them to pay compensation.

The Government needs to be prepared to ban these companies from Help To Buy. Why should taxpayers fund shoddy workmanship?’ It comes just days after a TV documentary revealed Persimmon homes had up to 295 defects.

The company was accused of censoring critics this month when it shut down complaints about its homes on a Facebook page.

Persimmon has faced persistent criticism. In an industry-wide ratings survey, it has failed to win more than three out of five stars since 2015.

Persimmon said: ‘We have apologised to customers in Harlow, where manufacturing defects with a batch of blocks have created problems with damp.

The block manufacturer has agreed that this is the likely root cause of the issue and have offered their sincere apologies.

‘Persimmon has agreed to pay the mortgage payments, bills, and the temporary accommodation costs for affected residents while the problem is addressed.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-7258379/Crooks-Cowboys-Conmen-MPs-damning-verdict-Persimmon-appalling-building-work.html?

Data used to justify fire station closures – allegation of serious flaws which should lead to withdrawal of consultation document

Owl has received a link to a communication to Sarah Randall Johnson, DCC Chair of Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority about Fire Station closures and the data used to justify them.

This is somewhat technical, but the substance is that the allegation seems to be that Fire Service has manipulated data (possibly without realising it but possibly deliberately) to present it in a way that is more favourable to them. The writer urges that, because of serious flaws, the document should be withdrawn.

Owl is no mathematician and leaves it to those who are of a more mathematical nature to challenge the assertions made:

“Consultation document misleading, over 600,000 people face increased life risk

My email to Sara Randall Johnson, Chair of Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority, sent yesterday:

Dear Fire Authority Chair,

Whilst I am sure you were unaware, the consultation document you have put your name to is deliberately misleading. Sadly, it appears this has been done to deceive the residents of Devon & Somerset and I would urge you to withdraw the document.

My experience of FSEC modelling made me doubt the claims made by ACFO Pete Bond in his BBC interview on 2nd July, so I submitted questions to the Safer Together Programme Team. Their answers, and another D&SF&RS document (attached), confirm my suspicions that the presentation of the risk modelling outcomes are deliberately misleading.

The reduced risk claim is frankly fraudulent, as it is based on a comparison for the future, which assumes all the service’s fire engines are available, with the current situation, which assumes several fire engines are not available. The excuse given is that crewing and contract changes will ensure all appliances will be available in future. That is outrageous speculation and it is highly unlikely that will ever be achieved.

So, the only honest and responsible method is to compare current theoretical full availability with future theoretical full availability. That comparison shows, although not very clearly in the public consultation document, an extra death every other year on option 5 (25 extra in dwellings and 22 extra in RTCs in 100 years). A figure that will be higher, as not all deaths have been included in the results. Fire deaths not in dwellings, which in some years have exceeded those in dwellings, and deaths at non-fire incidents, other than road traffic collisions, have not been included.

The figure shown for RTCs is also highly suspicious, as the service saves many more lives at RTCs than it does at dwelling fires. Delayed responses will therefore impact more on RTC fatalities than on dwelling fire fatalities. FSEC modelling in other fire & rescue services show that for every extra death in a dwelling fire there can be 15 extra deaths in non-fire incidents, as a direct result of longer response times.

Although the reply I received states that the modelling for RTCs was based on attendance times for the first two fire engines, the figures in the consultation document suggest that is not the case. In option 5, fourteen second fire engines are taken out of use during the day, yet it is claimed that will make no difference to RTC fatalities (same result as for option 4). This suggests that the figures used in the consultation document are for first fire engine only, so once again deliberately misleading. It is also concerning that modelling figures have not been provided for property damage, which is also certain to increase if the proposals go ahead.

The figures for option 6 are also dubious and wholly unreliable. I am told that the roving fire engines were “in certain locations for the purpose of the modelling”. Whilst there may be odd occasions when a roving fire engine happens to be near enough to an incident to provide an improved response time, the random nature of emergencies means there is a much higher probability that it will not. Evidence of this unreliability can be found in the Analytical Comparison of Community Impacts from Service Delivery Operating Model document, dated June 2019. This is stated to be “the evidence base to assess the impact of changes to our Service Delivery Operating Model”. This shows the outcomes for options 5 and 6 as the same, which means there is no improvement on response times for roving fire engines.

Whilst the Analytical Comparison document seems generally more accurate than the consultation document, there are still some concerning conclusions in it. For example, on page 45, the increased response time shown for Porlock and Woolacombe, if they are closed, is just two to five minutes. Yet the nearest fire engines are Minehead and Ilfracombe respectively, both six miles away. Even Lewis Hamilton could not achieve that on those roads in even light traffic. Similarly, the map on page 46 shows day crewing at Barnstaple only increasing first pump response time by one to two minutes. The reality is that at night, with On Call Firefighters responding from home, it would be an increase of around four minutes. These outputs suggest the results have been manipulated to appear less severe.

However, what the Analytical Comparison document does reveal is that over 600,000 residents will face an increased risk to their lives if the full proposals are carried out (262,486 households x 2.3 average occupancy = 603,718 people). That detail should not be kept secret, the public deserve to know before responding to the consultation. It is also very disturbing that the station risk profiles for every fire station have suddenly been removed from the D&SF&RS website. Removing recent (2018/19) performance information during a consultation is not being responsible and accountable.

I would add that I requested copies of the actual modelling data used, but this has not been supplied.

I can’t believe that you would be happy about the public and Fire Authority Members being misled in this way. Please have the document withdrawn and postpone the consultation until a revised document can be published showing full, accurate and honest details of the impact of these cuts. Given the seriousness of this matter I have copied this email to Fire Authority Members and other concerned parties.

Yours sincerely
Name notshown”

https://stopfirecutsdevonandsomerset.blogspot.com/2019/07/consultation-document-misleading-over.html

Profile of blogger of above information (Tony Morris):

“I spent 32 years in the fire service in Bedfordshire and West Sussex. My last six years in the service were as Operational Planning Officer responsible for contingency planning. I was then Senior Emergency Management Adviser for West Sussex County Council for 15 years, covering all areas of emergencies and business continuity.

I served on several inter-agency groups at local, regional and national level dealing with major incident procedures & training, maritime and airport emergencies, incidents involving hazardous materials (CBRN, COMAH etc.), telecommunications and other critical infrastructure.

I have studied how fire services operate and how major incidents are handled in different parts of the World. All this has given me a good understanding of the complexities of emergencies and how to deal with them, as well as a keen eye to spot inadequacies in planning, training or resources.

Now fully retired I am free to challenge ill-considered cuts to the fire & rescue service and my blogs are intended to alert the public to the truth behind the spin. The first blog covered West Sussex, where I live, and the second Devon, where I was born and raised.”

“Police letting down older victims of crime, say inspectors”

“Older victims of crime are being let down by the police and the wider criminal justice system, according to the first inspection report on the age group.

The police have only a “superficial understanding” of the crimes committed against older people, the report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate says.

Older people account for 18% of the population but more than eight out of 10 victims of doorstop scams are elderly, the report says. Older people also comprise a quarter of domestic homicide victims.

“Despite these statistics and the fact that we have an increasingly ageing population, the two inspectorates found that the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lacked any joint cohesive and focused strategy to deal with older victims of crime,” says the report.

Inspectors found that out of 153 cases where a safeguarding referral should have been made by police to the local authority, on 77 occasions there was no any evidence of this taking place.

Of the 192 cases the inspectorates looked at in detail, victim care was found not to be good enough in 101 of them and the victims’ code was complied with on only 97 occasions.

“As people are living increasingly longer, it is imperative that the needs of older people are properly understood by those charged with protecting them,” said the inspector of constabulary, Wendy Williams. “Unfortunately, our inspection found that older people are often not treated according to their needs by the criminal justice system. We want to see a sharper focus on older people and the problems they face.”

John Beer, the chair of Action on Elder Abuse, said: “This is a truly damning report about the way the criminal justice system treats older victims. Action on Elder Abuse has led the call for a specific offence or aggravating factor of elder abuse, in recognition of the devastating impact crime has on older victims. As a society we already recognise that where a victim is targeted because of their race, religion, sexual identity or disability, a tougher sentence should apply. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/17/police-letting-down-older-victims-of-say-inspectors?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other