Agenda item

The lead petitioner, Mr K Rutter, presented the terms of a petition opposing the provision by the Council of communal TV aerial systems to tenants and leaseholders.

Mr Rutter advised that he had raised this petition after finding strangers in his garden with their equipment in his drive and an aerial being attached to his property.  On questioning them, he stated that they were rude and told him they had been given permission to place the aerials wherever they wanted to.

Whilst having received in excess of 10 pages of information justifying the council’s position, Mr Rutter felt that the council had been less thorough in dealing with the tenants’ and leaseholders’ concerns. 

Mr Rutter further raised concerns as to the manner in which the council consulted with tenants and leaseholders by letter and the fact that the council took non-responses to the letter to amount to consent to the work proceeding, stating that non-responses could have been as a result of hospitalisation of the addressee or non-receipt of the letter.

Other points raised by Mr Rutter related to:

Ø  poor maintenance of the aerials

Ø  poor reception

Ø  lack of consultation on the part of the contractors

Ø  having to pay for an additional service in tandem with services that tenants had privately arranged.

Having regard to time restraints, Mr Rutter requested a meeting with the relevant officers to discuss these issues further.

The Group Manager, Landlord Services West introduced the report stating that it was important to note that government would be switching the whole of the UK’s TV transmission to Digital TV by 2012, and that as a responsible landlord the council had decided to take the steps referred to in the report to ensure that residents would not be disadvantaged at the time of the switchover.

It was noted that Frances Kneller, Head of Housing and Property, Digital UK, was in attendance and available to answer questions on the government’s agenda for the digital switchover and as to the responsibilities of landlords.

Councillor Worby gave her support to some of the issues raised by the petitioners, stating that in her opinion:

• how the contract has been administered has not been fully addressed in the report;
• the reason for these installations appears not to have been explained fully to the people affected;
• there seemed to have been no notification to them when the work was going to be carried out - people were returning to their homes to find that holes had been drilled in the walls;
• there appears to be no logic as to where the aerials have been placed, with individuals concerned as to why their property has had an aerial placed on it, whereas others did not.

Councillor Worby moved that this petition be referred to the relevant Select Committee to give leaseholders an opportunity for their concerns to be heard.

Councillor Hunt agreed totally with Councillor Worby, stating that she has received many enquiries from residents about the aerials.  She further stated that from personal experience, she has found that it is difficult to contact the contractors to fix the aerial if the TV is not working properly.

Councillor L Waker concurred with both councillors, but also agreed that in his opinion it would be better to have one central aerial.

Councillor Channer also raised concerns as to how the residents were consulted.

Councillor P Waker, Cabinet Member for Housing, stated that the reason the contract was entered into six years ago was to avoid tenants ending up with no TV reception following the digital switchover.  He agreed that if there were problems with the aerials, they have to be fixed.  He also went on to state that whilst not wanting a confrontation with tenants, there should only be one aerial on each building and not individual satellite dishes for each tenant. 

Councillor P Waker further stated that;

1.  he was given to understand that this contract was cheaper than other boroughs were paying;

2.  he would be happy to meet with Housing officers;

3.  he was keen to look at what the cost of servicing the aerials is, as it may well be that in the future the council may be able to move to a lesser service charge or to no charge;

4.  when this current contract comes to an end, there may be an opportunity to look at other options.

However, he agreed with Councillor Worby that this matter be referred to a Select Committee and expressed his thanks to the petitioners for their efforts in raising the petition.

Councillor Smith seconded Councillor Worby’s recommendation to refer this matter to a Select Committee and asked the Assembly to support this action.

Agreed to refer the petition to the appropriate Select Committee.