Residents complain after fire safety clear out
Residents of tower blocks in Lambeth have complained their belongings were thrown away after housing officers removed items from corridors to improve fire safety.
The work was carried out in three blocks on the Ethelred Estate in Kennington last week, following demands from the London fire service.
This followed a report by BBC London at the end of last month which found Lambeth council was the ‘worst offender’ in a survey of fire risk assessments done on tower blocks in the capital.
It discovered the local authority had only assessed two of its 112 tower blocks for potential fire hazards under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Residents said they were given little warning and their belongings, including bikes, toys and furniture, were removed without permission.
But a spokesperson for Lambeth’s arm’s-length management organisation Lambeth Living said: ‘The safety of our residents was of absolute paramount importance here, and this action was taken in conjunction with the fire service.
‘We sought to contact every resident individually by knocking on their doors so they could claim their property and remove it from communal areas, and property that was not claimed has been taken into storage and will be returned to them at the earliest opportunity.’
Residents have received repeated warnings about this in the past, he added.
Liberal Democrat councillor Jeremy Clyne said: ‘It’s alarming that the safety of residents has been so neglected that such a drastic action has had to be taken and in such a heavy-handed manner.’
Cathy Deplessis, chief executive of Lambeth Living, said: ‘Fire safety on our estates is a top priority, and we urge all tenants and leaseholders to take this seriously and to play an active part in ensuring they do not compromise the safety of their own households or their neighbours.
‘Obstructing communal areas with goods or furniture like bikes and buggies could - in the event of a fire - claim the life of a fire fighter or a resident, and we will continue to work with tenants to make sure keeping all communal areas clear becomes a second nature to them.’
Inside Housing is running a campaign calling for action to stop preventable deaths from gas and fire. For more on this see our Safe as Houses campaign page.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (10)
Sancho | 15/10/2009 9:47 am
And quite right too. Well done Lambeth. People leave all sorts of junk in the hallways in my block despite having been told not to several times. Stick it in a heap outside and burn it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 15/10/2009 11:28 am
Some tenants are never happy.
Not sure I'd advocate burning their junk though...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ged Quayle | 15/10/2009 12:52 pm
Sorry but I have to agree with the ALMO there, people you can't use the corridors as storage - I've seen some right sights, I swear one bloke had 70% of a car on his landing. And that was up 4 flights of stairs. And then there was the one you couldn't see the fire escape at all there was so much junk piled against it. You almost laugh but that is people's lives they're risking for the sake of a bit of dumping space.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
sharon | 15/10/2009 1:47 pm
We recently had our annual fire/health and safety risk assessment carried out (take note local authorities) and despite our best efforts, the continuing practice of dumping stuff in the common areas was highlighted in the report by a photograph clearly showing chairs, toys etc removed from the garden to outside the tenants front door.
The dumping of anything that can impede the evacuation of tenants in the event of a fire has to be acted on rapidly and effectively. Lambeth Living were correct to do so, especially in the light of the Lakanal fire and especially if tenants had received earlier requests for co-operation. Anything that can't be stored inside a flat or in a storage unit always runs the risk of being removed if requests for co-operation continue to be ignored.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Janet Yatak | 15/10/2009 8:24 pm
It is because of such irresponsible behaviour of these residents that results in other residents getting hurt or injured in a fire. The ALMO have every right to do this perhaps they should have just asked the residents first however to remove them but under the tenancy agreement and Lease they should not be there in the first place. Whilst council's are mostly to blame for this kind of thing, everyone has a responsiblity and residents have a responsibiity towards their neighbours in keeping the space clear, other residents may not only get hurt in a fire but could be just walking normally along the corridor and trip or something so under normal health and safety no items should be there. and it's a pity that it is only now that councils are enforcing this issue
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim Paton | 16/10/2009 0:25 am
Sharon says "or in a storage unit". What storage units? The "pram sheds" (usually formally known as "tenants amenity sheds") with which many of our estates were originally equipped are no more in most cases. Ironically, Hammersmith & Fulham has hitherto been an exception to this with many estates featuring well maintained sheds which are much in demand. Now, if Greenhalgh has his way, no doubt tenants will be living in the sheds rather than the flats before long.
There seems little awareness of the difficulty in living in the cramped conditions which most council and HA flats provide and where items which it is not reasonable or practical to keep inside the flat should be stored. Bikes, for example. Try talking to landlords about secure, weatherproof, bicycle storage on estates and you will usually be met with flippancy or contempt. Car parking issues, on the other hand, are always on the agenda and occupy considerable amounts of management time. In true forked-tongue fashion, councils will usually have policies to encourage cycling -except for their own tenants.
I certainly do not encourage obstruction of essential fire routes, but it needs to be recognised that this problem has causes which need to be addressed constructively. No more lectures, please, from people with sheds and garages at their much more spacious suburban dwellings.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Wayne | 16/10/2009 6:45 am
According to me it is a really a nice effort by the housing officer to check each and every house. but from this effort of housing effect the residents are not satisfied because they are throwing out the things.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Wayne | 16/10/2009 7:41 am
It is a really good move by the fire inspectors to inspect the who whole residential areas of the city . but form this move of the fire inspectors the people are really unhappy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 19/10/2009 7:55 am
So their stuff was "moved" not "thrown away" anyway?!
Personally I think they did the right thing. If there had been a fire and one of the tenants killed it would have caused uproar that the blocking of the fire escapes had been allowed to continue. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - although I think erring on the side of caution is a necessity.
I agree with the commentator above who said about having additional storage. Do the H&F HA have any problem with vandalism, improper use, used as a dumping ground etc?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 19/10/2009 11:57 am
The landlord has the overriding responsibility and duty of care for Health and Safety and rightly so.
All the landlord need do here is post a letter through each door to say items have been removed from publicareas and say if they are not claimed within say 14 days then they will be destroyed. A simple and correct process.
Cramped conditions or lack of space may well be the context yet they dont give anyone the right or rationale to create a fire or H&S hazard or risk. H&S has to be the priority.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment