Vale Farm Updates

13 August 2008

Pools Solids Four Times Over the Limit – Problem Persisted Despite Earlier Readings

“Due to the seriousness of this situation and the potential for harm” on 2.4.08 an Improvement Notice under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 was served on Leisure Connection in relation to water quality and the water testing regime at Vale Farm

The Health & Safety Officer wrote to the Centre Manager. “During the visit I witnessed various water tests being undertaken by yourself and a colleague. The results of these tests suggested a serious problem regarding the quality of the water in the pool.  It was found that the total dissolved solid (TDS) reading, taking into account chemical and pollutants in the water, was 2600mg/l for the main pool and 6000mg/l for the learner pool.  The industry code of practice recommends that the maximum TDS level should be 1000mg/l above the mains water supply which at Vale Farm Sports Centre was found to be 500mg/l.”

The Officer gave as her reasons for the Improvement Notice: “…the levels of total dissolved solids, including chemicals and pollution, are far higher than recommended in the main swimming pool and exceedingly high in the learning pool and as thus may potentially affect the safety of bathers”.

And, “This situation appears to have been allowed to continue or to reoccur for some time despite the fact that these levels could adversely affect the safety of bathers, as per readings taken during a microbiological test in March.”

As it happened, on 28.3.08 I asked the Council’s Leisure Service about water testing, following alarming reports from Lee Valley. My email included;

“Newspaper reports (inserted below) about the pool that Leisure Connection run for the Lee Valley Authority raise concerns about the way in which pool water was tested. Given this, I would like to be assured that Brent Council has checked the quality of the equipment and procedures used by Leisure Connection in testing pool water.”

The Council Leisure Officer reply received dated 4.4.08 was, in the light of what was obtained later from Brent Health & Safety, misleading.  “As for your request, I have been informed that Health & Safety regularly monitor Vale Farm and ensure that pool tests are carried out correctly. Pool tests are also carried out by an external private contractor. I hope you find the information helpful.”

Well no, it is not helpful when a Council Officer conspires to protect a grossly deficient contractor. The contractor was either not testing properly or not taking appropriate action with the results but the answer was worded to suggest there was nothing to be concerned about. If the Leisure Department did not know what H&S had found, why not?

Pool Debris

On many occasions in the past I have complained about litter on the floor of the pool and floating debris. Recently this has been a frequent issue and continues to be so despite emails to the Council, LC and talking to Duty Managers as I leave the pool. As an example, my email on 27.7.08 includes:

“On Friday morning and this morning the floor of the main pool at Vale Farm was again littered. Today I was the first person in my lane and showed a clump of hair to one the staff. ( I am pleased to report that the lifeguards this morning were excellent, calling a third person to deal with me.) I could also see three hair bands, a hair clip, chewing gum, a sweet wrapper, pieces of tissue and many smaller pieces if rubbish. Apart from Harrow Leisure Centre no other pool I have used is as frequently littered as Vale Farm and the problem has persisted over six years. Why should users and council tax payers have to accept this?”

Vanity of the Units

When LC refurbished the changing rooms at Vale Farm they installed cheap and unsuitable melamine and chipboard vanity units. These quickly began to disintegrate. At one stage a metal post was fitted to stop a unit falling over. After customers had put up with these unsightly units for years they were finally replaced with the same materials and these also quickly deteriorated. For the best part of a year one end of a unit was bound with sticky hazard tape. It took several weeks after the old sinks units were removed before the replacements were installed and operational.  Within weeks of finally being fitted the unit in the men’s changing room was damaged – quite possibly by vandals – and pieces of plastic removed. However, independent of the damage to the sides, where two parts of the unit join, the surface is swollen, presumably by water penetration. And now the taps are wobbling, perhaps because they are attached to flexible hosing rather than copper pipe. How many years before the Council persuades LC to replace yet again, hopefully with something made to last? I am not holding my breath.

Lifeguarding

I have continued to report defective lifeguarding, including three occasions when a person who is not a lifeguard appeared to be acting as one. LC and Brent have offered justification or, as I see it, excuses, for these non-qualified people. My view remains that the two pools require at all times a minimum of two qualified lifeguards. I have also reported concerns that lifeguards are too often distracted from their primary duty by other duties such as collecting tickets and recording the number of swimmers.

My last email (see below) to the council, copied to LC, on lifeguarding lapses was on 23 July. At the time of writing this update, three weeks later, I have had no reply from either the council or LC.

“When I entered the pool hall just before 6.45 the male life guard at the entrance end had his head bent over a ring binder and did not look at the pool at least until I had passed him.

“As I got into the water I noticed that the female lifeguard at the other end was sitting at such an angle that with her head stationery, she could not see the pool to her right. I did a length of breast stroke and each time I looked she was in the same position and did not turn her head. I did a return length and then spoke with another regular swimmer who agreed that the female lifeguard could not see the whole pool.

“I then noticed that the male lifeguard still or again had his head bowed over the ring binder. I watched him for about twenty seconds and he never once looked up. I left the pool and approached him and he was not aware of me until I spoke to him.

“I asked what he was doing and he asked me what I meant. I said that I was concerned that he was not watching the pool. He replied that he could tell me how many swimmers were in the water.

“I said that him knowing the number would be no help to someone in difficulty who was not spotted.

He replied that I was being unrealistic because no one can watch a pool for an eight and a half hour shift. I pointed out that he had a legal responsibility to continuously monitor.

“By the time I re-entered the pool the female lifeguard was facing straight ahead but studying her fingertips and she was still doing by the time I got to the other end.  After that she appeared to pay more attention to the pool but her manner suggested someone either very tired or unwell. Her position was often slumped and at one stage she sat on a lower step of the lifeguard chair.

“I am puzzled as to why some lifeguards take so long doing the headcount. I am sure that HSE do not wish headcount to put swimmers at risk and I ask that the Council investigates whether counting needs to be done in a different way so as not to interfere with vigilance.”  PB 

8.10.07 

Brent Council renewed LC's contract to run Vale Farm Sports Centre despite the opposition from users aware of the company's history of poor performance. The new contract came into effect in November 2006 and in September 2007 the Council received a report form its officers reviewing it. The full report can be seen on LCW.  Below, after the recorded response of councillors to the report,  are some of the damning extracts. PB

from Meeting of the Brent Council Executive 11.9.07 http://www.brent.gov.uk/commins.nsf/a38fe0e63682737580256c7a006a8208/66a3021dfbdfef4780257348005824e7/$FILE/Exec%20Decs%20Sept%2007.pdf

"Decision Taken: That it be noted that this Executive is disappointed at the performance of Leisure Connection Ltd at Vale Farm and that the Director of Environment and Culture meet with the Chief Executive of the company to discuss the Council’s concerns and seek a timetabled action."

I find this response worrying. The lesson that should have been learned from the old contract was the need for sufficient financial penalties for under-performance sufficient to motivate LC. Asking the a departmental director to talk to LC suggests Brent's new contract is still deficient and that the penalties listed in the report would seem to confirm this. And why wasn't LC's Chief Executive or at least the regional manager at the meeting to apologise? PB

Extracts From "Progress report on leisure management contract at Vale Farm Sports Centre" by  Director of Environment and Culture to Brent Council Executive on 11.9.07. 

3.4 A key issue officers wanted to see addressed as part of the new contract was that stronger management would be introduced to ensure the service improved. Leisure Connection have made a number of personnel changes within the company during the first six months of the contract both on a local and head office level. None of the main Leisure Connection staff that were involved in the contract negotiations remain and the regional director has also been changed. In addition, as a result of changes in the company structure and for personal reasons, there have been four different managers at Vale Farm Sports Centre since the start of the contract.

3.5 It has therefore been necessary for the Sports Service’s Recreation Commissioning Team (client officers) to work with and support Leisure Connection and the centre managers to enable them to understand the new contract and embed the changes that the new contract requires. This has taken time and has not resulted in the step change in service that officers had wanted to see from the new contract.

3.7 Leisure Connection initially failed to provide the level of staff detailed within their tender submission. This resulted in fewer staffing hours in areas such as lifeguards / recreation assistants, fitness consultants and cleaners. The Sports Service is satisfied that failing to implement these new levels was due to the changes in senior managers at the centre not being aware of what was required. This was brought to the attention of Leisure Connection, they have addressed the situation and have given assurances that this will not reoccur. Rates of pay for some posts have increased as set out in the tender but not all staff are being paid the increased levels proposed by Leisure Connection. Leisure Connection have submitted a proposal to the council that will enable the centre manager to pay staff at a level that recognises experience, skills, responsibility, training and improvement in performance rather than a blanket pay increase. This will incentivise staff to improve their performance and gain new skills which will enable them to move to a higher rate of pay. This review of staff performance will take place in October 2007 and this should result in most staff being paid at the level submitted within Leisure Connection’s tender.

3.16 Survey respondents were asked to state how satisfied they were with a range of services at the centre including cleanliness, water quality, helpfulness of staff and standard of coaching. The results are shown in appendix one. Customers were also asked how satisfied overall they were with the service...  

3.17 It can be seen that the results for 2006 (93% satisfied) showed a significant increase on previous years but have dropped again in 2007 (74% satisfied). On the specific service areas included within the survey (see appendix one) satisfaction had dropped in most areas. These results are disappointing and officers are in discussion with the centre management as to how they intend to address this drop in satisfaction. 

3.19 In addition to the user surveys, complaints are recorded at the centre. Between November 2006 and June 2007 there have been 27 complaints from 18 different users which is equivalent to approximately one complaint per 9,000 visits. The twenty seven complaints is a decrease over the same period in 2005/06, when 33 complaints were received...   The suggestion is that the decrease in complaints is significant, even though the user survey reveals a large drop in satisfaction. The only conclusion that can be drawn from less complaints is that more people are doubting that complaints make any difference.  And there is no mention of the petition in March signed by many regular users demanding that "all aspects of the contract are managed to ensure adequate staffing, maintenance and cleaning over the rest of its duration. " PB

3.21 As well as formal complaints the centre provides a customer communication diary and since January there have been 5 negative comments and 6 positive comments... The report was dated August 29th so this is suggesting only five negative comments in over seven months. This is preposterously misleading. Foe example, on 21.6.07 I emailed the Council saying, "... in the Customer Feedback Diary there are eight unfavourable comments about the showers in January and February of this year." PB

3.33 ... Officers are disappointed that some areas of the service have not achieved the ‘step change’ that the Council requires.  Despite regular meetings with Leisure Connection’s managers there has been no significant improvement in some aspects of the quality of service provided and therefore officers recommend that this situation is escalated such that the Director of Environment and Culture meets with Leisure Connection’s Chief Executive to discuss the Council’s concerns.

4.2 The new contract includes a payment mechanism that enables the Council to implement a system of financial deductions for failure to achieve the required service standard, as discussed in the main report. Within the first three quarters of operation, the Council has made financial deductions with respect to the KPI (key performance indicator)  for opening hours / availability and cleaning. Failure to achieve the performance standards resulted in financial deductions of £1,632 and £1,750... My guess is that these fines are piddling compared to the money LC has banked by keeping staff levels low and that until there is a serious financial incentive or use of breach of contract LC will continue to fail at Vale Farm.  PB

Percentage of Vale Farm Survey Respondents in 2007 that were satisfied (Appendix 1)

	Overall satisfaction 73.8% (down from 93% in 2006)
	Value for money of activities 71.5%
	Helpfulness of reception staff 69.0%
	Helpfulness of other staff 64.6%
	Ease of booking 68.3%
	Range of activities available 73.0%
	Water quality in the pool 52.0%
	Water temperature in the pool 52.9%
	Cleanliness of the changing areas 48.2%
	Cleanliness of the activity spaces 60.9%
	Availability of activities at convenient times 84.4%
	Activity charges / fees 71.2%
	Quality of equipment 64.1%
	Standard of coaching / instruction 83.5%
	Quality of car parking on site 67.4%