Homes for Islington wants PFI contractor to remove confidentiality clause
ALMO battles gagging order
An arm’s-length management organisation has demanded a contractor stop gagging tenants to whom it has paid compensation following complaints about work.
Homes For Islington is pushing United House, a contractor on two private finance initiative schemes to refurbish Islington’s council houses, to drop the gagging orders.
The story emerged after Terry Stacy, leader of the opposition Liberal Democrat group at Islington council and portfolio holder for housing before the election, said it was a ‘scandal’ that tenants were being asked by United House to sign the agreements.
The agreement included the words ‘We/I agree not to disclose the terms of this settlement save with the permission of United House Limited in writing or in the court.’
An email to Mr Stacy from Homes for Islington said other subcontractors on the PFI - housing association Hyde and construction and maintenance firm Rydon - did not use similar confidentiality terms. In the email, Homes for Islington said it would ‘pursue this matter vigorously with a view to getting the confidentiality clause removed’.
James Murray, executive member for housing at the council, said he was meeting United House and the PFI consortium Partners for Improvement in Islington and wanted the clauses to be removed from the contracts.
The PFI contracts were signed in 2003 and 2006. The council was under no overall control at the 2006 election and run by the Liberal Democrats after the 2002 poll.
A spokesperson for United House said the compensation agreements had ‘nothing to do with the quality of work undertaken’ but could be for other reasons, such as accidental damage to a tenant’s possessions. She said: ‘The resident is asked to sign the settlement letter to confirm that all issues have been addressed and to record that agreement has been reached between the parties.’ She said the settlements were standard documents.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (3)
Anonymous | 13/08/2010 10:02 am
As your sidebar "Resources" reports, PWC is currently investigating United House and its charging of leaseholders. The report is due to be complete at the end of this month.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
McMadman | 13/08/2010 10:26 am
As a point of law, there is nothing particularly unusual in such confidentiality clauses and pretending otherwise, or suggesting that this is some new and innovative ploy, is nonsense. Compromise arrangements happen all the time in and out of court and in employment law and a confidentiality/no admission of liability clause is very common practice in the public and private sectors.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13/08/2010 1:40 pm
Mr Stacy has some explaining to do.
It was El Tel's party that signed up for this "pathfinding" PFI1 - pathfinding meaning in this sense no one with half a brain cell would dare to embark on a reckless option for refurbishing housing.
It was El Tel himself who signed up for PFI2 - a contract delayed for almost a year because the contractor was proving so incompetent on PFI1.
No one with half a brain cell ...
Out of power, El Tel has had a Damescene moment or two. He's claiming virtue for bringing in the auditors on a project which he signed up to in the first place.
Only a politician of supreme self-confidence or a numpty to the core could have the chutzpah to perform this hypocritical somersault.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment