Docstoc

Mock Inspection _ Repairs - Ealing Council

Document Sample
Mock Inspection _ Repairs - Ealing Council Powered By Docstoc
					                                                Report to Scrutiny
                                            Item Number:



Contains Confidential Or                               No
Exempt Information


                           The results of the Mock Inspection & the Ealing Homes
Subject of Report:
                           repairs service
                           Ealing Homes Repair Works Specialist Scrutiny Panel
Meeting:
                           15th January 2008


                           Mark Brayford – Head of Strategic Client Management &
Service report author:     Performance
                           brayfordm@ealing.gov.uk
                           tel. 0208 825 5766

                           Nigel Spalding
Scrutiny officer:
                           spaldingn@ealing.gov.uk
                           tel. 0208 825 8182
                           Cllr Ian Green
Cabinet Responsibility:
                           Cabinet Member for Adult Services and Housing

                           Jo Rowlands
                           Director of Housing
Director Responsibility:
                           Email: Rowlandsj @ealing.gov.uk
                           Tel: 0208 825 6526

                           To gain an initial understanding of the findings of the
Brief:                     recently undertaken Mock Inspection of Ealing Homes with
                           particular reference to the repairs service .

                           The Panel is recommended to
Recommendations:               Note the findings of the Mock Inspection
                               consider how this information will feed into the work
                                 of the Scrutiny Panel




                                        1
1. Repairs & Maintenance; Mock Inspection

1.0 Introduction

1.1. The Council has legal responsibilities as a landlord to keep in good repair, the
structure and exterior of its dwellings and any installations provided for heating,
sanitation and supply of services (Section 11, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) and
contributing to the Home Energy Conservation Act Strategy (HECA). The Government’s
Decent Homes target also requires local authority landlords to bring their stock up to a
defined standard by 2010. Ealing Homes is responsible for ensuring the day-to-day
delivery of services to meet these requirements and for procuring all refurbishment
work, acting as an agent on behalf of the Council.

1.2 The Management Agreement between the Council and Ealing Homes delegated
the responsibility of providing housing management and maintenance services to
Ealing Homes. The Council let the repairs contracts in 2003 prior to establishing Ealing
Homes, however, on becoming operational, Ealing Homes assumed responsibility of
managing the repairs contracts. Ealing Homes receives a management fee for the
delegated responsibilities, which include managing a £14million annual budget for
revenue funded responsive and planned/cyclical repairs and a projected £65million
capital programme budget for 2007/08.


2.0 Context

2.1. In September 2008 the Council’s housing management service will be inspected by
the Audit Commission (AC) for a second time since the establishment of Ealing Homes.
The first inspection was carried out in May 2005 and resulted in the council and Ealing
Homes gaining 2 stars and promising prospects. This enabled the release of the first
part of £207m funding for the Decent Homes Programme.

2.2. In preparation for the inspection Ealing Homes commissioned a mock inspection in
November 2007 to be undertaken by Housing Quality Network (HQN) and as part of this
the repairs service was scrutinised

2.3. The purpose of this report is to highlight to the Scrutiny Panel the keys issues,
which were raised in the mock inspection in regard to repairs. A breakdown of the mock
inspection undertaken by HQN has been provided by Ealing Homes and can be found in
Appendix 1 of this report.

2.4. Ealing Homes have asked for it to be noted that in regard to the results of the
mock inspection the following points are highlighted to the panel

      the slides attached as appendix 1 have not been finalised by HQN the company
       who undertook the mock Inspection and they are still being checked by Ealing
       Homes for accuracy
      Ealing Homes have taken the general view that, unless there are serious
       inaccuracies they want to use the mock inspection as a learning exercise in the
       run-up to the real inspection.



                                            2
      Ealing Homes feel that if HQN have failed to reflect the position accurately or
       failed to record actions or initiatives then their response is to plan to
       communicate them better to the real inspectors rather than spending a lot of time
       going back over the mock inspection in the way you would a real one.
      Ealing Homes feel that the mock inspection slides give a less accurate and less
       favourable account of the service than the results of a real inspection and Ealing
       Homes feel that particularly it is important that this is recognised in interpreting
       the results.
      Ealing Homes wanted to stress that the reason the mock inspection was
       commissioned by Ealing Homes was to inform its preparations for the real
       inspection; if it is used for a different purpose, its limitations need to be
       recognised.

2.5.   This report focuses on a pack of 60 slides (Appendix 1) which was specifically
       compiled by Ealing Homes for this Scrutiny panel.. For ease of reference the
       areas and corresponding slide numbers are set out below.

                                 Contents of Appendix 1
Slide title                                                            Slide number
Cover                                                                  1
Ground rules ( of the mock inspection) –                               2
How has inspection changed (since 2005)                                3
Putting things into perspective ( ALMO ratings)                        4
Overview                                                               5
Our Judgement (conclusion by HQN)                                      6
Focus Groups                                                           7
Organisation and observation (of focus groups)                         8
Key Points made (by focus groups)                                      9
Maintenance                                                            10
National drivers (Repairs and maintenance)                             11
Access customer care and focus                                         12
Service delivery (what the inspectors will be looking for)             13
Resident Involvement (what the inspectors will be looking for)         14
Customer satisfaction (what the inspectors will be looking for)        15
Continuous satisfaction (what the inspectors are looking for)          16
Context                                                                17
Access customer care                                                   18-21
Aids and Adaptations                                                   22-24
Responsive repairs                                                     25-28
Maintenance of empty properties                                        29-34
Gas servicing                                                          35-40
Asbestos                                                               41-42
Value for Money                                                        43-49
Resident Involvement                                                   50-51
Equality and Diversity                                                 52-53
Continuous improvement & performance management                        54-57
Priorities before September 08                                         58-59
Priorities                                                             60



                                             3
3.3. This report aims to provide an overview of the main areas with the actual slides
providing more in depth detail.


4.0. The Mock Inspection results

4.1. In slide 2 HQN began by setting out the remit of their mock inspection which could
be summarised as;
    There has been no varnish in the results set out on the slides
    HQN’s main purpose was to help Ealing Homes identify areas for improvement.
    They were rigorous, offered praise where it was due and criticised where it was
       necessary
    Their objective motivate Ealing Homes to improve and Help them prioritise.

4.2. In slide 3 HQN then went onto explain how inspections have changed since the
last time Ealing Homes were inspected which means;
     Inspections will be tougher – some Key Lines of Enquiries have been revised
     Value for money is increasingly important
     Evidence of impact is required for two stars
     Progress against previous inspections is looked at
     Piloting approach to unannounced inspections
     Need to keep up with current changes, eg, digital TV, smoking ban
     Approach and methodology remains the same

4.3. In slide 6 HQN set out their judgement in regard to the overall mock inspection
which is set out in its entirety below
    Three stars will be hard to achieve
    A lot will depend on repairs
    Strong on resident involvement but things need to bed down and show evidence
       of influence and impact
    ASB – a great service
    There has been progress but perception of not keeping up the pace
    Progress against previous AC recommendations – disappointing
      There are quick wins – particularly in income management

4.4 In slide 9 HQN set out the keys point made by focus groups in regards to repairs
which are
    Minor repairs quick but anything that costs money takes a lot longer
    Surveyors never turn up – always excuses why they were late, no shows, never
       apologise
    Poor condition of homes – old and need modernisation thought ALMO would help
       but not delivering
    Where new kitchens and bathrooms fitted – all done well and satisfactory
    Repairs appointments 8-1/1-6pm and they do turn up, workmen ok
    Main issues of inconsistency, having to chase on everything
    Newsletters and magazines – not clear if these are Ealing Homes or Council,
       information not clear on who to go to for what and where



                                           4
     None had made formal complaints and did not know how/who to/what process
      was
5.0. Mock Inspection findings in regard to repairs

5.1 Access customer care and user focus (slides 18 – 21)

5.1a The mock inspection highlighted 14 strengths in this area (slides18 - 19) and which
included items such as;
     There are a variety of ways tenants can report repairs including freephone
       number, writing, via the internet and on site with officers.

      Phone calls are effectively monitored at the call centre
      There is flexibility in the prioritisation of repairs for elderly and vulnerable
      Flag used for a variety of issues such as gas servicing, warranties, adapted
       properties and investment programmes
      Problematic contact centre calls go through an escalation process

5.1b. The mock inspection highlighted 5 weaknesses in this area (slide 20) and which
included items such as
     Chasing calls with call centre are around 30% for repairs and our feedback from
       customers also indicated this was an issue for them
     Repair priorities are not challenging at 24 hours for emergencies, three and
       seven working days for urgent and 28 working days for routine
     The out of hours service is not seamless to the day time number
     There is little evidence that satisfaction survey responses are robustly used to
       shape and improve services

5.1c. There were 5 recommendations of the mock inspection (slide 21) which are set
out below
    Take steps to reduce the level of calls chasing repairs
    Review the repair priorities to ensure they are challenging
    Take steps to make the out of hours service seamless to the day time service
    Ensure the satisfaction procedure is reviewed as a matter of some urgency

    Ensure satisfaction surveys are uniform and used effectively across all service
       areas to improve delivery


5.2 Aids and Adaptations (slides 22 – 24)

5.2a. The mock inspection highlighted 8 strengths in this area (slide 22) and which
included items such as
     Generally aids and adaptations responsibility of LBE
     EH now has two OTs
     Aids and adaptations work linked to DHS
     Service promoted in newsletters, leaflet and on DHDS site inspections
     Post inspections 100%
     RLOs involved in process
     Choice offered in line with DHS

                                              5
    Adapted properties and aids recycled
5.2b. The mock inspection highlighted 3 weaknesses in this area (slide 23) and which
included items such as
     Budget for adaptations provision out of DHS/planned
     No service specific satisfaction survey

      Back log of 160 Occupational therapists visits

5.3c. There were 3 recommendations of the mock inspection (slide 24) which are set
out below
    Establish a budget for adaptations within the DHS works and monitor spend to
       homes in this area
    Undertake a service specific satisfaction survey

      Take steps to reduce the back log of homes and customers requiring an OT
       assessment


5.3 Responsive repairs (slides 25 – 28)

5.3aThe mock inspection highlighted 14 strengths in this area (slide 25) and which
included items such as
     Repairs can be reported in a number of way including via the web site with
       ‘interfinder’
     There is a freephone number for day time reporting
     There is a contractor code of conduct in place
     Estate walkabouts used to identify repairs
     Flexible appointments made for repairs and inspections

5.3bThe mock inspection highlighted 6 weaknesses in this area (slide 26) and which
included items such as
            The out of hours service is not seamless to the general repairs number
            Repair priorities not challenging and measured in working days
            There are high levels of emergency are high at around 28.57% with
             emergency and urgent combined at 49.40%
            The levels of pre and post inspections are not effectively monitored
             (16.73% post inspection but arrived late)
            54.44% of repairs resulted in a variation order (VO) 2006/07
             Satisfaction is not monitored against ethnicity and vulnerability though the
              data is gathered

5.3c. There were 4 recommendations of the mock inspection (slide 28) which are set
out below
    Review the out of hours service telephone provision to make seamless to the day
       time number
    Review repair priorities to make more challenging
    Take steps to reduce the level of emergency and urgent repairs to 10% for


                                            6
       emergency and 30% for emergency and urgent combined

    Effectively monitor the service in terms of pre and post inspections and
       satisfaction against ethnicity and vulnerability


5.4.   Maintenance of empty properties (slides 29 – 34)

5.4a. The mock inspection highlighted 19 strengths in this area (slides 29-30) and
which included items such as
    Void properties are inspected in around 24 hours and made secure
    Inspections made by contractors and monitored by EH
    The lettable standard has been set with customers and provided at offer stage
    All locks are changed to void properties
    Gas is capped on all void properties
    Multi skilling is used on void works
    Incentives are used to hand properties back in good condition
    Post let satisfaction surveys are undertaken
    Decoration of homes are undertaken for elderly or vulnerable
    Post inspection 100% but both contractor and EH are undertaking

5.4b. The mock inspection highlighted 5 weaknesses in this area (slide 33) and which
included items such as
     Targets for repairing voids are set against value only in procedures with no
       guidance on adjusting for high cost low work jobs
     Housing management do not meet with repairs team to discuss priorities and
       progress
     Major voids (DHS) average turn round 89.6 days
     None of the homes visited were well prepared and cleaned

5.4c. There were 5 recommendations of the mock inspection (slide 34) which are set
out below
    Review the targets for completion of void works based on value and level of
       works needed
    Ensure housing management are effectively involved in meetings considering
       performance and priorities
    Take steps to reduce the time taken to undertake major void works
    Consider the use of suited locks or key safes to void properties
    Robustly prepare and present homes for letting




                                              7
5.5. Gas servicing (slides- 35 – 40)

5.5a. The mock inspection highlighted 20 strengths in this area (slides 35-37) and
which included items such as
    Gas servicing is a three-star contract
    Housing management become involved in the access procedure to take court
       action
    Vulnerability is checked before court action commences
    Monthly monitoring meetings are held with contractors
    Boiler information returned by contractor
    Incentives for allowing access first appointment
    Early evening and Saturday morning appointments
    Outstanding gas servicing flagged
    There is an approach to deal with persistent offenders
    Gas servicing is reported to board
    Three year checks undertaken on blocks with no gas supply

5.5b. The mock inspection highlighted 8 weaknesses in this area (slide 39) and which
included items such as
     The timescales that are in the procedure are not robustly followed
     Court action is not robustly taken to ensure access
     Smoke alarms are not checked
     Importance of gas servicing not set out in repairs handbook

      The level of gas responsive performance not be easily provided

5.5c. There were 8 recommendations of the mock inspection (slide 40) which are set
out below
    Effectively follow the timescales set within the access procedure
    Take effective court action to enable access to properties for gas servicing
    Take steps to check the effectiveness of smoke alarms
    Promote the importance of gas servicing in the repairs handbook
    Resolve the problems with the data transfer
    Introduce a ten-year programme of electrical testing
    Ensure all CP12s are accurately and fully completed
    Effectively monitor performance of the responsive heating contract

5.6 Asbestos (slides 41 – 42)

5.6a. The mock inspection highlighted 7 strengths in this area (slide 41) and which
included items such as
     Asbestos procedures in place
     An asbestos register is in place
     Pre work inspections for asbestos are undertaken on planned, cyclical, void
       works and adaptations
     Location of asbestos in variant properties is provided to operatives (see
       weaknesses)

                                          8
      Asbestos effectively flagged where known

5.6b. The mock inspection highlighted 3 weaknesses in this area (slide 42) and which
included items such as
     Not all staff have had asbestos awareness training
     Data is not held against all common areas but being gathered
     No asbestos leaflet for customers

5.6c. There were 3 recommendations of the mock inspection (slide 42) which are set
out below
    Ensure all relevant staff have undertaken asbestos awareness training who may
       come into contact or provide advice on the matter
    Ensure as a matter of some urgency that data is held against all common areas

      Introduce an information leaflet for customer concerning asbestos

5.7.   Value for Money - slides 43 – 49

5.7a. The mock inspection highlighted 13 strengths in this area (slides 46-47) and
which included items such as
    Benchmarking has been undertaken across the London and three-star ALMOs
    Limited repairs batching in place
    Planned/responsive spend around 62%/38% respectively
    Spend monitored against a monthly profile
    Supply chain partnership developed for kitchens, boilers and door entry systems
    Funding from power suppliers has been recycled into insulation works
    Post contract evaluations undertaken
    The handy person service is batching communal repairs
    A rebate of £79 received on each new boiler fitted recycled into further heating
       improvements
    Contractor/partners are recycling waste products
    We were informed discounts gained off the SOR for voids
    Liability warranties flagged on database
    Zero defects target with escalation process

5.7b. The mock inspection highlighted 5 weakness in this area (slide 48) plus 4
weaknesses in how VFM is managed (slide 43) and which included items such as
    Repairs are not robustly batched and reduced costs achieved
    Partnering not well developed across the service
    There are high levels of emergency are high at around 28.57% with emergency
      and urgent combined at 49.40%
    54.44% of repairs resulted in a VO 2006/07
    Variations allowed up to £250 without authorisation

Management weaknesses


                                           9
         Procurement strategy and asset management strategy are both at the end of
          their three year horizon (2005-2007):
         apital programme has 15% overspend last year after a 1.5% overspend in the
          previous year – what are the underlying causes and are they being resolved?
         Mid-year (2007/08) £1m budget cut for response repairs (to balance HRA) –
          how has this outcome been managed for tenants?
         Rechargeable repairs are raised however £25k in 2006/07 and £7k to date
          (Aug07) suggest a lack of diligence and tenacity in the process

5.7c. There were 4 recommendations of the mock inspection (slide 49) which are set
out below
    Take steps to robustly batch repairs and reduce costs
    Develop partnering across the service with incentives to ratchet up performance
    Take steps to address the high levels of emergency and urgent repairs

    Ensure the level of VOs and the value allowed without authorisation is reduced
5.8. Resident involvement (slides 50 – 51)

5.8a. The mock inspection highlighted 4 strengths in this area (slide 50) and which
included items such as
     There is an annual tenants conference
     Choices have been set with customer involvement
     Customers have been involved in setting the lettable standard and in the
       selection of some contractors

    Limited use of tenants (2) in monitoring services, generally staff did not know
      about them and outcomes from their work not provided

5.8b. The mock inspection highlighted 1 weakness in this area (slide 51) and which
included items such as
     Customers are not robustly involved in the planning, delivery and monitoring in
       this service area

5.8c. There were 1 recommendations of the mock inspection (slide 51) which are set
out below
    Take steps to more robustly involve customers in the planning, delivery and
       monitoring of services


5.9. Equality & Diversity (slides 52 – 53)

5.9a. The mock inspection highlighted 6 strengths in this area (slide 52) and which
included items such as
     Repair priorities are flexible for elderly and vulnerable
     Satisfaction survey forms ask diversity
     Handy person service assisting elderly and vulnerable with maintenance
     Diversity profile of customers shown on work orders


                                             1
                                             0
    Welcome pack statement in eight languages
5.9b. The mock inspection highlighted 3 weaknesses in this area (slide 53) and which
included items such as
     Language flash cards are not used
     The language skill of staff is not generally known
     Satisfaction surveys are not robustly monitored against ethnicity

5.9c. There were 3 recommendations of the mock inspection (slide 53) which are set
out below
    Ensure all staff and contractors use language flash cards on site
    Ensure all staff are aware of the available language skills across the organisation
      Effectively monitor satisfaction surveys against ethnicity and the broad customer
       profile


5.10 Continuous improvement (slides 54 – 57)

5.10a. The mock inspection highlighted 17 strengths in this area (slides 54-55) and
which included items such as
    Performance is reported to board and gas servicing is included
    Quarterly asset meetings for full team and monthly local team
    Performance is addressed with contractors at the monthly core meetings
    Strategic core group meetings quarterly
    Annual away day with partners in responsive repairs
    Zero defects target with escalation process
    Benchmarking has been undertaken across the London and three-star ALMOs
    Involvement in London R&M forum
    Contractors using local labour and apprentices
    Pro master is to be implemented to provide greater reporting in asset
       management
    Repairs scrutinised by LBE
    Health impact assessment commissioned with positive findings

5.10b. The mock inspection highlighted 7 weaknesses in this area (slide 56) and which
included items such as
     During interviews staff generally did not provide feedback that the organisation is
       performance driven
     Targets are not all challenging (repairs satisfaction target 90% with 91.2%
       achieved)
     Service plans are not SMART, too many actions (RM1) and progress is not clear
     Lack of incentives in partnership working
     The lack of robust resident involvement in planning, delivering and monitoring
       service delivery will impact greatly on the ability to continuously improve
     Handheld technology not adopted by both responsive repairs partners

                                            1
                                            1
      Handheld technology not adopted by EH for data collection

5.10c. There were 6 recommendations of the mock inspection (slide 57) which are set
out below
    Effectively embed a performance management ethos within the organisation
    Review the targets across the service area and ensure they are challenging to
       ratchet up performance
    Review the service plans to ensure they are SMART and progress clearly
       monitored and updated
    Introduce incentives within partnership working framework to ratchet up
       performance
    Involve customers more robustly in the planning, delivery and monitoring of
       services
    Ensure hand held technology is introduced across partners and staff

5.11. Priorities before September 2008

5.11a. The mock inspection highlighted 18 Priorities before September 2008 (slides 58
– 60) and which are included in their entirety below.
    Develop the wider use of open book accounting and try to introduce some
       incentives
    Introduce handheld technology for data collection by staff and ensure both
       contractor are using them to increase efficiency
    Review the satisfaction survey procedure
    Review the priorities for responsive repairs
    Make the out of hours service seamless to the day time
    Develop a strategy for batched repairs and the reduction of emergency and
       urgent repairs
    Review the post inspection process of voids
    Take steps to improve the standard of void properties
    Reduce the level of variation orders on responsive repairs and reduce the £250
       allowance
    Effectively monitor satisfaction against ethnicity and vulnerability
    Involve tenants in the delivery and monitoring of services
    Resolve the long standing problems of outstanding CP12
    Ensure all CP12s are fully and clearly addressed
    Introduce a ten-year electrical testing programme
    Provide residents with a leaflet concerning asbestos
    Ensure all service plans are SMART and effectively monitored noting progress
    Provide staff and contractors with language flash cards and ensure they know in
       house language skills
    Ensure all relevant staff have undertaken asbestos awareness training




                                          1
                                          2
5.12. Long term priorities

5.12a. The mock inspection highlighted 8 long term priorities (slide 60) which included
are listed in their entirety below
    Increase the involvement of customers at a formative stage in the planning,
        delivery and monitoring of services
    Effectively evidence the reduction of home failing the DHS
    Resolve the issue of uncertainty on the eight key estates and undertake works
        following option appraisals
    Develop void completion times based on value of works and the volume of work
        required
    Develop an affordable warmth strategy
    Introduce an overarching procurement strategy
    Establish supply chain partnering with the involvement of tenants
    Take steps to reduce the level of chasing calls from customers


6.0. Issues to consider / Conclusion

6.1. The slides that have been provided by Ealing Homes to inform this report have not
yet been finalised and therefore and conclusions that are gained need to bear in mind
the status of the information provided.

6.2. The views expressed in the report reflect are from HQN who have written the
report (in the form of slides) for Ealing Homes. An actual inspection could give a
different view

6.3. However taking this point into account the slides provided do highlight the following
issues
     Three stars will be hard to achieve and repairs will be crucial in the next
       inspection.
     The inspection will be tougher than that carried out previously.
     Customer perception is a big issue for repairs as outlined by the key points made
       in slide 7 by the customer focus group.
     Service delivery, resident involvement and customer satisfaction are all areas the
       inspectors will be looking at and each of these will need to be considered
       carefully by Ealing Homes in regard to repairs
     Value for money is an area the inspectors will be interested in and there are
       issues raised in areas such as responsive repairs the management of empty
       properties and how Value for Money is managed. This is an area that will be
       need to be addressed.
     As identified in previous reports customers are not robustly involved in the
       planning , delivery and monitoring of this service area.
     Targets need to be more challenging in regard to resident satisfaction

6.4. HQN have stated that progress against previous Audit Commission
recommendations was disappointing. This needs to be explored further.

6.5. A key element in the improvement of the repairs service will be the Action Plan
Ealing Homes will implement in light of the Mock Inspection. It would be useful if the

                                            1
                                            3
repairs panel could see this as soon as it is ready as it will impact upon the findings of
their report.

6.6. Ealing Council pays Ealing Homes a management fee for the delegated
responsibilities, which include managing a £14million annual budget for revenue funded
responsive and planned/cyclical repairs and a projected £65million capital programme
budget for 2007/08. As highlighted in the slides effective working relationships with the
Authority will be required in this area and need to be improved upon.

7. Legal Implications
There are no legal implications specific to this report.

8. Financial Implications.
The level of repairs is limited by the level of resources available, the total repairs budget
for 2007/08 is £13.026m following the mid year reduction.

The costs of the mock inspection have been met by Ealing Homes from within their
excising fee.




                                              1
                                              4
 Consultation

Name of             Department                      Date sent     Date          Comments
consultee                                           to            response      appear in report
                                                    consultee     received      para:
                                                                  from
                                                                  consultee

Internal


Director        HOUSING Jo Rowlands                 2/1/08        2/1/08
Lawyer          Legal Services Keith Robinson       2/1/08        2/1/08        7
Finance Officer Director of Finance Dave Ewart      2/1/08        2/1/08        8
Councillor GreenCabinet Member for Adult Services   3/1/08
                   and Housing
Consultant
A N Other
Police etc



       Report History
Decision type:                                               I.    Urgency item?



For information (delete as applicable)       No




Authorised by Cabinet      Date report       Report deadline:              Date report sent:
      member:               drafted:


     Report no.:        Report author and contact for queries: Mark Brayford
                        First and surname, job title; Head of Strategic Client Management &
                        Performance
                        brayfordm@ealing.gov.uk
                        tel. 0208 825 5766




                                               1
                                               5

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:22
posted:6/28/2011
language:English
pages:15