Wrekinhousingtrust Reviews 

The worst organisation, in my opinion, that I have ever had the misfortune to deal with. From the way that I was spoken to, the way I was spoken about and what was written about me, I found their managers and board to be rude, lacking in basic understanding and highly unprofessional in my opinion. Their policies towards disabled people are, in my opinion, deeply unfair as they do not allocate on medical need. They also have failed spectacularly to address the chronic shortage of fully wheelchair accessible housing in Telford, in my opinion. An organisation that, after 8 years, I gave up on as I have zero trust in them. As someone who passionately believes in equality for all, I would now not touch them with a very large barge pole.

If you are planning to rent a flat in Newport Shropshire from WHT and you are full time employed just please don't do it. The sound insulation DOESN'T EXIST between flats. I live in ground floor flat and hear every single step, music, conversions, washing machine, and not hearing it if you listen to it, but you hear it with EAR PLUGS IN!!! FORGET ABOUT ANY PRIVACY!!!FORGET ABOUT SLEEP!!! SPECIALLY IF WORKING SHIFTS!!! When l got this flat WHT never rented flats on 1st floor to tenants with children but it's changed now so if a child jumps of the sofa or running around, it feels like ceiling will collapse and bits of paint falling down. you can't stop it because kids are kids. I guess it would probably be OK to a jobless person on benefits, but if you are working full time or even part time, just don't rent from WHT because you can forget about any rest, any privacy and good mental health. In the past l lived in house that has been converted to 2 flats, nothing has been done to sound insulation, but it was million times better than WHT flats!!!

Left me for 23 days in a care home flat with no hot water despite 3 complaints. Turns out there contractor left the isolator off. When i lodged a formal complaint they ignored it for 2 MONTHS them when threatened with Independant Housing Ombudsman acknowledged the complaint and ofeered a £20 shopping voucher as compensation.
If a complaint is verbal or nit recorded they deny it ever existed. Totally protectionist, their complaints procedure is that the manager of the person at fault fields the complaint!
AVOID IF YOU HAVE A VULNERABLE RELATIVE

WHT control all of the housing for Housing benefits tenants within the Telford local authority. Despite this, they claim complete independence (financial and as a legal corporate entity) from Telford & Wrekin Council, and use this as an excuse to not ensure that their tenants adhere to standard Tenancy Agreements clauses such as ASB and nuisance to others.

I rent privately in Telford, next door to WHT tenants who: (i) Have No Respect For Others (Or Themselves) (ii) Mistreat Their Infant Children And 10+ Animals (iii) Do Not Work Or Want To Work (iv) Think That It's Acceptable To Verbally Abuse And Threaten With Violence A Blind/Disabled Person.

Well It Isn't.

WHT refuse to take measures to force them to SHUT DOWN the ridiculously LOUD music that they constantly play all day. WHT refuse to enforce their policy of keeping (and breeding) large numbers of animals that are left to roam and scavenge within the residential area. WHT belive that it's fine to allow me to be routinely ABUSED and THREATENED by their tenants.

WRONG.

Below is my latest email sent to the GM of WHT, in which I attempt to explain the ramifications of being negligent to him.

"FAOr Andy Johnson;

I thank you equally for visiting at my home address, and also for your email response, opened today's date.

I understand that your own involvement in this matter may now be concluded, however, I’m in agreement that this brings to a close the current stage (internal) of my unresolved complaint issues involving the company that you represent (Wrekin Housing Trust) and your tenants (number 9 Withington Close).

Whilst I accept your (WHT's) stance that your stated obligations lie jointly with your tenants (as with legal compliance), it is nevertheless beyond reasonable argument that the past year or so has seen major shortcomings (that I shall be keen to highlight moving forward with independent bodies) in the performance and duty of your company when it comes to your obligations or duty of care to other residents in the vicinity (in respect of statutory legislation governing 'disturbance of the peace' 'antisocial behavior' 'harassing behavior' 'keeping of domestic animals within residential borders' and other related clauses), particularly myself.

WHT were made aware that a number of Police warnings have been handed out to your tenants in question (and members of their family) for antisocial acts or acts of harassment perpetrated against me; during your visit here, I allowed you first-hand access to a six-minute recording of one of these incidents (dating from May this year) as well as access to signed depositions from two independent witnesses (who both describe the incident as 'threatening' and 'intimidating')
and also testimony from my friend R******, who was at the scene and made the police 999 call.

These incidents obviously fall within the remit of law enforcement, however I'd naturally expect WHT to adopt a more 'appropriate' attitude when dealing with clear acts of harassment or ASB such as these against a disabled and partially blind person, that are on record with the local police. Your 'laissez-faire' approach has seen little change from your tenants in the months since, and I continue to be subjected to antisocial acts and incidents, as noted in my email logs and previously, diary sheets.

It is of course one thing to defend your own companies’ position, claiming that (and I paraphrase) 'we've taken no effective action because there is no problem from our perspective', but quite another thing to have to endure persistent ASB noise and nuisance et al first-hand for two years, and so I'm quite positive I have the capacity to convey that message earnestly and honestly to the relevant bodies, again, moving forward.

As far as evidence goes, you have stated to me that mine is 'weak' - but, again, that is evidently a non-objective remark based upon your companies' viewpoint, and so I'd have to rebut your observation by stating that I've filled in many weeks of diary sheets and sent many ASB Log emails (including one for today's loud music disturbance episode) so have fulfilled my part of the equation; WHT on the other hand (after stalling me for weeks with various excuses about my home security cameras) have allowed me 7 days' use of some obsolete AR equipment that wasn't fit for purpose, and then told number nine's tenants that they'd put it here. Little wonder that we are where we are, really.

Regarding the laws pertaining to animal welfare, as you witnessed yourself, co-operative efforts were made to address the poor conditions suffered by number 9's coterie of >10 animals (and I duly note for the record that your inference that such measures may be viewed as 'inflammatory' is not a valid one, since a defence of 'provocation' is no longer a legally viable argument since that particular law was amended in 2014) and to a certain extent this was a success, although the animal still exhibits clear behavioral problems and remains in a 'disturbed' state. I reiterate here for the record, that for as long as their dog is allowed to remain permanently in number 9's back garden, then their 10 cats will continue to roam, scavenge, defecate and breed on my own lawns, which contain no dog to chase them off.

Your explanations and apology regarding Margaret's email - to her superior Ben Murphy, but intercepted by me due to her own error - do very little to either placate my mood or indeed alter my view that the judgement shown by Margaret (and by Ben who was most likely complicit although I can't prove it yet) was flawed, and ably demonstrates the level at which Wrekin Housing Trust staff operate their 'quango' - or whatever it is; I'm positive that WHT will be trying their utmost to rubbish any suggestions of bias or collusion against me over this, however the evidence speaks for itself and clearly lends itself to such interpretations.

If the term 'fixated' can indeed be applied (like you say) to someone's behavior in a non-derogatory fashion, then I must applaud Margaret in doing such a wonderfully thorough job in her role as Estate Manager that we now have an Ombudsman's inquiry looming on the horizon, and also a question mark hanging over her ethics and conduct. Perhaps if she'd been just a little more 'fixated' in doing her job of managing your tenants a little more effectively then we might not even have to be here. Oh well, hindsight's a wonderful thing. right?

Moving forward then, one last thing; while my dossier is prepared for submission on to the regulatory body, I must now undertake one more formality (that is, after the formality of your 'stage 2' response), and that is permissions for the purposes of disclosures to my nominated disabled charities etc; I wish to to submit your emails (plus raw audio-recording of your visit) unedited for purposes of potential media involvement (radio interview, proposed submission for a notable television documentary) as it would seem that it is now necessary to move these issues into a public arena within which I am both experienced and proficient.

Please understand that should you opt to decline open disclosures, and they are released anyway, then your preference for non-disclosure will also be placed on record, but this does in no way prohibit you from your rights to legal recourse (especially should you feel that you've been misquoted or misrepresented in any way) by way of court order (injunction) which would be entirely independent from Wrekin Housing Trust (the corporate entity).

You are, of course also free to respond publicly yourself to any criticisms leveled against you, should you wish to go down that route.

Sincerely,

N. C****r [A.C.C.A.]"

DISCLAIMER: please be aware that any communications sent to this email address are sent in the knowledge that they may be reproduced in whole (or in part) for the purposes of transparency and/or public consumption; sender is deemed in acceptance of these terms upon receiving this communication, and all journalistic enterprise is conducted under the auspices of Article 10 [ECHR].
youtube_channel_OrangePop&BirthdayCake_blog channel_DisAccess

THIS GUY ISN'T DOING HIS JOB VERY WELL IMHO:

Andy Johnson
General Manager
Head Of Housing Management
The Wrekin Housing Trust
Andy.johnson AT wrekinhousingtrust DOT org DOT uk

NEXT STOP - OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE.