Good Afternoon Mr Longstaff
I hope you are well.
Following on from our emails below, I have now spoken with various colleagues and can respond to the issues you raised. Apologies this took longer than expected, there were a number of areas to investigate and many colleagues I needed to speak with.
Please understand I am unable to remedy all of the areas you have highlighted, as per my previous email, I am aware Accent need to look at some of our services to all leaseholders and this will take time.
For ease, I will use the same numbering as the email below dated 4 February.
Response:
I have reviewed the costs of the service back to 2015/16 (as per table below), it highlights the increases that came into place when the Ideal contract commenced. The contract in place with Ideal for the service was tendered and procured in accordance with legal requirements. Residents are able to recommend firms for contracts, this is communicated during the consultation stage. Any firm recommended by residents can submit a tender. Any firm wishing to tender will submit their pricing, these firms may or may not factor in any travel costs they will incur. However, when tenders are received by Accent we will review the total costs which along with other factors such as quality determine where the contract is awarded.
Financial year |
Cost (inc. VAT) |
2015/16 |
£1404 |
2016/17 |
£1350 |
2017/18 (Ideal Contract commenced) |
£2545 |
2018/19 (Ideal) |
£2230.89 |
2019/20 (Ideal) |
£3090.89 |
Claire Stone, Executive Director of Customer Experience emailed you on 13 November 2020 and informed that cleaning costs would be capped at £1887.60 for the three years 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20. A credit of £81.65 was issued to each resident and this is shown on the relevant customers’ accounts.
With regards to your communication with Darren Whitfield and Paul Norton in January 2021 about alternative solutions for the service we have been discussing this internally and have made contact with Ideal.
This has resulted in the possibility of reviewing the service which will impact on cost. This provides four possible ways forward:
Possibility 1
Remain as we are
Possibility 3
For Ideal to continue with the contract and clean each block (estimated 2 hours) twice per month and an annual carpet clean throughout once per year - Total Cost - £1,153.34 + VAT.
Possibility 4
To remove Lambert Court from the Ideal contract and procure a new service provider.
Options 1, 2, & 3 also have the added cost of £387.44 + VAT per year quarterly communal window cleaning.
We will obviously seek views from all residents, Paul Norton will communicate with customers and look to move forward with this.
Regarding your communication about procuring new contractors to carry out this work, this is possible and is option 4 above. If Ideal do continue the service I will request that quality of works are monitored.
With regards to charges being fair, any company who meet the requisite criteria can submit a tender for contracts procured. As mentioned above these are scored and the contract is awarded.
Response:
Your section 21 notice was responded to fully on 26th February 2021. We have subsequently received your Section 22 notice which we will adhere to fully and respond by 1st April 2021.
Our Accounts are checked internally and then subjected to Audit by independent auditors each year. We also allow residents the opportunity to feedback and comment at Annual General Meetings as I believe you have done this year. We actively welcome challenge to accounts and try to show them as transparently as possible.
However, I can see that there are clearly some areas where we could improve, the roofing costs at No.5 Lambert Court being an example. I have asked the Home Ownership Team to work proactively with Contract Management colleagues to adapt processes to ensure costs submitted by contractors are scrutinised more thoroughly before payment is made.
Response:
As per the lease agreements at Lambert Court and best practice, Accent are obliged to repair and maintain in the first instance and replace components when no longer viable to continue with repairs. As you know we installed a new system late last year and charges in relation to Warden Call Maintenance have now been removed.
Response:
As per the contract we hold with ESH, we have pre-agreed rates for works carried out (Schedule of Rates) that we utilise for works such as Gutter cleaning/repair. These prices were obtained via a Section 20 Compliant Qualifying Long Term Agreement.
Linked to this matter, I am aware that Paul Norton has raised an order for Esh to carry out a survey in respect of gutter cleaning and other works with ESH. We await a response to this order/request, I have asked Paul to follow this matter up.
Whilst I understand my responses may not currently provide longer term solutions, as stated in my initial email to you, I am committed to improving services to leaseholders. This will be long term and I hope over time customers such as yourself will see improvements being made.
Kind regards
Robert Bloom |
|
2nd Floor | Stuart House | St John’s Street | Peterborough | PE1 5DD |
|
T: 01274 065768 M: 07834 500422 E: robert.bloom@accentgroup.org
|
|
From: iain longstaff <iainsown@hotmail.com>
Sent: 04 February 2021 16:16
To: Robert Bloom <Robert.Bloom@AccentGroup.org>
Subject: Lambert Court
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon Robert,
Many thanks for taking the time to read my original email and providing a very considered and comprehensive reply.
I will simply outline the issues .. apologies if I repeat myself.
In your list numbered 1-5
Accent have an estate wide contract with Ideal. We are tied into that. The original cleaning contract was approx. £1200 per year prior to Ideal. This went up to £3300 by the introduction of your nationwide scheme. We managed to negotiate by going to Ideal initially to get a reduction to monthly cleans. We now pay over £1800 for 12 hours of cleaning per year. Part of that contract is not fulfilled ie internal window cleaning. We have provided a local company to undertake the work at realistic price. We would expect a re-imbursement of monies paid above what we would expect to be reasonably charged from the initiation of the contract with Ideal until the introduction of a reasonable charge is introduced probably through the use of a local company. This issue was raised at the beginning of the contract with Ideal. In October 2018 it was documented by Virginia Cheetham that Accent could not change the contract from weekly clean and yet it was possible. It is documented December 2019 Darren Whitfield would look at alternative arrangements. You can understand my scepticism. I believe there is a five year reassessment made (due 2022?) on 10 year contracts. The most important issue is that residents are re-imbursed the monies paid above a reasonable figure since the commencement of the contract with Ideal and this would carry through until a change was made.. If this was guaranteed then we would have no issues in waiting for the changes to occur.
6/ Simply put the section 21 request; what I received did not comply with that request. I am now waiting for the correct documentation to be presented. Thank you for acknowledging this.
7/ Simply put if Accent had been proactive and fulfilled the requests of residents in 2017 and installed the new warden call system then we would not have been charged approx. £5000 in maintenance on the old existing analogue system. Again this money should be repaid as through no fault of our own this charge transpired through the refusal or inability of Accent to implement the wishes of the residents in good time.
8/ Back in November 2015 the issues of blocked gutters and a reliable cleaning of the gutters was documented. The idea of using a local company was raised but Accent maintained that their contractors would deal with it. It is 2021 and we still have constant call outs and no programme of cleaning. Again we have found a local company that can provide this service.
9/ Invoicing specifically on work to the roof of 5 Lambert Court. This is now in the hands of the police.
10/ Simply put Information and invoicing from Accent is often incorrect
I look forward to your answers to the specific questions raised with Darren Whitfield on 18th January.
Other issues at present include
Abuse of the parking permits. It is documented in 2015 that residents required new permits. Virginia Cheetham said she would look into it. In 2016 a survey was done to find out which residents had permits and that was where it ended. In December 2020 I discussed this issue on site with Paul Norton and it is documented on the AGM at the start of January 2021. Paul Norton said he would contact Minster Baywatch to make changes. 4 weeks have passed. I myself spoke to Minster Baywatch this week and no contact by Accent has yet been made.
Replacement of existing entry systems and doors. Many of the entry systems have failed leading to call outs and charges. Paul Norton is aware of the issue and is waiting for Tunstalls to report back after their survey last December. Is there any movement on this?
A request was also made for a combination lock to be fitted to a gate to replace an existing padlock that is difficult for less able residents to open.
Thanks again for taking the time to address all these points,
The residents look forward to working with you and hopefully we can get all these issues resolved so we can all get back to a peaceful life even under these difficult circumstances.
Regards
Iain
From: Robert Bloom
Sent: 04 February 2021 14:53
To: iainsown@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: what should have been said.....
Good Afternnon Mr Longstaff
I hope you are well.
I am confident that you will see changes being made. I understand that you feel this is something you have heard before, please be assured that I am committed to improving services for leaseholders but, am also under no illusion that this will take time.
It will also be the case that some communications or decisions will not please all customers, for example service charge increases. If the cost of providing services increases, the increase is passed to leaseholders. However, what we can do is make sure we communicate changes and any services procured are both effective and delivered as expected.
We need to consider how different areas of the organisation work together to provide our services whilst ensuring what we do is as simple and effective as it can be for our customers. What we do and how we do it should always be primarily based on what the impact will be to our customers. I am aware that Paul Dolan has emailed you to confirm Accents commitment to improving services for all customers.
I would like to confirm that your contact at Accent for day to day enquires will be Paul Norton, Home Ownership Specialist. Paul will also liaise with regards to the planned window replacement. More information will be provided to leaseholders with regards to the windows as soon as it is available, I can assure you colleagues are working to find a solution. I do need to inform you that Accent cannot be responsible for any information provided to you form third parties such as Sekura or Esh as I’m sure you are aware.
I will be your contact for the complaint raised and as mentioned before, I do need time to look into the issues raised. I would like to clarify the following points I have taken from recent communications and what I will specifically be looking into:
With regards to your comments about local firms being able to offer cheaper and better services. I am unable to comment without looking at current contracts in place and in particular responsibilities, clauses and timings. As mentioned above, part of what I will be looking at is how we procure services for the benefit of all customers. Within in my next response I will answer your specific points as per your email to Darren Whitfield on 18 January. These were:
Again, I would like to reiterate that other points you raised in your initial email I agree with, I also have frustrations over some of our processes. What I can say is that I am committed to improving services as do the entire Executive Team at Accent. I do not find making decisions difficult, when I make decisions, and there will be many in order to change process and therefore improve services, the impact these have on our customers will be my primary concern whilst also ensuring any regulation or best practice is followed.
I hope I have listed all points above, if I have misunderstood any or failed to capture something please do let me know. I will need to speak to may colleagues in order to provide a full response and will come back to you as soon as possible, I ask for your patience due to the number of items that need a response.
Kind regards
Robert Bloom |
|
2nd Floor | Stuart House | St John’s Street | Peterborough | PE1 5DD |
|
T: 01274 065768 M: 07834 500422 E: robert.bloom@accentgroup.org
|
|
From: iain longstaff <iainsown@hotmail.com>
Sent: 29 January 2021 09:51
To: Robert Bloom <Robert.Bloom@AccentGroup.org>; Paul Dolan <Paul.Dolan@AccentGroup.org>; Claire Stone <Claire.Stone@AccentGroup.org>; Damian Roche <Damian.Roche@AccentGroup.org>; Darren Whitfield <Darren.Whitfield@AccentGroup.org>; Paul Norton <Paul.Norton@AccentGroup.org>; Sarah Ireland <Sarah.Ireland@AccentGroup.org>; David Royston <David.Royston@AccentGroup.org>; Matthew Sugden <Matthew.Sugden@AccentGroup.org>
Subject: what should have been said.....
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning Rob,
Thanks for taking the time to read my email and respond. I take what you say at face value and would like to think that changes will occur. However this is the same message only sent by a different messenger.
This is the reply we should have received and directly from Paul Dolan.
Dear Mr Longstaff
It is appalling that purely through the reluctance of our team to implement the replacement of the warden call system when it was first drawn to their attention it has cost the residents at Lambert Court over £5000 in repair bills. I also recognise that without the perseverance of the residents these changes will still not have occurred and they would still be paying the repair costs. It is only fair that this money is returned back to the residents.
It is not right that the residents pay over £1800 for 12 hours of basic cleaning. This is due to the nature of our contract with Ideal which benefits Accent at the expense of some residents. As Lambert Court are tied into that contract through no fault of their own we would not like to set a precedent and see local contractors involved. However due to the fact we feel that lambert Court is being exploited under the terms of the contract we will ensure a total refund of the difference between what you are paying now and what is deemed a reasonable amount be paid back. This will be dated from the time of the original contract until a new contract is drawn up with a local firm. This makes sure Lambert Court do not suffer a loss due to the contractual agreements set by Accent and Ideal.
The door entry system is another problem that for years Lambert Court have drawn to the attention of Accent. I recognise that this has needed replacing for years and again it is unfair on our behalf that you continue paying repair and maintenance costs. I will guarantee that any further repair costs will be covered by Accent until the new system is introduced and this will also cover any future repair costs to the communal doors which we are aware too need replacing.
I recognise that if a comprehensive cleaning and inspection of the guttering had been implemented Lambert Court would not have the persistent problems with blockages and constant call outs which Lambert Court are charged for.
As regards the invoicing for works which allegedly were not completed and billed to Lambert Court without any accountability on behalf of Accent I take this matter very seriously. As we have given ESH sufficient time to respond and have heard nothing back we will take police action to further investigate this. We will also look at our contract with ESH as our staff are finding that the can be evasive and difficult to communicate with.
If this had been the response it would have reflected a genuine and honest change of direction at Accent. It would have created a better atmosphere of trust between Accent and the residents and a real way forward. Sadly your reply is more of the same. No commitment, no practical solutions, no direction.
After I send this email I will send out to all those copied in to this email one simple question. I expect each person to reply to. It is a simple yes or no which even with Paul Dolan’s busy schedule he can find time to respond to.
The absurdity of asking this one question is that I can guarantee that everyone will have the same answer but I am almost 100% sure that this will not be the answer that is forthcoming.
Depending on what level you are at in the organisation you will have particular reasons for avoiding the truth. Just take a good look at yourself when you answer the question. If you choose to ignore the email this is a reflection of who you are and where your loyalties lie. I look forward to all your replies
I have added other members of Accent into this thread as I would be interested to hear their response.
Regards
Iain Longstaff B.Sc
Good Afternoon Mr Longstaff
By Way of introduction I am Rob Bloom, Sales Director at Accent Housing. The Home Ownership Team recently moved into Accents Development & Growth Directorate, I now oversee activities undertaken by the team, therefore it will be myself that will respond to you on behalf of Paul Dolan.
Firstly can I apologies that that the various issues stated in your email below have caused both frustration and dissatisfaction with so many elements of our service. Whilst I am currently unable to immediately respond to each of the points you have raised, I am in a position to say that I agree with some of them. Our service in some areas has not been satisfactory and it would be wrong of me to say otherwise.
Some of the services provided by Accent for leaseholders and homeowners have been substandard, I acknowledge that there is work to be done. We are commencing a journey within the organisation to improve these services. I am unable to provide timelines and suspect that it will take time, but I am able to confirm to yourself and all of our leaseholders that we are committed to improve. It is too early for our leaseholders to see any immediate change and I am currently unable to commit to what changes will occur, when and what immediate impact this may have. I will initially work with colleagues to get the fundamentals right and hope that our leaseholders begin to see improvements are being made as part of their usual interactions with Accent. Of course any major changes will be communicated to customers concerned.
I will be in contact again with regards to specific responses to your points raised below. I will need to liaise with many colleagues across the business and will come back to you as soon as possible. I am aware there is a separate communication being sent to those concerned regarding the window replacement, this should be with you in the next day or two.
I hope that my response will provide some comfort to you with regards to Accents commitment to improve our services. Should you need to contact me before, please feel free.
Kind regards
Robert Bloom |
|
|
|
From: iain longstaff <iainsown@hotmail.com>
Sent: 27 January 2021 15:54
To: Paul Dolan <Paul.Dolan@AccentGroup.org>; Claire Stone <Claire.Stone@AccentGroup.org>; Damian Roche <Damian.Roche@AccentGroup.org>; Darren Whitfield <Darren.Whitfield@AccentGroup.org>; Paul Norton <Paul.Norton@AccentGroup.org>; Glenn Radford <Glenn.Radford@AccentGroup.org>
Subject: Lambert Court, negligence and criminal proceedings
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr Dolan
Congratulations on your appointment to the board of Prospect housing. Obviously within your peer group you are held in wide regard. Not so here at Lambert Court.
Your appointment to Prospect Housing is intended to improve the governance of that company. Perhaps you need to focus more on improving the performance of Accent, its staff and the welfare of the customer before considering roles elsewhere.
I have addressed various issues in previous emails and there has been some progress but I will outline below some of the outstanding problems we have at Lambert Court.
Ideal have the cleaning contract (both internal communal areas and the window cleaning) until 2027 and their present window cleaning is sub contracted with pulse ppm that runs until September 2021. The window cleaner drives up from Derby in order to clean the windows here.
It has always been stated that as residents we are allowed to offer the services of alternative providers. This has never been the case in respect to any of these contracts.
There are four hardstanding communal areas with open staircase. It takes approximately 1 hour to undertake the cleaning of all four. Initially the contract with Ideal was for a weekly clean with an cost of over £3000. Prior to this the cleaning cost for 2016-2017 was £1350. An increase of around 120%.
On the 15th October 2018 in the notes from the residents meeting with Victoria Cheetham she states that;
‘as the contractor was tendered for weekly I have not been able to implement a change.’
In April of 2018 I spoke to the audit supervisor Jackie Jackson at Ideal and she herself confirmed the weekly clean was not necessary. I also spoke to Chris Dring the contracts manager for the region who said that the contract could be changed to monthly directly contradicting Accent’s stance. I also petitioned the residents to reconfirm that no one wanted a weekly clean.
After much perseverance the cleaning was reduced to monthly. However as the contract is tied to Ideal the cost of the service is disportionate to the work involved.
It is an unreasonable cost and under the housing legislation is deemed illegal and yet we still incur the cost. It is now £1887 for approx 12 hours work on site cleaning. That equates to £157.25 per hour.
Also contractually I believe the internal window cleaning and a steam clean of the upper carpet should be done. Neither are.
Darren Whitfield has agrees that the need for local labour will provide a better and fairer service for schemes such as Lambert Court. As Accent would never be proactive and go out and look for local contractors to both improve our service and at the same time reduce our costs I have found a local company that can undertake the communal cleaning on a monthly basis including the internal windows at a saving to the residents. This firm can also provide a complete window cleaning service including the cleaning of the ‘velux’ roof windows (which again I believe are part of the existing contract but which are never cleaned.) They will also do a regular full gutter and downpipe clean which will save on the repeated call outs for blocked gulleys etc. I sent the information off to Accent at the start of December and have since enquired as to any developments and what action Accent have taken to look into this.
I sent an email on 18th Jan 2021 copied below:
Email to Darren Whitfield and Paul Norton 18th January 2021
You have mentioned the need for using local contractors especially for developments like Lambert Court. I believe that Ideal have the cleaning contracts until 2027 and that the window cleaning firm pulse ppm are sub contracted to Ideal until September of this year.
a) Have any movements been made in attempting to change over to the local contractor whose contact details I supplied to Paul mid December. If they have what are they?
b) If nothing has been done up to now why is that?
c) Can you confirm that it is possible to change contracts for the window cleaning and communal area cleaning. If it is possible what time frame are we looking at?
d) Can you confirm that the difference in the price we have been paying for the service for over a year will be repaid
I have heard nothing back and so we carry on being exploited by paying these costs. It is ludicrous to believe you can impose a one size fits all policy. This is where you need to adopt some leadership as your staff are constrained by these policies and have no incentive to change.
The warden call system has been replaced with a modern digital one. This is no thanks to any determination on the part of Accent. Back at the start of 2018 we drew to the attention of Accent the need to replace the existing analogue warden call system. I had discussed this with various people at Tunstalls to get a full understanding of the system and the need for change.
In the notes from the residents meeting with Victoria Cheetham 15th October 2018 she suggested looking into getting a quote for a replacement system but stressed the need to get ‘other things concluded first’. This quote was never forthcoming.
We stressed the cost of maintenance and repairs to the existing system as one of the factors in changing over as the new digital systems have minimal ongoing costs. In 2017-2018 the maintenance costs were £1512, 2018 – 2019 the costs were £2448 and in 2019-2020 £1916. In total due to the reluctance and lack of motivation of Accent in implementing the changes when they were first requested it has cost us as residents £5876 in repairs and maintenance which could have been avoided. You, again, need to take responsibility for this as there is no motivation for your staff to implement these changes which would in turn directly benefit the customer. The cost is simply passed on to the residents.
In order to streamline your organisation you contract ESH as your repairs and maintenance contractors for the northern region. I have mentioned before the distances travelled by workmen form Durham, the constant repeat callouts, CO2 emissions etc. There is no consistent approach to maintenance in regard to what is needed and what should be prioritised.
An example is the guttering. If there was a programme that ensured the gutters were kept clean it would cut back the constant repeated call outs for minor blockages. If a report is filed that states one gulley is blocked and an ESH operative comes out to unblock it and it is pointed out that the entire length of guttering is blocked he will only clear out the small reported section. I have personally witnessed this.
One of our main concerns is with the lack of accountability in regard to repair works and invoicing.
A report is filed with Accent which is then passed onto ESH. ESH either complete the works themselves or sub contract it out. Invoices are then completed and passed on to Accent. Finally we receive the annual bill for all these charges.
We had a small leak in the roof which after a couple of visits was repaired. The second visit involved a scaffold company travelling all the way down from Blyth in Northumberland. The roofer came down from Durham. An invoice was raised for £1475 for the work. This invoice had been passed on to the residents and payment requested. I queried this with Darren Whitfield as I assumed the scaffold had been part of the invoicing which under the NHF schedule that should not be the case as it is already factored in to other costs. There was never any check put in place to validate this invoice. Only after drawing it to the attention of Darren Whitfield did I receive this initial reply.
‘I’m satisfied that the costs are appropriate and not duplicated from the original order, and despite what the description on the work order suggested, no charges have been made for scaffolding.
So if I had left it at that then the invoicing would have stood and we would have paid the bill. I requested the breakdown of the actual invoice from ESH and the schedule of rates charged. On looking at the invoice there were charges for 8 square metres of slate lifted and 23.5 metres of 150mm leadwork. I requested Accent come and inspect the work and Paul Norton agreed that he could see no lead work and approx 1 square metre of slates had been lifted. The invoicing of these additional works came to over £1000.
I contacted Darren back in December and he has been in touch with ESH to find out why we were invoiced for the work. I have heard nothing back. I, therefore, have contacted the police and have given them a statement prior to them investigating the matter. It was discussed who would be liable if any fraudulent behaviour is found and it appears Accent could be held to account and criminal action taken against them regardless of who raised the invoice if they are deemed to have behaved in a reckless manner and another party has incurred a loss. If this is a genuine mistake it still raises the serious question on accountability on behalf of Accent and what checks are in place to avoid this.
The fact that numerous invoices are raised by a multitude of various sub contractors as well as ESH themselves with little checks in place to prove either the work has been done or the correct invoicing sent out is appalling. Accent do not need to care whether the invoicing is accurate as the cost is simply passed on to the residents. There is no accountability on the part of Accent. There is no leadership.
During 2020 we have had other charges presented by Accent which were inaccurate and unless spotted by residents and reported back to Accent would have been paid. We should not be here to monitor all of this. We pay Accent as a management company and expect a professional and diligent service.
Finally as you are probably aware Lambert Court is in the process of having the windows replaced. It has been an ongoing saga and carries on still. I fully understand the present day problems with covid restrictions and Brexit affecting glass production and supply. We were promised a start date of November 23rd which was then changed to January 26th. This was initially due to a shortage of glass. No letter appeared to confirm the start date of January 26th and no explanation was given why. I contacted Accent who maintained that the problem was that ESH were not answering or returning calls or emails. So a meeting was organised with senior managers at Accent and ESH to try and understand the reason behind this last delay. They found out that Sekura (the window manufacturer) were not responding to emails or calls. Again you must take ultimate responsibility for the fact that you employ ESH. If they fail to respond to requests from staff which results in having to bring in senior management to communicate with them and then still fail to get answers it says a lot about ESH and a lot about Accent.
I called Sekura myself this morning and found out the alleged reason behind this last delay. I then contacted Accent to let them know what was happening. As yet we are still waiting to hear, officially, why things have changed and if a new start date has been decided upon. Why is it that we have to constantly solve your problems. Why is it that unless you are constantly challenged nothing gets implemented. As CEO you are responsible for the quality of staff you employ and I speak on behalf of all the residents here that we have little confidence in your team. I know that you do have staff that feel a genuine desire to help and do this to the best of their ability. This problem is further compounded by the structure of your system which is inflexible and difficult to change and your staff obviously have difficulty in making decisions within that framework. Your business model is designed purely to benefit Accent as a company, to ease the workload on your employees and to ensure that you have a glowing financial report which will enable Accent to grow as a business regardless of the cost to the actual customers you are meant to serve. It is certainly not customer driven.
Regards
Iain Longstaff B.Sc.
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. The material may also be the subject of copyright protection. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or storage of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Group. The Group does not take responsibility for the views of the author. Any attachment(s) associated with this e-mail are believed to be virus-free, although communication via the internet cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Email is scanned by the Group but it is recommended that you also scan all e-mail before opening.
Accent Group Limited, a charitable Registered Society under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 Number 30444R. Registered address: Charlestown House, Acorn Park Industrial Estate, Charlestown, Shipley, West Yorkshire, BD17 7SW. Registered with the Regulator of Social Housing Number L4511. Tel: 0345 678 0555 Fax: 01274 531023.
This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. The material may also be the subject of copyright protection. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or storage of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Group. The Group does not take responsibility for the views of the author. Any attachment(s) associated with this e-mail are believed to be virus-free, although communication via the internet cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Email is scanned by the Group but it is recommended that you also scan all e-mail before opening.
Accent Group Limited, a charitable Registered Society under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 Number 30444R. Registered address: Charlestown House, Acorn Park Industrial Estate, Charlestown, Shipley, West Yorkshire, BD17 7SW. Registered with the Regulator of Social Housing Number L4511. Tel: 0345 678 0555 Fax: 01274 531023.
This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com