Chapter 33: The TMO's relationship with its residents

Complaints

¶33.1 In the first part of this chapter, we consider the various mechanisms by which the residents of Grenfell Tower were able to express their views about the quality of the services provided by the TMO. Those mechanisms were not confined to personal representations; they included membership of the various groups that the TMO recognised as representing residents and membership of unofficial organisations set up by residents who were concerned that their views were not being heard, or at least not being heeded, by their landlord.

The Memoli and the Butler reports

¶33.2 In July 2008, RBKC asked Maria Memoli, a retired solicitor, to investigate longstanding complaints made against the TMO by residents of its properties and to establish whether there were any common themes that could inform a plan for improvement.¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸ {TMO00888711/2} paragraph 1.1. Her initial report, dated 10 April 2009 (the Memoli report), made serious criticisms of the TMO's relationship with its tenants, leaseholders and some freeholders, particularly as it affected repairs, major works, management charges, service charges, customer care, probity and ethics, communications, performance and monitoring, and trust and confidence. Complaints had not been resolved, it was felt, for some years.¹⁷⁹¹⁷⁹ {IWS00001462}. The report concluded that the TMO's board should understand better its constitutional and legal role and take collective responsibility to lead the work required by the TMO's improvement plan.¹⁸⁰¹⁸⁰ {IWS00001462/3}. It made 34 recommendations.

¶33.3 Robert Black, who had become the TMO's chief executive officer in May 2009, said that, although he had been made aware of the Memoli report, he could not remember having been given a copy of it.¹⁸¹¹⁸¹ Black {Day151/55:2}-{Day151/56:5}. He recalled a report that had made serious criticisms of the TMO's governance and its relationship with its tenants,¹⁸²¹⁸² Black {Day151/61:16-22}. but his impression had been that RBKC had not been particularly impressed by it.¹⁸³¹⁸³ Black {Day151/58:16-24}.

¶33.4 A final report, dated 22 September 2009, was produced by John Butler (the Butler report), also commissioned by RBKC, which made a number of recommendations echoing Maria Memoli's proposals, such as requiring that every complaint be investigated as appropriate.¹⁸⁴¹⁸⁴ {TMO00888711/2} paragraph 1.4. Most importantly for our purposes, the Butler report made a number of observations that are relevant to the difficulties affecting the TMO's relationship with its residents throughout the time with which we are concerned. Although the Butler report noted that governance, customer service, staff attitudes and a poor repairs service were constant themes of the investigation, it is noteworthy that it considered that the residents' lack of trust in the TMO lay at the heart of the troubled relationship.¹⁸⁵¹⁸⁵ {TMO00888711/5-6} paragraphs 4.2 and 4.4.

¶33.5 RBKC and the TMO responded to the 34 recommendations of the Memoli report and their responses were included in appendix 2 to the Butler report.¹⁸⁶¹⁸⁶ {TMO00894426}. In the light of how the relationship between the TMO and the Grenfell community evolved in the years between 2010 and 2017, the following recommendations and responses are particularly relevant: a. In response to the recommendation that there be a process of mediation or

conciliation to rebuild relationships with residents of the TMO, RBKC replied that the approach to resident consultation was under review and that it would consider the results.¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁷ {TMO00894426/2}.

¶b. In response to the recommendation that TMO staff should take a more active approach and that the TMO's contractors should share information with residents about prospective work schedules, planned maintenance and emergency works on estates, the response was that the TMO had recently published a five-year capital works programme to residents,¹⁸⁸¹⁸⁸ {TMO00894426/3}. one purpose of which was to give leaseholders a chance to plan for their share of the cost.¹⁸⁹¹⁸⁹ Black {Day151/67:14}-{Day151/68:10}.

¶c. In response to the recommendation that the TMO should be conscious of the diversity of its residents, the response was that it had devised an equality and diversity action plan which was intended to inform all aspects of service improvement plans.¹⁹⁰¹⁹⁰ {TMO00894426/3}. Although Robert Black told us that he thought that the plan actively identified those with mental or physical disabilities or disadvantages, he did not appear to know whether in fact it did so.¹⁹¹¹⁹¹ Black {Day151/70:16-24}.

¶d. In response to the recommendation that RBKC and the TMO should re-examine their relationship with each other to ensure openness, transparency and trust and to address an historic "them and us" culture,¹⁹²¹⁹² {TMO00894426/4}. it was said that the problem had been resolved by changes at executive level within RBKC and the TMO. Robert Black explained that it had involved increasing engagement between various people in RBKC and the TMO, as well as other organisational changes within the TMO.¹⁹³¹⁹³ Black {Day151/71:3}-{Day151/73:15}.

¶e. In response to the recommendation that RBKC should be more robust in making sure that the TMO's technical services were capable of delivering an effective major works programme and cyclical repairs,¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴ {IWS00001462/4}. RBKC and the TMO said that the TMO had arrangements in place for managing contracts effectively. Laura Johnson told us that Robert Black acted on that recommendation before the Grenfell Tower refurbishment project began.¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁵ Johnson {Day128/190:1-17}.

¶33.6 Those recommendations are striking, both in their prescience and as a measure of the TMO's failure thereafter. They could just as well have been contained in this report, given what we have found. It says much about the TMO's character as an organisation that, despite those penetrating reports, eight years later it showed little sign of any change and appeared to have learnt nothing about how to treat, or relate to, its residents.

Complaints procedures and management systems from 2009

¶33.7 The TMO had a complaints policy that set out the procedure to be followed when a resident made a formal complaint.¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁶ An earlier version dated May 2010 {TMO00831399} and a revised version dated July 2015 {TMO00879692}. It was intended to be reviewed every three years and was communicated to residents through leaflets, posters in the housing offices and on the TMO's website.¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁷ Birch {TMO00879690/2} page 2, paragraphs 8- 9. In the event, however, the policy published in 2010 was reviewed only in 2015, when it was revised by broadening the definition of a complaint and by the introduction of a procedural hierarchy for different forms of communication from residents.¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸ {TMO10026197/2}.

¶33.8 Yvonne Birch was responsible for managing the complaints procedure from 2012. She received reports from Janet Seward, the TMO's policy and improvement manager, who oversaw the administration of the complaints team's work.¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹ Birch {TMO00879690/1} page 1, paragraph 5.

Residents' Associations

¶33.9 Between 2010 and 2017, there were, at various times, four groups and associations representing the residents of Grenfell Tower. They were the Lancaster West Residents' Association, the Grenfell Action Group, the Grenfell Tower Leaseholders' Association and the Grenfell Tower Compact.

Lancaster West Residents' Association

¶33.10 The Lancaster West Residents' Association was founded in 1977.²⁰⁰²⁰⁰ Burke {IWS00001544/2} page 2, paragraph 9. Before 2015, it was a vehicle for raising residents' concerns with the TMO and providing support to members of the community more generally.²⁰¹²⁰¹ Richer {IWS00002345/2-3} pages 2-3, paragraph 9.

¶33.11 In September 2015, the TMO called a meeting of the Association which led to the formation of a new committee and a new constitution.²⁰²²⁰² {MET00049167}. The aim was to strengthen the Association, increase active participation in its work and provide a more cohesive community by putting on social events and activities.²⁰³²⁰³ Blanchflower {IWS00002072/4} page 4, paragraph 12.

¶33.12 Over the next few years, although the Association appears to have had some communication with residents' groups associated with Grenfell Tower, it had little involvement in the disputes that later arose between them and the TMO.

Grenfell Tower Leaseholders' Association

¶33.13 The Grenfell Tower Leaseholders' Association was founded by Shahid Ahmed in 2010²⁰⁴²⁰⁴ Ahmed {IWS00001335/4} page 4, paragraph 13. to give Grenfell Tower's leaseholders one voice.²⁰⁵²⁰⁵ Ahmed {IWS00001335/4} page 4, paragraph 13. By 2010, the leaseholders believed that the heating system was poor and that the building in general was poorly maintained. Mr Ahmed used the Leaseholders' Association to try to improve the management of the building.²⁰⁶²⁰⁶ Ahmed {IWS00001335/4} page 4, paragraph 13.

¶33.14 The constitution of the Leaseholders' Association provided that its aims were to look after the leaseholders' interests and to work with RBKC and others to do so.²⁰⁷²⁰⁷ {IWS00001386}. The Association had 12 members. Mr Ahmed was the chairman and Tunde Awoderu the vice-chairman. Keith Mott was secretary and treasurer.²⁰⁸²⁰⁸ Ahmed {IWS00001335/4-5} pages 4-5, paragraph 13.

¶33.15 Mr Ahmed said that he had done almost all the work for the Association after Mr Mott moved away in 2013. Mr Ahmed was worried that raising concerns would lead to reprisals from the TMO, and even the forfeiture of his lease. For that reason, although letters and emails were drafted by Mr Ahmed, they were signed in Tunde Awoderu's name with his permission.²⁰⁹²⁰⁹ Ahmed {IWS00001335/5} page 5, paragraph 14. Although Mr Awoderu was a leaseholder, he did not live in the tower. He rented his flat to tenants and so, presumably, was thought to be less exposed to any risk of reprisal.

¶33.16 The Leaseholders' Association held meetings from time to time to which all members were invited. At around the time proposals for the refurbishment were being made there were more frequent meetings which all members attended.

¶33.17 When problems arose, Mr Ahmed sent emails directly to individuals at RBKC or the TMO; he did not make use of the complaints procedure, in which he said he had no faith.²¹⁰²¹⁰ Ahmed {IWS00001335/6-7} pages 6-7, paragraph 16. He frequently sent emails first to the local ward councillors and often to Councillor Judith Blakeman. He would also copy his correspondence to many, if not all, of the other councillors and officers of RBKC and the TMO.

¶33.18 Although the concerns of the Leaseholders' Association were initially directed to the reasonableness of the service charge and the quality of services, over time they developed to encompass a broad range of matters affecting the tower, one of which was fire safety. On 30 April 2010, there was a fire on floor 6 of the tower, as a result of which smoke leaked from the smoke ventilation system into the lobbies on a number of floors, in some cases a long way from the seat of the fire.²¹¹²¹¹ {TMO00847309/1}. After that, some residents complained about the efficiency of the smoke ventilation system²¹²²¹² Blakeman {RBK00054461/15} page 15, paragraph 76. and Mr Ahmed raised concerns about the TMO's attitude to fire safety generally.²¹³²¹³ Burton {IWS00001661/2} page 2, paragraph 8. He said he had never received a proper response from the TMO despite repeating his concerns for several years after the fire.²¹⁴²¹⁴ Ahmed {IWS00002369/3} page 3, paragraph 8. Mr Ahmed said that he had felt that the TMO had misrepresented the seriousness of the fire by, among other things, understating the number of people who had been injured, among whom had been his wife.²¹⁵²¹⁵ Ahmed {IWS00002369/4} page 4, paragraph 10 c.

Grenfell Action Group

¶33.19 Grenfell Action Group was set up in 2010 by Edward Daffarn and Francis O'Connor, both of whom lived in the tower.²¹⁶²¹⁶ Daffarn {IWS00000169/7} page 7, paragraph 18. Mr Daffarn said that he founded the group by putting up a poster in the tower in June 2010.²¹⁷²¹⁷ Daffarn {Day118/12:13-20}. He later met Francis O'Connor and Teresa Miles, whose husband, Keith Miles, was the chair of the Lancaster West Residents' Association. Mr Daffarn told us that the Grenfell Action Group had four members: Francis O'Connor, Teresa Miles, Peter Martindale and himself.²¹⁸²¹⁸ Daffarn {Day118/12:1-6}. Rob Regan had also possibly been a member.²¹⁹²¹⁹ Daffarn {Day118/12:3-6}.

¶33.20 According to Mr Daffarn, the Group was formed because of dissatisfaction with the Lancaster West Residents' Association and the moribund Estate Management Board.²²⁰²²⁰ Daffarn {IWS00002109/49} page 49, paragraph 124. (The Estate Management Board had been created in or about 1993²²¹²²¹ Caliskan {RBK00035166/4} page 4, paragraph 19. and was the precursor of the TMO, to which it later delegated most of its functions.²²²²²² Johnson {RBK00033719/23-24} pages 23-24, paragraph 115. In 2010, RBKC became concerned about its effectiveness and its ability properly to oversee the TMO. Eventually, in 2014 or thereabouts, the Estate Management Board ceased to function.)²²³²²³ Johnson {RBK00033719/24} page 24, paragraphs 116-119. Mr Daffarn said that the Group intended to speak on behalf of all Lancaster West residents whose lives were to be affected by the KALC project.²²⁴²²⁴ Daffarn {IWS00002109/49} page 49, paragraph 126. Indeed, the first poster that Mr Daffarn put up in 2010 concerned information that residents had received from Councillor Blakeman about the KALC project.²²⁵²²⁵ Daffarn {Day118/12:13-25}.

¶33.21 From 2012 onwards, both Mr O'Connor and Mr Daffarn tried to obtain recognition by both RBKC and the TMO of a residents' association called "Grenfell Action Group". In September 2012, Mr Daffarn applied successfully to RBKC for the Group to be added to its list of recognised tenants' and residents' associations.²²⁶²²⁶ {IWS00002154}. Attempts were also made to register the Group as a residents' association with the TMO, but the TMO refused to give it official recognition. In August 2012, Edward Daffarn told Janet Edwards of the TMO that the Group was in the process of being registered with RBKC as a residents' association and he asked her for the form to apply for similar recognition by the TMO.²²⁷²²⁷ {TMO00845472}. For some reason it was not forthcoming.

¶33.22 On 20 August 2012, there was a meeting between Mr Daffarn, Janet Edwards and Teresa Miles,²²⁸²²⁸ {TMO00845472}. at which the TMO refused to recognise the Group. Following the meeting, Mr Daffarn asked the TMO to give written reasons for its decision. In reply Ms Edwards told him that a residents' association already existed on the Lancaster West Estate and that the TMO could not recognise another one. She then suggested that Grenfell Action Group consider becoming a sub-group of the Lancaster West Residents' Association. Ms Edwards told him that she had sought advice from the Tenancy Participation Advisory Service, which discouraged landlords from supporting and recognising two residents' associations in relation to the same estate because of the risk of conflict.²²⁹²²⁹ {TMO00846422}.

¶33.23 On 3 September 2012, Jon Warnock of the Tenancy Participation Advisory Service sent an email to Janet Edwards suggesting that she should seek to find a way to support the Grenfell Action Group and establish a harmonious relationship between it and the Lancaster West Residents' Association. It was suggested that the TMO consider a tripartite agreement between the two of them and the TMO which set out their respective roles and responsibilities. However, on 8 October 2012 Yvonne Birch confirmed that, having considered that advice, the TMO still would not recognise the Grenfell Action Group.²³⁰²³⁰ {TMO00845579}. Her principal reason for doing so was that the suggested agreement would require a dispute resolution process which she considered to be unworkable. In an email of 23 October 2012, Yvonne Birch repeated the objection that the Group could not be recognised because there was already a recognised residents' association for the estate as well as an elected estate management board which the TMO had a duty to involve in the estate's management.²³¹²³¹ {TMO00845856}.

¶33.24 In late June 2012, Mr Daffarn and Francis O'Connor began publishing the Grenfell Action Group blog. Mr Daffarn said that it was intended to publicise issues that had not been picked up by the media and to document what was happening to the community.²³²²³² Daffarn {IWS00000169/7} page 7, paragraph 18. He told us that at the start he felt that the blog was a means of communicating directly with the TMO, rather than writing to it or using the established processes, and that it gave the community on the Lancaster West estate a voice to express its views about the effect on it of the KALC project.²³³²³³ Daffarn {Day118/150:8}-{Day118/151:2}. He considered it a necessary response to the TMO's overbearing treatment of the tower's residents.²³⁴²³⁴ Daffarn {Day118/26:1-4}.

¶33.25 Another purpose of the blog was to raise concerns about fire safety.²³⁵²³⁵ Daffarn {IWS00000169/8} page 8, paragraph 20. The posts that were concerned with fire safety are discussed more fully in Chapter 42, but one particular incident discussed in the blog usefully illustrates the nature of the concerns expressed by residents about fire safety and their belief that the TMO paid insufficient regard to the risk of fire in its buildings.

¶33.26 In 2013, power surges occurred at the tower which caused damage to electrical equipment in some residents' flats. The Grenfell Action Group and the Leaseholders' Association were concerned about the incident and communicated their concerns to the TMO by emails and in a petition.²³⁶²³⁶ Ahmed {IWS00002369/15} page 15, paragraphs 52 and 54. They were also the subject of a blog post in September 2013,²³⁷²³⁷ {IWS00002180}. the thrust of which was that the TMO had played down the seriousness of the surges. Edward Daffarn told us that the residents had asked RBKC's Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee to consider the problems surrounding the power surges, but he felt that the matter had been covered over,²³⁸²³⁸ Edward Daffarn's formal complaint {TMO00838788}. with the result that the residents lost trust in the TMO's ability to take appropriate action in respect of fire safety.²³⁹²³⁹ Daffarn {Day118/118:23}-{Day118/120:3}. Councillor Blakeman told a meeting of the Scrutiny Committee in July 2013 that the TMO would find it difficult to regain residents' trust, since many believed that the TMO had failed to take the power surges seriously.²⁴⁰²⁴⁰ {TMOH00004598/3}.

The Grenfell Compact

¶33.27 The Grenfell Compact was a residents' group set up during the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower specifically to represent residents' interests. The efforts taken by the residents to obtain recognition are worthy of being recorded as an illustration of the difficulties they faced.

¶33.28 Mr Daffarn explained that the Grenfell Action Group's early efforts to form an association for the broader community changed over time to an organisation designed specifically for the residents of Grenfell Tower. When the refurbishment works were under way there were around 100 people in the tower who had expressed support for such an initiative. There was a perception that the Lancaster West Residents' Association was ineffective²⁴¹²⁴¹ Daffarn {IWS00002109/50-51} pages 50-51, paragraph 131. and Mr Daffarn hoped that an association specifically for residents of the tower would counteract the TMO's perception that the Grenfell Action Group was a small, disgruntled minority.²⁴²²⁴² Daffarn {IWS00002109/51} page 51, paragraph 134.

¶33.29 On 22 January 2014, Mr Daffarn sent an email to Claire Williams which he copied to the Leaseholders' Association and other residents. He asked for recognition, funds and support so that a Grenfell Tower residents' group could be set up to help tenants during the refurbishment. He explained that such a group would allow leaseholders and tenants to make their views known and ensure that the TMO carried out the refurbishment in co-operation with the residents rather than simply imposing it on them. Mr Daffarn said he had spoken to both the Lancaster West Residents' Association and the Leaseholders' Association, both of which supported the request.²⁴³²⁴³ {TMO00845842}. The TMO's position, however, was unchanged. It declined to recognise the proposed group because a residents' association covering the area already existed.²⁴⁴²⁴⁴ {TMO00832280}.

¶33.30 On 10 September 2014, Mr Daffarn sent an email to Fola Kafidiya, the TMO's Head of Governance, to complain that residents of Grenfell Tower were being denied the opportunity to form a representative group to speak on their behalf about matters affecting the refurbishment of the tower. He said that the Lancaster West Residents' Association was moribund and that residents were therefore effectively unrepresented.²⁴⁵²⁴⁵ {TMOH00004881/3}.

¶33.31 On 17 September 2014, Janet Edwards made it clear that the TMO did not object to the tenants and leaseholders of Grenfell Tower forming a group for the purposes of consultation on matters relating to the building work. She also confirmed that the group would be consulted by the TMO on matters relating to the refurbishment.²⁴⁶²⁴⁶ {TMOH00004881/1}. That ought to have provided an opportunity for matters to be put on a better footing.

¶33.32 On 17 March 2015, Mr Daffarn and others organised a meeting of Grenfell Tower residents which was attended by over 100 people from more than 55 households.²⁴⁷²⁴⁷ Collins {IWS00002334/6} page 6, paragraph 27. On 26 March 2015, residents from about 20 households held another meeting and agreed to form a group which they called Grenfell Community Unite.²⁴⁸²⁴⁸ GAG Blog, "A collective voice for residents as 'Grenfell Community Unite' is formed!" {IWS00002239}. They agreed to ask the TMO and Rydon to meet them to discuss their concerns.

¶33.33 The meetings on 17 March and 26 March 2015 were both reported on the Grenfell Action Group blog in forthright terms.²⁴⁹²⁴⁹ GAG Blog "Minutes from the Grenfell Tower Emergency Residents Meeting (17/03/15)" {IWS00002209}; GAG Blog "A collective voice for residents as 'Grenfell Community Unite' is formed!" {IWS00002239}. On 1 April 2015, Peter Maddison sent an email to Fola Kafidiya at RBKC, saying that Mr Daffarn was continuing to agitate, attaching the blog posts and asking Ms Kafidiya to advise at what point his comments would become libellous. Mr Maddison noted that there had been no direct contact from the group and said that the TMO would continue its approach of concentrating on consulting residents individually.²⁵⁰²⁵⁰ Email from Peter Maddison to Fola Kafidiya dated 1 April 2015 {TMO00845965}.

¶33.34 On 6 April 2015, David Collins asked Claire Williams to arrange a meeting between the group and the TMO, Rydon, Studio E and Max Fordham.²⁵¹²⁵¹ {TMO10043300}. He also asked for confirmation that the TMO would acknowledge Grenfell Community Unite as a residents' group.

¶33.35 Before responding, Claire Williams consulted other TMO officers.²⁵²²⁵² Email from Claire Williams regarding ''DRAFT Grenfell Community - meeting with TMO/Rydon'' dated 8 April 2015 {TMO10043313} and Draft response to David Collins {TMO10043314}. In her response, she deflected the request and suggested that discussion with individual households was more appropriate and that a survey had indicated that residents preferred to receive information by letters, newsletters and notices rather than at public meetings.²⁵³²⁵³ Response to David Collins {TMO00846124}. Siobhan Rumble suggested that the TMO should agree to meet Mr Daffarn and Mr Collins, but make it clear that it would not tolerate abusive language or threatening behaviour.²⁵⁴²⁵⁴ Email from Siobhan Rumble to Claire Williams dated 8 April 2015 {TMO10043321}.

¶33.36 On 13 April 2015, Claire Williams sent David Collins' request for a meeting to Peter Maddison with a draft response declining to meet residents.²⁵⁵²⁵⁵ {TMO00846102}. She noted that she had spoken to Robert Black and explained that TMO people preferred not to meet Grenfell Community Unite, since such a meeting would provide a platform for Mr Daffarn.²⁵⁶²⁵⁶ {TMO00846102}. In our view, that internal message is revealing. It suggests that one reason for the TMO's reluctance to recognise the Grenfell Action Group or any new group to speak for residents about the refurbishment was because of a grave mistrust of Mr Daffarn.

¶33.37 Edward Daffarn is an intelligent, articulate and motivated individual, who was an impressive witness. Whether he ever spoke for the wider community is debatable and his language and approach in his dealings with the TMO caused resentment among its staff. One thing is clear, however: those in the TMO who were responsible for managing the refurbishment were nervous of him and allowed him to become a barrier to proper communication with the rest of the community.

¶33.38 Councillor Blakeman also took an interest in the request for a meeting with residents and asked the TMO to copy her and other ward councillors into the response.²⁵⁷²⁵⁷ {TMO00845970}. After receiving Peter Maddison's comments, Claire Williams responded to David Collins and Edward Daffarn on 17 April 2015 refusing their request to recognise the Group or organise a meeting with residents.²⁵⁸²⁵⁸ {TMO00846124}; {TMO00846121}. She referred to the survey citing the residents' preference to be consulted by letter, but she offered Mr Daffarn an opportunity to meet Rydon to discuss the work in his flat.

¶33.39 Following the involvement of Councillor Blakeman, on 11 July 2015, representatives of the TMO and Rydon met residents in Flat 145²⁵⁹²⁵⁹ Daffarn {IWS00002109/57} page 57, paragraph 153. and on 17 July 2015 there was a meeting with the local Member of Parliament, Victoria Borwick, at which the TMO agreed to her suggestion that it should recognise the Grenfell Compact as a representative group for the purposes of the refurbishment.²⁶⁰²⁶⁰ {IWS00002194}; Daffarn {IWS00002109/58-59} pages 58-59, paragraphs 156-158; {TMO00846146}.

¶33.40 It had taken the best part of three years and the intervention of the local MP to get to that point, but by July 2015 the refurbishment was only a year from completion. The residents of Grenfell Tower had never before that been given any collective say in relation to it, as required by the agreement between the TMO and RBKC.

¶33.41 The Grenfell Compact was formally constituted on 23 September 2015.²⁶¹²⁶¹ {TMO00846191}. An information sheet sent by the TMO to residents following its formation explained that a residents' compact was an agreement between representatives of a block or estate and the TMO which sets out how residents will be involved in decisions affecting their homes.²⁶²²⁶² {TMO10009741}. It also stated that the compact was a means of influencing decision-making.²⁶³²⁶³ {TMO10009741}. The signatories to the compact were William Thompson, Edward Daffarn, David Collins, Hanan Wahabi and Marcio Gomes.²⁶⁴²⁶⁴ {IWS00001711}.

Consultation with residents

¶33.42 We can now examine the extent to which the TMO consulted residents during the course of the refurbishment, its response to residents' complaints and its broader attitude to its relationship with the residents of the buildings it managed.

Consultation between the TMO and residents: 2011 to 2014

¶33.43 In September 2011, Edward Daffarn had complained to Laura Johnson that the residents of Grenfell Tower had not been consulted about the selection of Studio E as architect for the KALC project. He had felt that the KALC presentation on 13 September 2011, which had been attended by an architect from Studio E, had been a charade because Studio E had already been appointed without consulting residents.²⁶⁵²⁶⁵ {RBK00030110}.

¶33.44 At a KALC forum meeting on 28 March 2012, Mr Daffarn asked why Studio E had been selected to undertake the initial work on the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. He was told by Councillor Coleridge that it was difficult to have two architects undertaking separate projects on a single site and that there was a need for synergy between the KALC and Grenfell Tower projects.²⁶⁶²⁶⁶ {LBI00000129/3}.

¶33.45 At a meeting of the TMO's Lancaster West Estate Management Board on 15 May 2012, Edward Daffarn asked if Studio E had experience of tower blocks and, if not, why it had been retained for the refurbishment.²⁶⁷²⁶⁷ {TMO00848807/4}. He never received an answer to that question.²⁶⁸²⁶⁸ Daffarn {Day118/21:24}-{Day118/22:1}. See also Part 6 Chapter 66. The Tenant Management Organisation

¶33.46 Most TMO officers knew little or nothing about schedule 3 to the Modular Management Agreement, which contained detailed provisions about resident engagement in respect of refurbishments such as that of Grenfell Tower. Nevertheless, the TMO did make efforts to consult the residents of Grenfell Tower about its refurbishment. Consultation began in February 2012 and covered numerous topics, including cladding, heating, gas and the windows.²⁶⁹²⁶⁹ Dunkerton {TMO00000885/11} page 11, paragraph 60. It took a variety of forms, including drop-in sessions, newsletters, telephone communications²⁷⁰²⁷⁰ Dunkerton {Day51/94:11-17}. and two major questionnaires in February and May 2012.²⁷¹²⁷¹ Dunkerton {Day51/95:19-25}. The TMO consultation strategy was set out in the Grenfell Tower engagement statement dated 22 August 2012,²⁷²²⁷² {TMO10001401/4}. which contained the responses to the wide range of questions that the residents had been asked in the questionnaires. One of the questions in the May 2012 questionnaire was "Do you wish to be involved in the development proposals for Grenfell Tower?" The responses were "Yes" 13 and "No" 1, but despite that request for involvement, no proposals were developed.

¶33.47 In July 2012, the TMO's project team for the refurbishment called for a resident focus group to be established by the TMO,²⁷³²⁷³ {ART00000169/4}. but a group was never established. There is also no evidence that the residents, who in May 2012 had indicated that they wanted to be involved in the development proposals for the tower,²⁷⁴²⁷⁴ {TMO10001401/10}. were ever invited to join a focus group.²⁷⁵²⁷⁵ See, for example, Anderson {Day51/99:16}-{Day51/100:2}. Indeed the creation of a residents' focus group was not part of the consultation strategy.

¶33.48 In December 2013, the TMO decided that it would no longer hold public consultations with residents about Grenfell Tower. Councillor Blakeman told Councillor Feilding-Mellen that Edward Daffarn had become too disruptive to continue holding public consultations.²⁷⁶²⁷⁶ {RBK00003386}. Peter Maddison agreed that that had been one of the reasons, but said that poor attendance had been another.²⁷⁷²⁷⁷ Maddison {Day124/22:1-15}. At a drop-in session on 12 December 2013, a survey was undertaken and residents were asked to indicate how they would prefer the TMO to consult them.²⁷⁸²⁷⁸ Williams {TMO00840364/30} page 30, paragraph 170. Most people did not want formal meetings.

¶33.49 The decision to discontinue public meetings was regrettable. Mr Daffarn perhaps should have stood back and questioned whether his preferred methods were the only, or even the most effective, way in which the voice of the community could be heard. A more conciliatory approach on his part might have been reciprocated. On the other hand, for its part the TMO ought to have reacted less defensively and, instead of retreating, should have made a greater effort to engage with Mr Daffarn, both on a personal and public level. It allowed its fear and personal mistrust of him and his methods to influence the way in which it engaged with the residents more generally. As custodian of the safety and security of its residents, it must take responsibility for the breakdown in trust.

¶33.50 Some 65 households were recorded as attending the drop-in on 12 December 2013, at which people were asked to identify their preferred methods of consultation and 55 forms were returned.²⁷⁹²⁷⁹ {TMO00828516}. Six methods to choose from were listed but they did not include consultation through a residents' group. They were all directed at giving information to residents, not hearing from them.

¶33.51 The residents of Grenfell Tower were consulted in respect of the various cladding options for the tower. In August 2012, the preference was said to be for a zinc cladding system²⁸⁰²⁸⁰ {TMO00838191}; {TMO10049897/3}. but the decision eventually conveyed to residents in the newsletter circulated in October 2014 was that RBKC had approved a smoke silver metallic (grey) colour for the cladding.²⁸¹²⁸¹ {TMO00837599/2}. Claire Williams said that she did not think the residents had ever been told that there had been a change from zinc to aluminium composite material or the reasons for the change. She thought that had been because the decision had not been made until after the project had begun.²⁸²²⁸² Williams {Day121/90:3-25}.

The petition

¶33.52 In December 2015, at Councillor Blakeman's suggestion,²⁸³²⁸³ Blakeman {RBK00054461/17} page 17, paragraph 91. some 60 residents of Grenfell Tower signed a petition to the Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee of RBKC asserting that residents' views had been ignored or minimised, that their day-to-day concerns had been belittled and brushed aside and that they had been forced to endure intolerable living conditions while the work on the tower was going on.²⁸⁴²⁸⁴ {RBK00000110}. It had been prompted by the frustration felt by residents that their concerns about the refurbishment had been ignored by the TMO.²⁸⁵²⁸⁵ Blakeman {RBK00054461/17} paragraph 91. They asked the committee to consider their views and experiences and include them in its report.

¶33.53 The petition was presented by Councillor Blakeman to RBKC on 2 December 2015 and was then referred to Councillor Marshall and the Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee for its consideration.²⁸⁶²⁸⁶ {RBK00033519}. On the same day, RBKC and the TMO held a joint management meeting, at which Peter Maddison is recorded as having said that Councillor Blakeman and Mr Daffarn were a negative force at Grenfell and that residents were going to them with problems rather than the TMO.²⁸⁷²⁸⁷ {TMO10011523/2}. The minutes also record Amanda Johnson as having said that she felt that Councillor Blakeman had a conflict of interest since she was a TMO board member appointed by the council.²⁸⁸²⁸⁸ {TMO10011523/2-3}. It is striking that senior officers of the TMO and RBKC appear to have been more interested in silencing Councillor Blakeman than in resolving the residents' grievances.

¶33.54 In response to the petition, the TMO's board suggested that it conduct an internal review of the refurbishment works. Laura Johnson supported the proposal while emphasising that RBKC had no desire to be involved in it. She said she would relay the proposal to Councillor Mackover so that it was supported by the Scrutiny Committee.²⁸⁹²⁸⁹ {TMO00852704/3}. Clearly, the TMO hoped by that means to avoid external scrutiny of the way in which the refurbishment had been conducted.

¶33.55 A meeting of the Scrutiny Committee was held on 6 January 2016.²⁹⁰²⁹⁰ {RBK00032130}. Edward Daffarn was given an opportunity to address the committee and the request set out in the petition for a review of the TMO's management of the refurbishment was then discussed. Councillors Mackover, Berrill-Cox, Blakeman and Press proposed that a working group should be set up to investigate the management of the refurbishment and Councillors Blakeman and Press said that the reviewers should be independent of the TMO.²⁹¹²⁹¹ Blakeman {Day135/135:1-14}. However, the Chairman, Councillor Marshall, was reluctant to establish a working group at that time.²⁹²²⁹² {RBK00032130/5}; Blakeman {Day135/136:1-5}. He suggested that the establishment of a working group should await the conclusion of existing working groups as well as the TMO's suggested review.²⁹³²⁹³ {RBK00032130/5}.

¶33.56 Between January and March 2016 the TMO's board carried out a review of the refurbishment. Robert Black did not know why an independent review had not been suggested rather than one led by the board, but it was never envisaged that the review would fully address the request made in the residents' petition for an independent investigation of the TMO's management of the refurbishment, as opposed to responding to the particular complaints that had been made.²⁹⁴²⁹⁴ Black {Day151/127:18-19}.

¶33.57 In January 2016, members of the TMO board were invited to express an interest in joining the review group. No residents of Grenfell Tower joined the group and there is no evidence that any of them were even invited to do so. At an initial meeting in February 2016 it was decided that the review would include, among other things, consultation and engagement with residents and responses to complaints. In March 2016, there was a presentation and a tour of Grenfell Tower and the review group was given a pack of information covering each area of the investigation.²⁹⁵²⁹⁵ {RBK00003513/2}.

¶33.58 Although the review did not collect residents' views about how the refurbishment had been carried out, the TMO was required under the Modular Management Agreement to gather them after the work had been completed.²⁹⁶²⁹⁶ Tenant Management Organisation Modular Management Agreement Volume 2 {RBK00019006/177} Clause 22.1. Robert Black accepted that, although the plan had been to include their opinions as part of the review,²⁹⁷²⁹⁷ Black {Day151/146:19-24}. he might have overlooked the need to do so.²⁹⁸²⁹⁸ Black {Day151/148:14-21}. Whether that was deliberate or not, ignoring residents' views was entirely consistent with the TMO's approach to engagement with its residents from at least February 2012, and indeed, on the basis of Maria Memoli's report, from far earlier than that.

The working group's report

¶33.59 The working group's review culminated in a report dated 31 March 2016.²⁹⁹²⁹⁹ {RBK00003513}. The group found that engagement with and consultation of residents had been comprehensive and had used various methods to obtain their views. It recommended that in future details of those attending public meetings should be recorded, that minutes should be taken and that resident profile surveys should be repeated every six months when projects lasted for longer than 12 months.³⁰⁰³⁰⁰ {RBK00003513/3} section 3.

¶33.60 In response to the allegations that the contractor and the TMO had used threats, lies and intimidation, the group noted that the only detailed information was a complaint that had not been upheld at Stage 3 of the complaints procedure. A new procedure was proposed for gaining access to flats to carry out work internally which could be sent to unco‑operative residents in future to avoid any misunderstanding.³⁰¹³⁰¹ {RBK00003513/4} section 5.

¶33.61 The group reviewed seven formal complaints and other enquiries received from ward councillors and was satisfied that the TMO had responded adequately to them.³⁰²³⁰² {RBK00003513/4} section 6.

¶33.62 The report's conclusion acknowledged the disruption and inconvenience caused by the works over an extended period of time,³⁰³³⁰³ {RBK00032438}. but commended Rydon, Peter Maddison and his team on completing the refurbishment works.

¶33.63 In our view, the review was flawed in its origins, its process and its conclusions. Given the history of the matter and the lack of trust between the residents of Grenfell Tower and the TMO, the board should have realised that only an independent review of the management of the project with particular reference to the residents' complaints could fairly satisfy the requirements of the moment. As it was, the review was superficial and the group conducting it failed to carry out its investigation in a sufficiently thorough and robust manner. The report lacked balance. It gave the impression that very little, if anything, had gone wrong and that there was no substance in any of the complaints made in the petition. The Scrutiny Committee in its turn failed in its task of ensuring that the relationship between the TMO and its residents was rigorously investigated.

¶33.64 On 4 July 2016, David Collins wrote to Councillor Feilding-Mellen on behalf of Grenfell Compact to express his view that the report failed to address how the refurbishment work and resident consultation had been carried out by the TMO.³⁰⁴³⁰⁴ {RBK00003501/1-2}. He thought that the report was not sufficiently critical about the lessons to be learned from the refurbishment and he set out 15 recommendations for the conduct of future refurbishment works.

¶33.65 Councillor Feilding-Mellen responded on 7 July 2016. He told Mr Collins that, although he was happy to review his recommendations, he considered that many of them had already been addressed in the TMO board's review. He went on to say that he would not advise officers to investigate new allegations which were not submitted in writing and supported by evidence.³⁰⁵³⁰⁵ {RBK00003466}. See also {RBK00000136} for further emails in the same chain. Councillor Feilding-Mellen met David Collins later in July 2016,³⁰⁶³⁰⁶ {RBK00030865/2}. but their meeting took matters little further forward.

¶33.66 On 6 September 2016, David Collins wrote to Councillor Feilding-Mellen again to thank him for attending the meeting in July and to ask him whether he was minded to reconsider RBKC's approach to regeneration projects or the TMO's operations.³⁰⁷³⁰⁷ {RBK00030865/2}. Councillor Feilding‑Mellen sent the email on to Laura Johnson and asked her if she could think of any "small concession" he could offer David Collins. Although he told us that only a small concession was needed because the differences between them were not great,³⁰⁸³⁰⁸ Feilding-Mellen {Day132/95:14}-{Day132/96:7}. what he really meant, we think, was that he was looking for something trivial he could give away.

Conclusion

¶33.67 The overwhelming impression we have gained from the evidence, both that of the witnesses and that contained in the contemporaneous documents, is that between 2011 and 2017 relations between the TMO and many of the residents of the tower were increasingly characterised by distrust, dislike, personal antagonism and anger. Some, perhaps many, occupants of Grenfell Tower regarded the TMO as an uncaring and bullying overlord, which belittled and marginalised them, regarded them as a nuisance or worse, and simply failed to take their concerns seriously. For its part, the TMO regarded some of the residents as militant troublemakers led on by a handful of vocal activists, principally Edward Daffarn, whose style they found offensive. The result was a toxic atmosphere fuelled by mistrust on both sides.

¶33.68 In the end, however, responsibility for the maintenance of the relationship between the TMO and the Grenfell community fell not on the members of that community, who had a right to be treated with respect, but on the TMO as a public body exercising control over the building which contained their homes. The TMO lost sight of the fact that the residents were people who depended on it for a safe and decent home and the privacy and dignity that a home should provide. That dependence created an unequal relationship and a corresponding need for the TMO to ensure that, whatever the difficulties, the residents were treated with understanding and respect. We regret to say the TMO failed to recognise that need and therefore failed to take the steps necessary to ensure that it was met.

¶33.69 However irritating and inconvenient it may at times have found the complaints and demands of some of the residents of Grenfell Tower, for the TMO to have allowed the relationship to deteriorate to such an extent reflects a serious failure on its part to observe its basic responsibilities.