Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

For financial year 2019/2020 Lewisham Borough Council’s housing budget for:
• Lewisham Homes was £21,437,000 for approximately 12,500 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was approximately £1,700.
• Regenter RB3 PFI contract was £6,117,321 for approximately 1250 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was £4,900.

Leaseholders have not been included in these calculations because it is assumed that they cover the costs for their properties. There are approximately 6,000 leaseholders under the Lewisham Homes contract and 550 under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract.

Lewisham Homes is a not-for-profit organisation and Regenter RB3 is a commercial company which manages a smaller share of Lewisham Borough Council’s housing stock through a PFI by sub-contracting to Pinnacle PSG and Rydon.

1. Please confirm if the stated budgets above are correct for both organisations?

2. Please confirm the exact number of council tenanted and leaseholders properties managed by Lewisham Homes and the Regenter PFI contract as of 01st April 2019?

3. For financial year 2019/2020 explain the significant difference in budgets per Lewisham Borough Council owned property under each delivery partner?

Can the significant difference be explained under the following inputs?

a. Property types (blocks, flats, houses), age and quality? If so, please provide supporting data.
b. Does Regenter RB3 provide additional services which Lewisham Homes does not? If so, please provide a list of services and their respective annual costs.
c. Does Regenter RB3 provide services of a higher quality than Lewisham Homes? If so, please detail the different services and their respective standards.
d. Does Regenter RB3 employ more staff per property than Lewisham Homes? If so, please provide supporting data.
e. Does Regenter RB3, Pinnacle PSG and Rydon pay their staff significantly more than Lewisham Homes staff? If so, please provide supporting data.
f. Is part of the difference because Lewisham Homes is not-for-profit and Regenter RB3 and its sub-contractors are profit driven? If so, please provide supporting data.
g. Other? If so, please provide supporting data.
h. Does Lewisham Homes have economies of scale and scope so offers better value for money?

4. What was the average cost per property for each organisation for financial year 2010/2011? Please provide the calculations - total budget for Lewisham Homes and Regenter RB3 and the number of council tenanted properties supported for each respectively.

In 2019/2020 Lewisham Homes spent £8,188,089 for a total of 17,534 properties (including leaseholders) om repairs and maintenance. The average spend per property was £467.

5. For 2019/2020 what was the average spend per property for repairs and maintenance under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract?

6. As the owner of all the properties under both contracts how does Lewisham Borough Council test, compare, contrast and ensure value for money across the different contracts to bring down costs without negatively affecting service provision?

Yours faithfully,

A.Archer

Dear Lewisham Council,

Grateful to know when I may receive a response to this response made on 26th April please. By law, the authority should normally have responded promptly and by 25 May 2021

Yours sincerely,

B Turner

Dear Lewisham Council,

When will I receive a response to this response made on 26th April? By law, the authority should normally have responded promptly and by 25 May 2021

Yours sincerely,

B Turner

Dear Lewisham Council,

When will I receive a response to this response made on 26th April? By law, the authority should normally have responded promptly and by 25 May 2021

Yours sincerely

B Turner

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

When will I receive a response to this response made on 26th April, your reference 9323861? By law, the authority should normally have responded promptly and by 25 May 2021

For financial year 2019/2020 Lewisham Borough Council’s housing budget for:
• Lewisham Homes was £21,437,000 for approximately 12,500 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was approximately £1,700.
• Regenter RB3 PFI contract was £6,117,321 for approximately 1250 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was £4,900.

Leaseholders have not been included in these calculations because it is assumed that they cover the costs for their properties. There are approximately 6,000 leaseholders under the Lewisham Homes contract and 550 under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract.

Lewisham Homes is a not-for-profit organisation and Regenter RB3 is a commercial company which manages a smaller share of Lewisham Borough Council’s housing stock through a PFI by sub-contracting to Pinnacle PSG and Rydon.

1. Please confirm if the stated budgets above are correct for both organisations?

2. Please confirm the exact number of council tenanted and leaseholders properties managed by Lewisham Homes and the Regenter PFI contract as of 01st April 2019?

3. For financial year 2019/2020 explain the significant difference in budgets per Lewisham Borough Council owned property under each delivery partner?

Can the significant difference be explained under the following inputs?

a. Property types (blocks, flats, houses), age and quality? If so, please provide supporting data.
b. Does Regenter RB3 provide additional services which Lewisham Homes does not? If so, please provide a list of services and their respective annual costs.
c. Does Regenter RB3 provide services of a higher quality than Lewisham Homes? If so, please detail the different services and their respective standards.
d. Does Regenter RB3 employ more staff per property than Lewisham Homes? If so, please provide supporting data.
e. Does Regenter RB3, Pinnacle PSG and Rydon pay their staff significantly more than Lewisham Homes staff? If so, please provide supporting data.
f. Is part of the difference because Lewisham Homes is not-for-profit and Regenter RB3 and its sub-contractors are profit driven? If so, please provide supporting data.
g. Other? If so, please provide supporting data.
h. Does Lewisham Homes have economies of scale and scope so offers better value for money?

4. What was the average cost per property for each organisation for financial year 2010/2011? Please provide the calculations - total budget for Lewisham Homes and Regenter RB3 and the number of council tenanted properties supported for each respectively.

In 2019/2020 Lewisham Homes spent £8,188,089 for a total of 17,534 properties (including leaseholders) om repairs and maintenance. The average spend per property was £467.

5. For 2019/2020 what was the average spend per property for repairs and maintenance under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract?

6. As the owner of all the properties under both contracts how does Lewisham Borough Council test, compare, contrast and ensure value for money across the different contracts to bring down costs without negatively affecting service provision?

Yours sincerely,

B Turner

Dear Lewisham Borough Council

When will I receive a response to this response made on 26th April (over 3 months ago), your reference 9323861? By law, the authority should normally have responded promptly and by 25 May 2021

For financial year 2019/2020 Lewisham Borough Council’s housing budget for:
• Lewisham Homes was £21,437,000 for approximately 12,500 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was approximately £1,700.
• Regenter RB3 PFI contract was £6,117,321 for approximately 1250 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was £4,900.

Leaseholders have not been included in these calculations because it is assumed that they cover the costs for their properties. There are approximately 6,000 leaseholders under the Lewisham Homes contract and 550 under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract.

Lewisham Homes is a not-for-profit organisation and Regenter RB3 is a commercial company which manages a smaller share of Lewisham Borough Council’s housing stock through a PFI by sub-contracting to Pinnacle PSG and Rydon.

1. Please confirm if the stated budgets above are correct for both organisations?

2. Please confirm the exact number of council tenanted and leaseholders properties managed by Lewisham Homes and the Regenter PFI contract as of 01st April 2019?

3. For financial year 2019/2020 explain the significant difference in budgets per Lewisham Borough Council owned property under each delivery partner?

Can the significant difference be explained under the following inputs?

a. Property types (blocks, flats, houses), age and quality? If so, please provide supporting data.
b. Does Regenter RB3 provide additional services which Lewisham Homes does not? If so, please provide a list of services and their respective annual costs.
c. Does Regenter RB3 provide services of a higher quality than Lewisham Homes? If so, please detail the different services and their respective standards.
d. Does Regenter RB3 employ more staff per property than Lewisham Homes? If so, please provide supporting data.
e. Does Regenter RB3, Pinnacle PSG and Rydon pay their staff significantly more than Lewisham Homes staff? If so, please provide supporting data.
f. Is part of the difference because Lewisham Homes is not-for-profit and Regenter RB3 and its sub-contractors are profit driven? If so, please provide supporting data.
g. Other? If so, please provide supporting data.
h. Does Lewisham Homes have economies of scale and scope so offers better value for money?

4. What was the average cost per property for each organisation for financial year 2010/2011? Please provide the calculations - total budget for Lewisham Homes and Regenter RB3 and the number of council tenanted properties supported for each respectively.

In 2019/2020 Lewisham Homes spent £8,188,089 for a total of 17,534 properties (including leaseholders) om repairs and maintenance. The average spend per property was £467.

5. For 2019/2020 what was the average spend per property for repairs and maintenance under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract?

6. As the owner of all the properties under both contracts how does Lewisham Borough Council test, compare, contrast and ensure value for money across the different contracts to bring down costs without negatively affecting service provision?

Yours sincerely,

B Turner

Dear Lewisham Council,

It is very disappointing that it has taken so many months for the council to provide such a limited response and this only raises further questions. Shall I submit a new request or would you like to answer the clarification questions below?

For financial year 2019/2020 Lewisham Borough Council’s housing budget for:
• Lewisham Homes was £21,437,000 for approximately 12,500 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was approximately £1,700.
• Regenter RB3 PFI contract was £6,117,321 for approximately 1250 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was £4,900. Leaseholders have not been included in these calculations because it is assumed that they cover the costs for their properties. There are
approximately 6,000 leaseholders under the Lewisham Homes contract and 550 under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract. Lewisham Homes is a not-for-profit organisation and Regenter RB3 is a commercial company which manages a smaller share of Lewisham Borough Council’s housing stock through a PFI by sub-contracting to Pinnacle PSG and Rydon.

1. Please confirm if the stated budgets above are correct for both organisations?
The figures above are not the full budgets. The Lewisham Homes figure is for management only and does not include for repairs, leaseholder costs, capital expenditure or other financial costs. The figure for Regenter PFI is the cost of the service after the PFI credits have been added and includes costs for
housing management, repairs, capital, leaseholder and other financial costs.

What were the full budgets per year for both organisations respectively in 2019/20?

3. For financial year 2019/2020 explain the significant difference in budgets per Lewisham Borough Council owned property under each delivery partner? Can the significant difference be explained under the following inputs?
a. Property types (blocks, flats, houses), age and quality? If so, please provide supporting data.
b. Does Regenter RB3 provide additional services which Lewisham Homes does not? If so, please provide a list of services and their respective annual costs.
c. Does Regenter RB3 provide services of a higher quality than Lewisham Homes? If so, please detail the different services and their respective standards.
d. Does Regenter RB3 employ more staff per property than Lewisham Homes? If so, please provide supporting data.
e. Does Regenter RB3, Pinnacle PSG and Rydon pay their staff significantly more than Lewisham Homes staff? If so, please provide supporting data.
f. Is part of the difference because Lewisham Homes is not-for-profit and Regenter RB3 and its sub-contractors are profit driven? If so, please provide supporting data.
g. Other? If so, please provide supporting data.
h. Does Lewisham Homes have economies of scale and scope so offers
better value for money?
It is not possible to compare budgets for the Council’s ALMO and Housing PFI
given the significant difference in how the finances for both are calculated and
applied.

Lewisham Council’s response is concerning. If it was not possible to compare and contrast budgets why would the council set-up two completely different housing management delivery systems? The Council must have assessed which delivery mechanism was more value for money.

Please explain and lay out the system as to how finances for both Lewisham Homes and Regenter are calculated and applied?

4. What was the average cost per property for each organisation for financial year 2010/2011? Please provide the calculations - total budget for Lewisham Homes and Regenter RB3 and the number of council
tenanted properties supported for each respectively.
We apply Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, ‘Exemption where
cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit’, to your request.
Section 12 states:
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for
information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would
exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply
with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that
paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “the appropriate limit” means such amount as may be
prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation to different cases.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as
may be prescribed, where two or more requests for information are made to a public
authority—
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in
pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the
estimated total cost of complying with all of them.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purposes of this
section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the manner in which they are to be
estimated.
This acts as a refusal notice. This information is not held in a readily accessible format.
It is estimated that the cost of locating, retrieving and collating the information would
cost in excess of £450 (the set limit) and therefore exceeds the 'appropriate level' as
stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/uksi_20...).
Costs for staff time i.e. staff retrieving and collating information are set at £25 per hour
and this task would require us to spend more than 18 hours of staff time on preparing
the relevant information. You are able to make a payment so that this task could be
undertaken. You may also modify your request to reduce the cost of this task. Please
contact us if you wish to proceed with one of these options.

Lewisham Council must have this information available or else it is not doing its job by testing and ensuring value for money.

In 2019/2020 Lewisham Homes spent £8,188,089 for a total of 17,534 properties (including leaseholders) on repairs and maintenance. The average spend per property was £467.

5. For 2019/2020 what was the average spend per property for repairs and maintenance under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract?
This information is not held.

Why is this information not held by Lewisham Council? Who holds this information?

6. As the owner of all the properties under both contracts how does Lewisham Borough Council test, compare, contrast and ensure value for money across the different contracts to bring down costs without
negatively affecting service provision?
This is not a valid request for recorded information under the FOI Act.

Please explain why this is not a valid question under the FOI Act?

Yours sincerely,

Brian Turner

Dear Lewisham Council,

Still waiting. Why does the Council drag this out?

Yours sincerely,

Brian Turner

Dear Lewisham Council,

I still have not received a response to the messages I sent on 14th and 21st August so am requesting an internal review for 9323861
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

It is very disappointing that it has taken so many months for the council to provide such a limited response and this only raises further questions. Shall I submit a new request or would you like to answer the clarification questions below?

For financial year 2019/2020 Lewisham Borough Council’s housing budget for:
• Lewisham Homes was £21,437,000 for approximately 12,500 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was approximately £1,700.
• Regenter RB3 PFI contract was £6,117,321 for approximately 1250 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was £4,900. Leaseholders have not been included in these calculations because it is assumed that they cover the costs for their properties. There are
approximately 6,000 leaseholders under the Lewisham Homes contract and 550 under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract. Lewisham Homes is a not-for-profit organisation and Regenter RB3 is a commercial company which manages a smaller share of Lewisham Borough Council’s housing stock through a PFI by sub-contracting to Pinnacle PSG and Rydon.

1. Please confirm if the stated budgets above are correct for both organisations?
The figures above are not the full budgets. The Lewisham Homes figure is for management only and does not include for repairs, leaseholder costs, capital expenditure or other financial costs. The figure for Regenter PFI is the cost of the service after the PFI credits have been added and includes costs for
housing management, repairs, capital, leaseholder and other financial costs.

What were the full budgets per year for both organisations respectively in 2019/20?

3. For financial year 2019/2020 explain the significant difference in budgets per Lewisham Borough Council owned property under each delivery partner? Can the significant difference be explained under the following inputs?
a. Property types (blocks, flats, houses), age and quality? If so, please provide supporting data.
b. Does Regenter RB3 provide additional services which Lewisham Homes does not? If so, please provide a list of services and their respective annual costs.
c. Does Regenter RB3 provide services of a higher quality than Lewisham Homes? If so, please detail the different services and their respective standards.
d. Does Regenter RB3 employ more staff per property than Lewisham Homes? If so, please provide supporting data.
e. Does Regenter RB3, Pinnacle PSG and Rydon pay their staff significantly more than Lewisham Homes staff? If so, please provide supporting data.
f. Is part of the difference because Lewisham Homes is not-for-profit and Regenter RB3 and its sub-contractors are profit driven? If so, please provide supporting data.
g. Other? If so, please provide supporting data.
h. Does Lewisham Homes have economies of scale and scope so offers
better value for money?
It is not possible to compare budgets for the Council’s ALMO and Housing PFI
given the significant difference in how the finances for both are calculated and
applied.

Lewisham Council’s response is concerning. If it was not possible to compare and contrast budgets why would the council set-up two completely different housing management delivery systems? The Council must have assessed which delivery mechanism was more value for money.

Please explain and lay out the system as to how finances for both Lewisham Homes and Regenter are calculated and applied?

4. What was the average cost per property for each organisation for financial year 2010/2011? Please provide the calculations - total budget for Lewisham Homes and Regenter RB3 and the number of council
tenanted properties supported for each respectively.
We apply Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, ‘Exemption where
cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit’, to your request.
Section 12 states:
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for
information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would
exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply
with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that
paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “the appropriate limit” means such amount as may be
prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation to different cases.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as
may be prescribed, where two or more requests for information are made to a public
authority—
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in
pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the
estimated total cost of complying with all of them.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purposes of this
section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the manner in which they are to be
estimated.
This acts as a refusal notice. This information is not held in a readily accessible format.
It is estimated that the cost of locating, retrieving and collating the information would
cost in excess of £450 (the set limit) and therefore exceeds the 'appropriate level' as
stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/uksi_20...).
Costs for staff time i.e. staff retrieving and collating information are set at £25 per hour
and this task would require us to spend more than 18 hours of staff time on preparing
the relevant information. You are able to make a payment so that this task could be
undertaken. You may also modify your request to reduce the cost of this task. Please
contact us if you wish to proceed with one of these options.

Lewisham Council must have this information available or else it is not doing its job by testing and ensuring value for money.

In 2019/2020 Lewisham Homes spent £8,188,089 for a total of 17,534 properties (including leaseholders) on repairs and maintenance. The average spend per property was £467.

5. For 2019/2020 what was the average spend per property for repairs and maintenance under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract?
This information is not held.

Why is this information not held by Lewisham Council? Who holds this information?

6. As the owner of all the properties under both contracts how does Lewisham Borough Council test, compare, contrast and ensure value for money across the different contracts to bring down costs without
negatively affecting service provision?
This is not a valid request for recorded information under the FOI Act.

Please explain why this is not a valid question under the FOI Act?

Yours sincerely,

Brian Turner

Dear Lewisham Council,

Your corporate complaints team (Wendy Stevens) seems to be desperately looking for excuses to explain why this FOI request and many others have not been responded to in a timely, professional and satisfactory manner. I have read your poor excuses for in your response to Dominic.

On 26th April I copied and pasted the draft FOI from my partner A Archer and sent the request from my named account. On 27th April Lewisham Council provided a reference number - 9323861.

On 18th May the Council apologised for not responding yet. On 15th of June I sent the Council a reminder, then again on 24th June, 8th July, 19th July and 31st July. On 12th August the Council finally responded to the request, 4 months after the request had been made! On 14th August I asked the Council some clarification questions, I sent a reminder on 21st August. On 30th August, because the Council had not acknowledged my reminders I requested an internal review.

It is very disappointing that it has taken so many months for the council to provide such a limited response and this only raises further questions.

So again, below are the outstanding parts of the original FOI which Lewisham Council seems very reluctant to provide.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

For financial year 2019/2020 Lewisham Borough Council’s housing budget for:
• Lewisham Homes was £21,437,000 for approximately 12,500 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was approximately £1,700.
• Regenter RB3 PFI contract was £6,117,321 for approximately 1250 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was £4,900. Leaseholders have not been included in these calculations because it is assumed that they cover the costs for their properties. There are
approximately 6,000 leaseholders under the Lewisham Homes contract and 550 under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract. Lewisham Homes is a not-for-profit organisation and Regenter RB3 is a commercial company which manages a smaller share of Lewisham Borough Council’s housing stock through a PFI by sub-contracting to Pinnacle PSG and Rydon.

1. Please confirm if the stated budgets above are correct for both organisations?
The figures above are not the full budgets. The Lewisham Homes figure is for management only and does not include for repairs, leaseholder costs, capital expenditure or other financial costs. The figure for Regenter PFI is the cost of the service after the PFI credits have been added and includes costs for
housing management, repairs, capital, leaseholder and other financial costs.

What were the full budgets per year for both organisations respectively in 2019/20?

3. For financial year 2019/2020 explain the significant difference in budgets per Lewisham Borough Council owned property under each delivery partner? Can the significant difference be explained under the following inputs?
a. Property types (blocks, flats, houses), age and quality? If so, please provide supporting data.
b. Does Regenter RB3 provide additional services which Lewisham Homes does not? If so, please provide a list of services and their respective annual costs.
c. Does Regenter RB3 provide services of a higher quality than Lewisham Homes? If so, please detail the different services and their respective standards.
d. Does Regenter RB3 employ more staff per property than Lewisham Homes? If so, please provide supporting data.
e. Does Regenter RB3, Pinnacle PSG and Rydon pay their staff significantly more than Lewisham Homes staff? If so, please provide supporting data.
f. Is part of the difference because Lewisham Homes is not-for-profit and Regenter RB3 and its sub-contractors are profit driven? If so, please provide supporting data.
g. Other? If so, please provide supporting data.
h. Does Lewisham Homes have economies of scale and scope so offers
better value for money?
It is not possible to compare budgets for the Council’s ALMO and Housing PFI
given the significant difference in how the finances for both are calculated and
applied.

Lewisham Council’s response is concerning. If it was not possible to compare and contrast budgets why would the council set-up two completely different housing management delivery systems? The Council must have assessed which delivery mechanism was more value for money.

Please explain and lay out the system as to how finances for both Lewisham Homes and Regenter are calculated and applied?

4. What was the average cost per property for each organisation for financial year 2010/2011? Please provide the calculations - total budget for Lewisham Homes and Regenter RB3 and the number of council
tenanted properties supported for each respectively.
We apply Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, ‘Exemption where
cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit’, to your request.
Section 12 states:
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for
information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would
exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply
with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that
paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “the appropriate limit” means such amount as may be
prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation to different cases.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as
may be prescribed, where two or more requests for information are made to a public
authority—
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in
pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the
estimated total cost of complying with all of them.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purposes of this
section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the manner in which they are to be
estimated.
This acts as a refusal notice. This information is not held in a readily accessible format.
It is estimated that the cost of locating, retrieving and collating the information would
cost in excess of £450 (the set limit) and therefore exceeds the 'appropriate level' as
stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/uksi_20...).
Costs for staff time i.e. staff retrieving and collating information are set at £25 per hour
and this task would require us to spend more than 18 hours of staff time on preparing
the relevant information. You are able to make a payment so that this task could be
undertaken. You may also modify your request to reduce the cost of this task. Please
contact us if you wish to proceed with one of these options.

Lewisham Council must have this information available or else it is not doing its job by testing and ensuring value for money.

In 2019/2020 Lewisham Homes spent £8,188,089 for a total of 17,534 properties (including leaseholders) on repairs and maintenance. The average spend per property was £467.

5. For 2019/2020 what was the average spend per property for repairs and maintenance under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract?
This information is not held.

Why is this information not held by Lewisham Council? Who holds this information?

6. As the owner of all the properties under both contracts how does Lewisham Borough Council test, compare, contrast and ensure value for money across the different contracts to bring down costs without
negatively affecting service provision?
This is not a valid request for recorded information under the FOI Act.

Please explain why this is not a valid question under the FOI Act?

Yours sincerely,

Brian Turner

Dear Lewisham Council,

I requested an internal review on 11st September and still Lewisham Council has failed to fully respond to this request made on 26th April 2021.

Your corporate complaints team (Wendy Stevens) seems to be desperately looking for excuses to explain why this FOI request and many others have not been responded to in a timely, professional and satisfactory manner. I have read your poor excuses for in your response to Dominic.

On 26th April I copied and pasted the draft FOI from my partner A Archer and sent the request from my named account. On 27th April Lewisham Council provided a reference number - 9323861.

On 18th May the Council apologised for not responding yet. On 15th of June I sent the Council a reminder, then again on 24th June, 8th July, 19th July and 31st July. On 12th August the Council finally responded to the request, 4 months after the request had been made! On 14th August I asked the Council some clarification questions, I sent a reminder on 21st August. On 30th August, because the Council had not acknowledged my reminders I requested an internal review.

It is very disappointing that it has taken so many months for the council to provide such a limited response and this only raises further questions.

So again, below are the outstanding parts of the original FOI which Lewisham Council seems very reluctant to provide.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

For financial year 2019/2020 Lewisham Borough Council’s housing budget for:
• Lewisham Homes was £21,437,000 for approximately 12,500 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was approximately £1,700.
• Regenter RB3 PFI contract was £6,117,321 for approximately 1250 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was £4,900. Leaseholders have not been included in these calculations because it is assumed that they cover the costs for their properties. There are
approximately 6,000 leaseholders under the Lewisham Homes contract and 550 under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract. Lewisham Homes is a not-for-profit organisation and Regenter RB3 is a commercial company which manages a smaller share of Lewisham Borough Council’s housing stock through a PFI by sub-contracting to Pinnacle PSG and Rydon.

1. Please confirm if the stated budgets above are correct for both organisations?
The figures above are not the full budgets. The Lewisham Homes figure is for management only and does not include for repairs, leaseholder costs, capital expenditure or other financial costs. The figure for Regenter PFI is the cost of the service after the PFI credits have been added and includes costs for
housing management, repairs, capital, leaseholder and other financial costs.

What were the full budgets per year for both organisations respectively in 2019/20?

3. For financial year 2019/2020 explain the significant difference in budgets per Lewisham Borough Council owned property under each delivery partner? Can the significant difference be explained under the following inputs?
a. Property types (blocks, flats, houses), age and quality? If so, please provide supporting data.
b. Does Regenter RB3 provide additional services which Lewisham Homes does not? If so, please provide a list of services and their respective annual costs.
c. Does Regenter RB3 provide services of a higher quality than Lewisham Homes? If so, please detail the different services and their respective standards.
d. Does Regenter RB3 employ more staff per property than Lewisham Homes? If so, please provide supporting data.
e. Does Regenter RB3, Pinnacle PSG and Rydon pay their staff significantly more than Lewisham Homes staff? If so, please provide supporting data.
f. Is part of the difference because Lewisham Homes is not-for-profit and Regenter RB3 and its sub-contractors are profit driven? If so, please provide supporting data.
g. Other? If so, please provide supporting data.
h. Does Lewisham Homes have economies of scale and scope so offers
better value for money?
It is not possible to compare budgets for the Council’s ALMO and Housing PFI
given the significant difference in how the finances for both are calculated and
applied.

Lewisham Council’s response is concerning. If it was not possible to compare and contrast budgets why would the council set-up two completely different housing management delivery systems? The Council must have assessed which delivery mechanism was more value for money.

Please explain and lay out the system as to how finances for both Lewisham Homes and Regenter are calculated and applied?

4. What was the average cost per property for each organisation for financial year 2010/2011? Please provide the calculations - total budget for Lewisham Homes and Regenter RB3 and the number of council
tenanted properties supported for each respectively.
We apply Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, ‘Exemption where
cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit’, to your request.
Section 12 states:
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for
information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would
exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply
with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that
paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “the appropriate limit” means such amount as may be
prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation to different cases.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as
may be prescribed, where two or more requests for information are made to a public
authority—
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in
pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the
estimated total cost of complying with all of them.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purposes of this
section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the manner in which they are to be
estimated.
This acts as a refusal notice. This information is not held in a readily accessible format.
It is estimated that the cost of locating, retrieving and collating the information would
cost in excess of £450 (the set limit) and therefore exceeds the 'appropriate level' as
stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/uksi_20...).
Costs for staff time i.e. staff retrieving and collating information are set at £25 per hour
and this task would require us to spend more than 18 hours of staff time on preparing
the relevant information. You are able to make a payment so that this task could be
undertaken. You may also modify your request to reduce the cost of this task. Please
contact us if you wish to proceed with one of these options.

Lewisham Council must have this information available or else it is not doing its job by testing and ensuring value for money.

In 2019/2020 Lewisham Homes spent £8,188,089 for a total of 17,534 properties (including leaseholders) on repairs and maintenance. The average spend per property was £467.

5. For 2019/2020 what was the average spend per property for repairs and maintenance under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract?
This information is not held.

Why is this information not held by Lewisham Council? Who holds this information?

6. As the owner of all the properties under both contracts how does Lewisham Borough Council test, compare, contrast and ensure value for money across the different contracts to bring down costs without
negatively affecting service provision?
This is not a valid request for recorded information under the FOI Act.

Please explain why this is not a valid question under the FOI Act?

Yours sincerely,

Brian Turner

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Lewisham Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Housing cost comparison Lewisham Homes vs Regenter PFI'.

I requested an internal review on 11st September and still Lewisham Council has failed to fully respond to this request made on 26th April 2021.

Your corporate complaints team (Wendy Stevens) seems to be desperately looking for excuses to explain why this FOI request and many others have not been responded to in a timely, professional and satisfactory manner. I have read your poor excuses for in your response to Dominic.

On 26th April I copied and pasted the draft FOI from my partner A Archer and sent the request from my named account. On 27th April Lewisham Council provided a reference number - 9323861.

On 18th May the Council apologised for not responding yet. On 15th of June I sent the Council a reminder, then again on 24th June, 8th July, 19th July and 31st July. On 12th August the Council finally responded to the request, 4 months after the request had been made! On 14th August I asked the Council some clarification questions, I sent a reminder on 21st August. On 30th August, because the Council had not acknowledged my reminders I requested an internal review.

It is very disappointing that it has taken so many months for the council to provide such a limited response and this only raises further questions.

So again, below are the outstanding parts of the original FOI which Lewisham Council seems very reluctant to provide.

For financial year 2019/2020 Lewisham Borough Council’s housing budget for:
• Lewisham Homes was £21,437,000 for approximately 12,500 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was approximately £1,700.
• Regenter RB3 PFI contract was £6,117,321 for approximately 1250 council tenant properties (excluding leaseholders) so the average cost per council tenant property was £4,900. Leaseholders have not been included in these calculations because it is assumed that they cover the costs for their properties. There are
approximately 6,000 leaseholders under the Lewisham Homes contract and 550 under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract. Lewisham Homes is a not-for-profit organisation and Regenter RB3 is a commercial company which manages a smaller share of Lewisham Borough Council’s housing stock through a PFI by sub-contracting to Pinnacle PSG and Rydon.

1. Please confirm if the stated budgets above are correct for both organisations?
The figures above are not the full budgets. The Lewisham Homes figure is for management only and does not include for repairs, leaseholder costs, capital expenditure or other financial costs. The figure for Regenter PFI is the cost of the service after the PFI credits have been added and includes costs for
housing management, repairs, capital, leaseholder and other financial costs.

What were the full budgets per year for both organisations respectively in 2019/20?

3. For financial year 2019/2020 explain the significant difference in budgets per Lewisham Borough Council owned property under each delivery partner? Can the significant difference be explained under the following inputs?
a. Property types (blocks, flats, houses), age and quality? If so, please provide supporting data.
b. Does Regenter RB3 provide additional services which Lewisham Homes does not? If so, please provide a list of services and their respective annual costs.
c. Does Regenter RB3 provide services of a higher quality than Lewisham Homes? If so, please detail the different services and their respective standards.
d. Does Regenter RB3 employ more staff per property than Lewisham Homes? If so, please provide supporting data.
e. Does Regenter RB3, Pinnacle PSG and Rydon pay their staff significantly more than Lewisham Homes staff? If so, please provide supporting data.
f. Is part of the difference because Lewisham Homes is not-for-profit and Regenter RB3 and its sub-contractors are profit driven? If so, please provide supporting data.
g. Other? If so, please provide supporting data.
h. Does Lewisham Homes have economies of scale and scope so offers
better value for money?
It is not possible to compare budgets for the Council’s ALMO and Housing PFI
given the significant difference in how the finances for both are calculated and
applied.

Lewisham Council’s response is concerning. If it was not possible to compare and contrast budgets why would the council set-up two completely different housing management delivery systems? The Council must have assessed which delivery mechanism was more value for money.

Please explain and lay out the system as to how finances for both Lewisham Homes and Regenter are calculated and applied?

4. What was the average cost per property for each organisation for financial year 2010/2011? Please provide the calculations - total budget for Lewisham Homes and Regenter RB3 and the number of council
tenanted properties supported for each respectively.
We apply Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, ‘Exemption where
cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit’, to your request.
Section 12 states:
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for
information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would
exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply
with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that
paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “the appropriate limit” means such amount as may be
prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation to different cases.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as
may be prescribed, where two or more requests for information are made to a public
authority—
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in
pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the
estimated total cost of complying with all of them.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purposes of this
section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the manner in which they are to be
estimated.
This acts as a refusal notice. This information is not held in a readily accessible format.
It is estimated that the cost of locating, retrieving and collating the information would
cost in excess of £450 (the set limit) and therefore exceeds the 'appropriate level' as
stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/uksi_20...).
Costs for staff time i.e. staff retrieving and collating information are set at £25 per hour
and this task would require us to spend more than 18 hours of staff time on preparing
the relevant information. You are able to make a payment so that this task could be
undertaken. You may also modify your request to reduce the cost of this task. Please
contact us if you wish to proceed with one of these options.

Lewisham Council must have this information available or else it is not doing its job by testing and ensuring value for money.

In 2019/2020 Lewisham Homes spent £8,188,089 for a total of 17,534 properties (including leaseholders) on repairs and maintenance. The average spend per property was £467.

5. For 2019/2020 what was the average spend per property for repairs and maintenance under the Regenter RB3 PFI contract?
This information is not held.

Why is this information not held by Lewisham Council? Who holds this information?

6. As the owner of all the properties under both contracts how does Lewisham Borough Council test, compare, contrast and ensure value for money across the different contracts to bring down costs without
negatively affecting service provision?
This is not a valid request for recorded information under the FOI Act.

Please explain why this is not a valid question under the FOI Act?

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

Yours faithfully,

Brian Turner