A furious resident at Homewalk House in Sydenham, south-east London, is complaining that FirstPort is blocking a proposal to introduce energy efficient LED lighting which could save residents money.
The below is the complaint of John Lillywhite to FirstPort.
We are happy to publish any reply.
Carlex would be interested to learn of other concerns where managing agents / freeholders are resisting energy efficient measures to improve housing stock.
It is a matter that should be raised publicly with MPs immediately.
First Port ret.
New Milton.18th Sept 2015.
Ref. Public Lighting and energy/cost conservation in this building.
N.B Due to the technical aspects, This will be copied to the FP Technical Manager.
The public areas in this building are illuminated by very close to 60 light fittings, with (at present) high speed fluorescent (2D) lamps of about 1980 design.
Some weeks ago, a resident proposed that the fittings are upgraded to LED fittings. This would provide significant savings, not only in power usage, but also from a vastly reduced need for lamp replacement. Surely a benefit to everybody.
As for costs, in my time in Facilities Management, the major considerations when assessing projects such as this was Payback. That is the time taken for the expected savings to overtake the project costs. 5 years was thought of as acceptable, 2 years or better excellent.
My anticipated payback for this proposal is about 2 years. Provided that a properly qualified and experienced contractor is engaged after proper invitation to Quote procedures are followed.
At our last Area Managers meeting, when this subject was raised, Mrs Pollard’s rather peremptory response was “We have decided that it won’t be done”.
When questioned she went on to say that “they” ,Who ? Decided, without any reference to us, to add a Dimming system which would have increase the costs to £14,000, at least double the cost of our proposal. Systems which were discredited decades ago.
Apart from the ridiculous misuse of OUR FUNDS, and the unnecessary over complication of simple and effective system. I say that they make the system potentially unsafe, such as if they failed to off at night.
My reason for writing directly to you is a legal one, made after much study of our lease and all support documents as supplied by Peverel, as was. I ask:-
By what right does FP reject , without consultation of any kind with we Residents, an eminently sensible proposal which would be of benefit to all? The reason given, after challenge, was an unnecessary, unneeded, expensive and complicated addition to the scheme; and without presenting any data to support your case. My study of said documents indictees no such right, especially as it is the use of Our Money under consideration. I look forward to a prompt reply.
cc. FP Technical dept, Mrs Pollard, Mr O’Donnell, Customer Care, , Carlex and any other person deemed appropriate by me.