Forum Topic

Local Conservatives have put cleaning at the top of our pledge card.  This is the issue most commonly raised with us on the doorstep.  We cleaned up the Borough in 2006 and now we need to clean up the Borough again.  Since Labour appointed Enterprise to take over the cleaning contract two years ago in April 2012 cleaning has been broken.  It has been broken for two years and is still not fixed.  The facts are clear.  In the last full year before the previous contractor May Gurney gave up the contract they achieved a first time cleaning rate to the required standard of 88% on average.  You might have expected them to slaken off at some point knowing that they had lost the contract, but no, they did a great job until the end.  Amey/Enterprise has on average, over two years, across the whole borough left 29% of the Borough’s streets unacceptably dirty.  After two years they are just shy of the level consistently achieved by their predecessors and they are still nowhere near the required service level laid down in the contract.  The picture with missed collections has been equally dire.  In the year before May Gurney lost the contract they managed to get missed collections down to an average of 972 per month.  The average over the last two years has been 3,617, almost 4 times as many.  Amey/Enterprise has never been able to get missed collections below 2,000 per month.  Over two years an additional 60,000 calls have been made to the council to report missed collections.  To this day when you dial the council’s help desk you still get an autoresponder that says “Press 1 for a missed collection”. The Conservatives know how to clean up the Borough.  We did it before.  When we took over in 2006 Ealing wasn't just dirty - it was the dirtiest London borough.

Phil Taylor ● 4349d

It’s difficult to make complete sense of the figures in the way they are presented but here’s what I think they mean.On average over the year 69.6% of streets inspected met the standard upon inspection. After the contractor was given an opportunity to rectify the situation, that average increased in 82.1%. Things have been improving, and in the most recent three months, 78.3% of streets inspected met the standard on inspection and 98.7% met them after contractor rectification. These figures only apply to streets inspected and one presumes there is no data on streets that were not inspected. Across the year on average 21.1% of street cleaning was inspected. In the most recent three months, 20.4% of streets were inspected, so inspection rates have remained steady – and c80% of street cleaning goes unchecked. We don’t know what performance has been in streets not inspected but – assuming the contractor does not know in advance what streets are to be inspected and thus cannot attempt to concentrate efforts to improve the figures – it is reasonable to assume that performance in non-inspected streets has been at the levels found in inspected streets, but no rectification has taken place. So, taking account of rectification of inspected streets, the percentage of all borough streets meeting the standard is probably c72.2% for the year and c82.5% for the most recent three months.Enterprise do not seem to be able to achieve more than 80% of the standard without the opportunity to rectify after inspection. Under the old contract, on average, over the whole year 88% of streets were cleaned first time up to the required standard. The easiest way to improve performance would be for the Council to inspect more street cleaning, although the Council shouldn’t be having to chase the contractor to do its job properly.It would be interesting to know what payment deductions have been made for Enterprise’s poor performance (its target performance is 95%). Or are deductions only made after taking account of rectification work?

Vlod Barchuk ● 4722d