Hi stu007 Thanks for being so supportive. My feelings about their reply were exactly the same as yours: I'm almost certain they're lying when they claim they didn't reply to the GP's email because 'the person concerned is no longer in the organisation. This housing officer had a very important title: Regional estates and Neighbourhoods Manager. Surely then, when he left, his email account would have been taken over by someone else? There were bound to be issues that were 'ongoing' and that this man's successor would have had to have access to any emails concerning such issues. You ask if they have responded to the GP, and I'm almost certain the answer is 'no'. To ensure you have an accurate picture of the situation, I'll quote my email to the HA, and their reply. I'll redact all names. My email, sent on January 6th: "Dear [name of CEO] In June of last year I visited my GP, Dr *****, and told him I was continuing to feel deeply depressed, and to have suicidal thoughts, because of issues relating to [name of HA]. I asked him to appeal to [name of HA] to meet with its staff to try to resolve things, because I believed this was the only possible way my mental health could be improved. I reminded him that he had twice made such an appeal to [name of HA] but that its staff had refused to meet with me; I then told him that in spite of this, I needed to ask him to make one further request for a meeting, because I could think of no other way to address the serious depression I continued to experience. Dr ***** readily agreed to my request. When I had heard nothing from Dr ***** by November, I wrote to him to ask if he had contacted [name of HA], and he responded by sending me a copy of an email he sent to [name of housing officer]; however, to my dismay, in a covering letter he said that although he had sent it to him in June, he had received no reply. This letter clearly stated that my mental health was in an extremely poor state; it said: "Invariably, he remains very preoccupied about this whole situation and it continues to affect his mental state which continues to show some depressive features. He is also still troubled by distressing and intrusive thoughts around suicide." In view of the important nature of Dr *****'s email, I need to know why your staff did not reply to it. I would be grateful if you would reply to this message personally. Yours sincerely" Even though I expressly asked the CEO to reply personally, my reply came from a person in 'Customer Feedback'. It read: "Dear Mr ***** I acknowledge receipt of your email sent to to [name of CEO] on 6 January 2023. I would like to inform you that [name of housing officer] is no longer with the organisation and therefore he didn't respond to your doctor's email. Please advise what issues relating to [name of HA] remain outstanding, once I receive your response I will be able to advise the most appropriate place to direct your enquiry. Kind regards [Name]" I hope this helps to put you in the picture.

Several months ago, I posted the topic 'Housing association has partially withdrawn our Internet access', https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/454673-housing-association-taking-away-internet-access-due-to-kiosk-mode/page/4/#comment-5181916 and was given some great advice. Caggers stayed with me as I battled with my HA, trying out this advice, but the HA finally wore me down, so the topic thread just ended. People here were so supportive, however, that I have decided to use this site to talk about a much more grave problem I have been having with this HA - one, in fact, that has for some time been causing me to have serious thoughts of ending my life. My main reason for starting this topic was an email I recently got from them, and I wanted to ask if people here think the HA was telling the truth in this email, but in order to get to this, I have to give you all the full story. It's so long and convoluted that it would take up several screens, so I'll have to severely precis it. If anyone needs to ask any supplementary questions, however, I promise I will answer them fully. Briefly, several years ago, I twice tried to sue the HA for negligence because of problems I was experiencing with neighbours in the multi-occupied housing scheme where I live. Both claims were struck out on legal grounds, as it appears a HA cannot be sued for negligence; however, everything I had written in those claims was true, and any judge would have seen the HA had behaved very badly towards me. Nevertheless, the HA has always said that these claims were 'totally without merit', suggesting the HA had done nothing wrong, when it knew this was not the case. I kept on complaining about the way I was being treated, and at the same time, the neighbours who had been causing me problems (two women, plus a few of their friends) began to make some disgusting allegations about me. For example, one of the women, my downstairs neighbour, claimed I was deliberately making her life a misery with noise nuisance, while the other (close friend of the first) claimed she carried a rape alarm with her everywhere she went, just because of me. As someone who has always valued his reputation, this destroyed me. Then in 2016, the HA applied for an injunction against me under the 2014 Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act; as someone who has never in his life behaved in an antisocial manner towards anyone, this upset me more than I can say. The application included witness statements by those two women, stating how much they were being harassed by me, even though I had not spoken to either of them in two years, and had done everything to avoid them. There was also a witness statement from a housing officer claiming my letters of complaint to them were causing them a lot of work, and even suggesting that a complaint I had made to the Housing Ombudsman constituted antisocial behaviour. I was determined to defend the case, but two women who were to appear as my own witnesses began to experience intimidation from the two women I have already mentioned, plus their friends, and my barrister told me life would be very difficult for them if they testified for me; they both suffered from depression and had partners who were very ill, so I could not let them testify. So instead, I agreed to sign an Undertaking which said I would not try to contact either of these women (even though I hadn't gone near them in two years) and would limit my correspondence with the HA to one letter per month. Now here's the important thing: I am totally certain that the HA only made this application to limit my ability to complain to it. One women had claimed I was causing noise nuisance, but my next door neighbours had told them I was so quiet they never even knew when I was in the flat, and the other woman claimed she carried a rape alarm because of me, but when the HA contacted my previous social landlord (I learned this after making a Subject Access Request) they had been told that in the five years I had been with them, I had been 'an exemplary tenant'. Plus, one of the housing officers heavily involved in this injunction application had told be he knew I was 'a very civil man'. What had happened was that the HA knew these women had an axe to grind, and had used them to get the only thing the HA really wanted: a limit to my ability to complain to it. In the two years the injunction was in force, neither woman complained about my behaviour, even though it had not changed. I am in no doubt about what was going on here: the HA wanted to stop me writing to it, and it knew my complaints did not constitute antisocial behaviour, so it 'piggybacked' its attempt to limit my ability to complain on a bogus claim of antisocial behaviour towards other tenants. Anyway, I kept to the terms of the Undertaking, but in August 2018, just as it was about to end, the HA renewed the application. This time, the only thing it asked for was a limit to my contact with them, claiming that my complaints were antisocial behaviour (which was ridiculous). I was determined to defend the case, but a barrister I had approached under the Direct Access Scheme persuaded me to opt for mediation instead. I hated the idea, but he said (and these were his exact words), "If this goes to Court, even if you win, this will severely affect your chances of being taken on by another landlord. They'll say 'This one's been dropped on the floor, so we won't bother'". When I agreed to mediation, I made it very clear that the chief thing I wanted from it was the chance to clear my name, by showing once and for all that I was a man who had never, and would never, behave in the way those two women had claimed. I told the barrister I desperately wanted my good name back, and this is why I was prepared to choose mediation. On the day of the mediation, in the presence of two the the HA's housing officers, their solicitor, my barrister, and the mediator, I made an impassioned speech about how I would never behave the way I was portrayed, and that all I wanted from the mediation was to get my good name back. It did no good: when it was the housing officers' turn to speak, they rigidly stuck to their claim that I had behaved antisocially: one even said to me, in everyone's presence, that 'it had taken housing officers lot of work to undo the harm I had done to those two women'. My barrister stayed silent: he did nothing to challenge them. I felt helpless and wretched, but I was given no further chance to speak, and it was clear my barrister was not going to help me. When the draft of the settlement agreement came, one clause stated that I agreed that everything between me and the HA had been resolved and that neither of us would ever refer to any of it again. A total lie. Another clause required me to withdraw a complaint I had made to the Housing Ombudsman about a housing officer who had lied to the police about me, even though I could fully substantiate this allegation. Signing it was the last thing I wanted to do, but I knew that if mediation failed, the HA would continue with the court case (it had already set an exact date, the next month), I had already paid £2,000 for the mediation, my barrister told me that the court case could easily cost me a further £10,000, and he strongly hinted that because the HA was a public body, even if I won the case, I would not get any of my costs back. He even mentioned that their were instances where someone had won a case yet still had to pay his costs and the other side's costs. Also, my barrister was right behind everything the agreement document wanted me to do (for instance, referring to my complaint to the Ombudsman, he said, "We're dealing with this matter by burying it"). So, dejected, beaten, miserable, I signed the document. This resulted in something called a Consent Order being made, and this has effectively tied my hands ever since. I should say here, just for the sake of clarity, that I am 100% certain that my barrister was really working for the HA, though probably without its knowledge, because he knew all the money he makes is from representing landlords like the HA, so he wanted to curry favour with them. I can't prove this, but there's a lot of very convincing evidence which I won't go into, as this topic is already too long. Anyway, this brings me to my main reason for starting this topic. I was already suffering from severe clinical depression, and signing that agreement against my will plunged me into a really deep depressive state, worse than anything I'd every experienced before (and I've suffered from depression for decades). The fact that I was regarded as a man of very poor character but could not by law even protest against this allegation, because of that Consent Order, was the main reason for this. I finally emailed the CEO to tell her how bad things were, and that I was finding that my suicidal thoughts appeared to be turning into definite plans. I also told her in great detail just way I was feeling this way (these emails actually breached the Consent Order - that is how damaging that document was to me). She and another officer finally agreed to meet me, but as it was the height of Covid, it had to be in the outdoor area of a cafe, with lots of other people talking on nearby tables, which made it a very bad venue for what I had to say). The meeting achieved nothing, and I could see they were not prepared to be honest: for instance, the other officer told me she would look into my case again, but when I handed her a thick wallet file and told her it contained lots of evidence to support my claim that I had never behaved antisocially, she refused to take it. I knew the 'investigation' would be a whitewash, and it was: the resulting report was just a re-hash of all the poorly supported allegations against me. This plunged me into despair. So, fast forward to October 2022. My GP wrote to the HA to say that my not being able to recover my good name was causing me severe mental problems. He stated that the treatment I was being given would not work unless the cause of my depression was addressed, and so for this reason, he wanted the HA to agree to meet me to argue my case and try to get my good name back. The HA replied to him, flatly refusing to meet with me. In December 2022, after I had seen my GP again, he again write to the HA. This time he stated that 'if the HA refused to meet me, he was worried that as a result there was a likelihood of what he termed 'completed suicide', by which I think he meant that I would attempt suicide and succeed in that attempt. The HA's reply was the same; a flat refusal to meet with me. Their was also a whopping great lie: the letter said that 'every alternative to resolving this matter had been tried and exhausted'. Nothing had been tried. The letter also implied that the Consent Order prevented the HA from meeting with me to discuss this matter, but that was rubbish, because it did not prevent the HA from making that thoroughly bogus report. Then, in June of last year, with my mental state worse than ever, I again asked my GP to request a meeting with the HA. He agreed, but I heard nothing for months. Then in November, I asked my GP if he had contacted the HA and he said he had emailed them, in June, but had not had a reply. He gave me a copy of his email, which once more stressed how serious my mental state was. I then emailed the CEO, using her own email address, asking her why the HA had not got back to my GP. I asked her to reply to my email personally. But in spite of this, the reply came from 'Customer Feedback'. It said: "I acknowledge receipt of your email sent to *****, Chief Executive on 6 January 2023. I would like to inform you that Mr ***** is no longer with the organisation therefore he didn’t respond to your doctor’s email. Please advise what issues relating to Platform remain outstanding, once I receive your response I will be able to advise the most appropriate place to direct your enquiry. Kind regards" So, I'd really appreciate people's thoughts on this. One thing I'd particularly like to hear people's thoughts on. I strongly suspect that this email was a lie, and that the HA had read my doctor's email but had just not bothered to reply. So I have to ask this question: if the officer my GP had sent this email to really had left the organisation, would this mean the email would not have been read? This officer had a really fancy title - something like 'Regional Estates and Neighbourhoods Manager' - so the HA would have known that quite a few of the emails sent to him would have been about important matters, and could be part of an ongoing correspondence. So if he left, wouldn't the management of his email account be changed in such a way that the new person occupying his position would get to see any emails sent to the previous occupant of that position? The HA knows that it looks very bad for it to receive three messages from a tenant's GP, all stating that the tenant was suicidally depressed because of a problem he was having with the HA, so it would be useful for it to claim it just never got to see the third one, even if it did. They're dishonest enough to do that - there's no doubt about that at all. I'll leave it there. Sorry it's been such a long post, but believe me, it would take a post several times longer to tell everything. If you've read this to the end, you have my heartfelt thanks.

This does make it sound as if Platform Housing's claims about the security of tenants' data is a bit disingenuous. And they completely ignore the fact that we were using the PC without Kiosk Mode for ten years and never had any problems with viruses, personal details being hacked, etc. But it's like banging your head against a brick wall, trying to discuss anything with them. The only option I have left is to make a formal complaint, and if this doesn't get me anywhere (which it probably won't), wait the obligatory eight weeks then take it to the Housing Ombudsman. But I don't hold out much hope of the HO doing anything to help, because they've got the worst possible reviews on Google and Trustpilot.

No one has ever come to my flat and asked to read the meter (which is at the bottom of an airing cupboard in the kitchen). There's a thin cable that runs from the meter and through the outside wall, and there are black circular structures on the outside of the building, and in the corridors. I've always assumed that they were a means of reading the water meters remotely. However, I've just looked at the bill I got on August 30th and it says: Previous reading for 28 Feb 2022 - 00764 Latest reading for 30 August 2022 - 00894 But strangely, for both figures it says 'estimated reading'. If they really can read the meters remotely, why would they give an estimated reading? They've never contact me asking me to give them a reading. As to the reading when I first moved in, I didn't think to take one, and it was way back in 2010.

Hi Original poster here. I stopped contributing to this thread because I was just fed up with the battle I was waging with Platform Housing, my housing association, and more or less gave up. It was very bad-mannered of me not to say this and to just leave the thread hanging like that. I do apologise. I'm starting it up again because I've decided I want to fight on. It's partly because it's a pain having the computer the way it is when we had no trouble with it for literally years, but it's mainly because I hate the arrogant attitude of this housing association: it sees us all as 'mere social housing tenants' who should be jolly well grateful for anything it deigns to give them, and it automatically assumes that in any dispute with a tenant, it will always win. One development, in mid-August, was that someone with the title 'Digital Transformation Officer' came to the complex to 'give tenants some training on the new setup' - in reality, I think he was here to help Platform Housing justify what it was doing. I then emailed him about the problems this Kiosk Mode was causing, and once again asking for things to be put back to the way they were. I got a reply which included this: "Great to meet you this morning. I spoke to our Director of Technology and Delivery Group ICT this afternoon and, as promised, raised the issues we discussed. This is what I found out: Q. Is it possible to install Ad blocker on Edge in Kiosk mode? A. Unfortunately not. There is no way to do this. Q. Would it be possible to return the PC to 'full' mode rather than Kiosk? A. The issue is that if we do that and the PC becomes infected with a virus which infects, say your email, or online banking, or anything - we Platform Housing are responsible, because that virus came down our broadband onto our machine. However, IT seemed interested when I suggested what if the residents who use the computer signed something to say you took responsiblity. IT think that if Platform gifted the PC to the Firs, and residents signed a document saying this is an asset which Platform are transferring to you as a gift - they might buy that solution. Then you could do anything you want with the PC. But you would be responsible for repairs." It's very interesting that they're considering a move like this. Reading between the lines, I think they're paranoid at a tenant suing over some data breach (though that was never a problem in the previous ten years or more) and are taking the attitude of 'if the pc belongs to the tenants and something bad happens, it'll be nothing to do with us'. I'd be happy with this gifting idea, and I'd be able to manage the pc and install virus protection, etc, but if all the tenants have to vote on it, I don't know if it'll go through - they're all pretty old and not at all computer-savvy, so I think they'll say, "Oh, I don't like the idea of that - let's just stick to the way things are now". One interesting point. Yesterday I got an email message purporting to be from Yahoo, telling me I had to upgrade my email that very day, otherwise I'd be blocked. It gave me a link to click on to do the updating. It looked very official but I smelled a rat, and Googled it. It turned out to be a phishing scam, and if I'd clicked on that link, I would probably have had my email account hacked and all my private details there stolen. Now please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the PC being in Kiosk Mode would not have prevented that at all. Am I right?

Hi dx100uk Thank you so much for your very prompt and helpful reply. I should point out to you and the other caggers who have helped me is that the reason I don't respond quickly to their posts is that I don't have the Internet at home - I rely on a communal computer at the other end of my flats complex, and as it's shared, I can't always get on it when I need to. I just want to point out in case people think I'm just not bothering to reply promptly - in other words, that I'm being ungrateful for their help. As to whether Severn Trent are selling the debt - well, they clearly stated this in their letter of August 4th. In fact, that was the only thing that letter was about. But as I pointed out, on August 30th they sent a new bill, in their own name, showing that they hadn't sold it off yet. So have they changed their minds about selling the debt? I've no way of knowing. Yesterday I sent them a letter querying this. In the letter I also pointed out the fact that they thought I was using 1,250 pints of water a day, and I gave them details of my daily water usage (exactly as in my previous post here) to show them how ridiculous their claim was. If nothing else, this should reinforce the fact that this case is still in dispute. I'll try to send a copy of this letter as an attachment later this morning, but to do that, I'll have to borrow another tenant's laptop and connect it to wi-fi, as this computer (it's provided by my housing association) doesn't allow you to send attachments, as it's locked into something called 'kiosk mode'. You say a dca is not a bailiff - do you mean 'debt collection agency'? I'm assuming you do, but it's safe to be sure about these things. One other thing: does a debt collection agency have the power to employ a bailiff? I thought it had. Many thanks to you and everyone here who've been helping me. This is a GREAT website!

Sorry I created a new thread about this - I wasn't sure how to find the old one. I'm pretty sure they didn't get a CCJ or even apply for one, as they said they were going to do back in December. They didn't give me a Court date so that I could appear in order to contest an application, the Court hasn't sent me any word about having a CCJ awarded against me, and Severn Trent haven't told me they got a CCJ. The last four letters I've had were: 1) On April 25th they sent me another letter in which they told me (again) that they would be taking Court action against me if they did not hear from me. I responded by offering a Full and Final Settlement. 2) On June 27th they wrote to say they were unable to accept a Full and Final Settlement, and notified me of the total amount due. The letter also said my usage had increased since February 2021 and advised me to check for leaks. The letter then said that my case had now been fully reviewed at Stage 1 and Stage 2 of its internal complaints process and said that if I was still unsatisfied, I should contact the Consumer Council for Water. 3) On August 4th they sent me a letter titled 'Notice of Impending Debt Sale'. It said that if we were unable to agree to repayment terms, or if I did not contact them, the debt would be sold to a third party. 4) On August 30th, they sent me a bill for the current total debt, which suggests they had not sold the debt on. So it would seem from the above that they have not applied for a CCJ. ******************************************************************************************************************************************* On a related note, while I was examining the August 30th bill, I looked at my water usage for the first time, and I was quite shocked at what I saw. It said that my daily usage was 0.71 cubic metres per day. That meant nothing to me, but then it said this equalled 1,250 pints per day! That just can't be right. This is my daily usage: 1) Wash dishes twice. 2) Boil kettle about six times, but with the minimum possible amount of water - just enough for a mug of tea. 3) Wash face and hands twice, and shave once, with about half a washbasin of water each time. 4) Flush the toilet once or twice. Plus, I never use the bath: there's a communal shower elsewhere in the building, not on my meter, and I use that, because I can't get in and out of the bath anymore. This seems to amount to a tiny fraction of 1,250 pints per day. Trouble is, I can't check my water meter, as it's low down at the back of a cupboard, and the one time I got down to try to read it, I had a hell of a time getting back up again. One strange thing: they gave me my daily usage for the August 30th 2022 bill, plus that for the March 11th 2022 bill and the August 17th 2021 bill, and they all showed the same amount: 0.71 cubic metres per day. How can they be exactly the same? Anyway, I hope I've given people enough information to give a clear picture of the situation.

Last December, my water company informed me that it was taking me to Court because of the money I owed them. Over the months, I have been trying to negotiate a 'full and final settlement', but no matter what sum I suggested, they weren't interested. At the beginning of August, they wrote to me to tell me they are selling the debt to a debt collection agency, but confusingly, at the end of August, I got a letter from them asking for payment. it looks as though they changed their mind about selling the debt off. I'm now worried about bailiffs, etc, but I'm particularly concerned about a Third Party Order being applied against my State benefits. I get the State Pension, plus Pension Credit, plus Housing Benefit, plus PIP. So I'd be very grateful if someone can answer the following two questions: 1) From what I understand, the Pension Credit is the only benefit from the above that they can apply a Third Party Order to. Have I got that right? 2) How much are they allowed to take with a Third Party Order? I'd really appreciate any advice here. Thanks.

I haven't received a bill since I got their letter in December, but the next bill I get, I should be able to pay it.

I am with Severn Trent Water, and over several years I have managed to build up arrears of nearly £1,400. I'm in my late sixties, I live in social housing, and receive the State pension plus pension credit. Last December, I got a letter from them saying they were preparing to take this to the County Court. I asked them to provide me with copies of all the relevant bills, and I found them to add up to the figure they were claiming. I checked if any of the debt was over six years old and might therefore be statute-barred, but it wasn't. I was fairly sure I'd got letters from debt collection agencies about the arrears, so I wrote to ask if any of them had been 'sold on', but they assured me they hadn't. I should point out here that throughout our correspo0ndence, Severn Trent has been very fair and understanding - I really can't fault them on this. I've looked into the possibility of clearing the debt with a Debt Relief Order, and from what I've read on the CAB's website, it seems I'd qualify (though I realise that I'd have to go to a CAB centre and discuss it with a volunteer to be certain). What I'd prefer to do, however, would be to seek a Full and Final Settlement. This is where I need advice, as I have no idea what figure a utility company like Severn Trent would consider. I can get hold of £450, but that's slightly less than a third, and they might see that as derisory. I might in time be able to find some more, but I want to get this thing out of the way ASAP, as it's already dragged on for nearly six months (and I have to say, Severn Trent has shown commendable patience ). So, can anyone give me an idea of what proportion of a debt a utility company is prepared to accept as a Full and Final Settlement? Thank you.

Hi everyone Yesterday I got an email from the councillor I'd first contacted, asking me if things had improved. I thought I'd show you all my reply: "Thank you very much for contacting me. Unfortunately, my original message to you achieved absolutely nothing (though I'm sure you did your best). I have made further efforts to fix this problem, but to no avail, and it has got to the point where I feel I'm just talking to myself. I contacted the Worcester News and they ran an article, but when they approached Platform Housing, its response was totally unhelpful. I contacted my MP, Harriett Baldwin, but she got the same unhelpful response when she approached them. I then emailed Elizabeth Froude, Platform's CEO, but she did not reply. I emailed her again, with the same result. Platform is simply refusing to enter into any dialogue whatsoever. Its chief excuse regarding this change to our computer setup is that they want to protect residents' information, but I am deeply sceptical about this, because for one thing, they actually removed residents' long-standing protection a long time before they made this change. When I first came to The Firs, anyone who wanted a private account on the computer could have one: this meant that when you switched the computer on, you saw several icons with usernames beside them, you clicked on yours, then put in your own unique password to get into the computer. If you needed to save the odd file, this was in your account only, behind that password an inaccessible to other residents. But a couple of years ago, this was all changed: suddenly there were no private accounts, and not even a password to get onto the computer. If you saved a file, it was there for all to see, so you had to remember to copy it onto a USB stick then delete it from the computer, or just download the information directly onto the USB stick from the Web. But if you wanted your information secure, that was no problem. But now they've locked us out of the computer with Kiosk Mode in the name of security, and as you can see from what I've just written, it appears to be a bogus excuse. Platform has supplied a printer, but it's useless to us. There's no paper, we don't even know if there's ink, and worst of all, there's no way of knowing how it interfaces with the present setup of the computer. If I wanted to print out an email right now, I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to do it, and I'm one of the most computer-savvy people here. The other problems persist: 1) No copying and pasting. If I wanted to insert a link into this email, it would be impossible. I'm going to give you a link to a Platform Housing publication later on, but the only reason I'll be able to do it is because I've borrowed someone's laptop to write this message. 2) No ad-blocker. The Chrome browser had an ad-blocker that worked fine, but now they've switched us to the Edge browser, we're plagued with ads. Some websites are almost unusable. The Daily Mail and Guardian, for instance, are full of animated popups that distract the eye, and the Mail has so many ads, the whole screen jumps up and down as the ads load, for minutes on end. Youtube videos are interrupted ever couple of minutes or so. The thing is, Edge has its own ad-blocker, made by Microsoft, but Platform will not enable it, and we can't enable it ourselves, as all controls are locked away from us. I've asked Platform to enable it, but just got a flat refusal. 3) We still can't upload anything from outside the computer. For instance, if I were seeking your help on a matter that was affecting my health, and I needed to show you a letter from my GP, until recently that would have been easy: just scan it, put in onto a USB stick, write an email to you and attach the letter. Now, that is simply impossible. One very important thing to note is that in its treatment of Firs residents, Platform Housing is going against everything it claims to stand for when it comes to digital inclusion for its tenants. Here is a pdf of its 'mission statement' (which, I should remind you, I could not even link you to using the Firs computer): https://www.platformhg.com/download.cfm?doc=docm93jijm4n6904.pdf&ver=10036 Its treatment of Firs residents renders this publication meaningless. I hope you will contact Platform again and try to get its staff to engage with us. Thank you." I copied Platform Housing's CEO into the message. Probably won't do any good, but it's made me feel that at least I'm trying.

As suggested, I've just emailed my MP again. Here's the message: "Dear Ms Baldwin I am sorry to be writing to you a third time about this problem, but Platform Housing is just completely ignoring it: Elizabeth Froud, the CEO, will not even reply to my emails. One thing I feel I must point out is that Platform appears to be deliberately ignoring all its stated aims with regard to digital inclusion when it comes to the way Firs residents are being treated. It has published a mission statement titled 'Customer and Community Engagement Strategy', which can be seen online. It discusses its aims with regard to digital inclusion in considerable detail, but it would appear that in its treatment of Firs residents, it is flouting all of those aims. I will give some examples: On page 2: Its strategy identifies what it refers to as 'six themes that will support us in our journey to become a truly modern housing association'. Two it has clearly failed with in this present case are 'Our Customers' and 'Digital and Intelligence', as it failed to consult/notify its elderly residents of the changes to the computer and did not offer any support in the way of training to get used to this new system. On Page 4: It has failed in what it terms its 'People Values', as it never consulted/notified those tenants affected nor offered any training support to date, and when complained about has basically given the same unhelpful response: it has digitally excluding elderly residents without giving any good reason for doing so. The document states "We say what we’ll do and then we do it. We listen, understand and are empowered to make decisions". No, they don't listen. it says, "We are connected, collaborative and in it together. We want everyone to reach their potential and be the best they can be. We actively support each other to make this happen." in view of the way they are treating Firs residents, this is plain insulting. it says, "We are curious and courageous. We look for better ways to do things..." Better ways? Depriving elderly people of something they enjoyed for over 10 years? Page 10: It says "We will work closely with partners to support and influence community investment as we work to digital inclusion". They're doing the opposite with Firs residents. Page 12: It mentions its 'Digital4Everyone Programme', described as "training, help-centres, specialist training, better broadband in rural and digitally isolated areas " They appear to be doing the very opposite when it comes to Firs residents. It says, "We recognise that the availability of digital equipment, skills and abilities remain a barrier for some customers and in turn impacts their ability to access an increasingly wide range of services such as health, banking and leisure, as well as our own." This totally contradicts what Platform Housing is doing to Firs residents. Page 14: It says, "we will support the delivery of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion strategy to encourage diverse representation in opportunities for customers to co-create and influence the services we provide". There is very little equality and inclusion if poorer tenants are excluded from a vital facility like the Internet. To put it plainly, in treating Firs residents this way, Platform Housing appears to be just throwing away a lot of the values it claims to espouse, and what is worse, it seems perfectly happy to do so. In spite of all its stated aims, all it has done for us at The Firs has been to effectively remove a facility we enjoyed without any problems for over ten years. It claims we can use the new setup to do the same things we were able to do with the old one, but it will not show us how to do this. It appears to be treating us with utter disdain. With the greatest of respect, Ms Baldwin, if you are to help us in this, you will need to do more than simply accept Platform Housing's excuses for why it is treating us this way. This is an important matter. As you know, access to the digital world is becoming more and more essential every day, and people without such access are rapidly becoming side-lined by Society. For this reason it is simply wrong for Platform to shut us out of the one communal portal to the Internet that we have. Whatever Platform Housing is telling you, the way it is actually treating us is unacceptable. Yours sincerely" Don't think it'll do much good, but you have to try these things.

Once again, thankyou to everyone for your support. I've just sent an email to the newspaper, incorporating most of Stu's ideas. Here it is: "Dear Ms Preece I am afraid I only found your email notifying me about the news article a couple of days ago, which is why I have not replied until now. The article is just about perfect, and expresses the situation fully, but unfortunately, Platform Housing's response can only be described as 'fobbing you off'. It is wholly misleading. For this reason, I would be grateful if you would read what I have to say here then consider doing a follow-up article. I can assure you of my full cooperation. As an example of Platform's (in my opinion) disingenuous attitude, I will quote what it told you about the printer: "There are no files stored locally on the computer for safety reasons, a printer is present at this site and documents can be printed using it". That is utterly misleading. What happened was, when I complained, a few days later, a printer appeared next to the computer. It doesn't have any paper, and I don't know if it has ink or not. You can switch it on, but that's all. It appears to be plugged in and physically connected (ie: there's a lead running to the PC), but there's no way of knowing even if it has been installed, because everything on the PC to do with printing has been locked out. There's just the Internet and nothing else. I think I know more about computers than most people my age, but I certainly can't figure out how to print a document with this setup. And how can you get a document onto the PC in order to print it? You can't - the PC won't allow you to transfer any files onto it. You can only print stuff that is already on the Internet, and even that is not really feasible, as 'copy' and 'paste' doesn't work anymore. Worst of all, Platform just put this printer there, with no explanation, and appears to be totally unwilling to send someone from IT to show us, a bunch of pensioners, how to figure out how to use it. I also don't buy what they say about no files being stored on the PC 'for safety reasons'. For one thing, Firs residents hardly ever stored anything on the PC after the housing association did away with separate accounts and anyone could see what you stored there. The few times I stored a bit of text there when I'd forgotten to bring a USB stick, I noticed my file was usually the only one. The other thing is that it isn't about storing files on the PC - it's about putting them on in order to attaching them to emails, print them, etc. There are a number of other facts here that shows Platform Housing's apparent disdain for Firs residents: 1. The residents of the Firs were never consulted nor informed of these changes taking place to the computer : we had used it under the previous setup for over 10 years, and these are drastic changes. 2. We have been offered no assistance in the way of computer training for this new system therefore I feel we have been digitally excluded by Platform Housing. 4. I believe Platform Housing has breached its own policy by treating Firs residents this way. I would like to refer to Platform Housing Group Customer and Community Engagement Strategy 2021-2026 (see link below to download the PDF) https://www.platformhg.com/search?term=Customer+and+Community+Engagement+Strategy+2021-2026&search=Search&searchType=all Page 2: Their strategy identifies what it refers to as 'six themes that will support us in our journey to become a truly modern housing association'. Two it has clearly failed with in this present case are 'Our Customers' and 'Digital and Intelligence', as it failed to consult/notify its elderly resident of the changes to the computer nor offer any support in the way of training to get used to this new system. Page 4: It has failed in what it terms its 'People Values', as it never consulted/notified those tenants affected nor offered any training support to date, and when complained about has basically given the same unhelpful response: it has digitally excluding elderly residents without giving any good reason for doing so. The document states "We say what we’ll do and then we do it. We listen, understand and are empowered to make decisions". No, they don't listen. it says, "We are connected, collaborative and in it together. We want everyone to reach their potential and be the best they can be. We actively support each other to make this happen." in view of the way they are treating Firs residents, this is plain insulting. it says, "We are curious and courageous. We look for better ways to do things..." Better ways? Depriving elderly people of something they enjoyed for over 10 years? Page 10: It says "We will work closely with partners to support and influence community investment as we work to digital inclusion". They're doing the opposite with Firs residents. Page 12: It mentions its 'Digital4Everyone Programme', described as "training, help-centres, specialist training, better broadband in rural and digitally isolated areas ". They appear to be doing the very opposite when it comes to Firs residents. It says, "We recognise that the availability of digital equipment, skills and abilities remain a barrier for some customers and in turn impacts their ability to access an increasingly wide range of services such as health, banking and leisure, as well as our own." This totally contradicts what Platform Housing is doing to Firs residents. Page 14: It says, "we will support the delivery of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion strategy to encourage diverse representation in opportunities for customers to co-create and influence the services we provide". There is very little equality and inclusion if poorer tenants are excluded from a vital facility like the Internet. To put it plainly, in treating us this way, Platform Housing appears to be just throwing away a lot of the values it claims to espouse, and what is worse, it seems perfectly happy to do so. This is what I hope your newspaper will look into this matter again. Yours sincerely" They might do a follow-up, you never know.

Hi Since everyone here has been so helpful, I thought I'd bring you up to date. The detailed email I sent to Platform Housing's CEO that can be seen in post #56? She just ignored it. No reply. I sent a reminder a while later, but she ignored that as well. They've just stopped talking to me about the problem. I said I'd spoken to someone from my local newspaper, the Worcester News. I thought they weren't going to cover the story, but I found out later that they did. Here's the article: "A TECH savvy older man is having to take buses into the city centre to add email attachments after restraints were put on residents' internet access. [MY NAME], 68, claims he and other residents at The Firs in Kempsey are unable to send emails, download attachments or have free computer usage. He is having to travel into the city centre and visit The Hive's computers just to attach a document to an email. He explained that in the last couple of months, Platform Housing has put the shared computer on to kiosk mode which prevents residents from properly using the internet. [MY NAME] said: "Originally, any resident who wanted an account on the computer could have one. You would log in with a private password and could do anything you wanted on the computer. Around six weeks ago suddenly Platform Housing put it into kiosk mode." Kiosk mode only allows one application to run at a time and limits people's full use of the internet. [MY NAME]and other residents are unable to send emails, download attachments or have entirely free computer usage. [MY NAME] added: "The feeling is that they won't trust us with anything. We are not teenagers, we are people in our 60s, 70s and 80s we can be trusted to operate the computer and not abuse it. It feels like they have locked us out - they have digitally excluded us. It makes life very difficult. In our village, we are not served well by public transport. If I want to attach a file to an email I have to take the bus to Worcester library and use one of their machines." A spokesperson from Platform Housing said: "The computer equipment at The Firs is set in line with equipment at other Platform Housing sites at installation to ensure misuse or downloading of files for safety reasons. These computers are provided as a shared resource for our residents to use for safe internet browsing. There are no files stored locally on the computer for safety reasons, a printer is present at this site and documents can be printed using it." I won't comment except to say that the bit about the printer is rubbish. They did put a printer bedside the PC, but since we're locked out of the files part of the PC, I can't even ascertain if it's actually installed. There's no paper, and no-one has told us how to print a file using Kiosk mode. The only step I can take now is the Housing Ombudsman, but judging from its rating on Trustpilot and Google Reviews, there's probably no point. This organisation seems to have the attitude of 'they're just social tenants with no power, so we can treat them as we like'.

Original poster here. Just bringing things up to date. On April 15th I emailed Platform Housing's CEO with the message you can see in post #52. She has not replied yet, even though I sent her a reminder. I then emailed my MP, Harriett Baldwin, with more or less the same message. She contacted Platform Housing and forwarded this reply from them. "The PC is in kiosk mode, not only to protect the Group but also protect the tenants and their data. I understand that this has not been the case in the past, but recent innovations in Cyber Security for the wrong reasons have led us to install such a set up in all our schemes, which has proved to be quite popular, extremely secure and easily accessed and as previously mentioned, the device is a communal device that is owned by Platform Housing Group and we need to ensure that anyone using the PC has their personal data protected at all times. Cyber security is very important to us and running the PC in kiosk mode is one of the ways to minimize the risk of anyone's personal data being exposed to somebody else, it also minimizes the risk of the PC being infected with a virus, ransomware or any other similar threat that may put anyone at risk. There are also further implications for Platform to consider should a data leak arise, the ICO has the power to impose a civil monetary penalty (CMP) on a data controller of up to £17million (20m Euro) or 4% of global turnover. Microsoft edge allows you to view your emails and your cloud drive documents such as OneDrive or Google Cloud which negates the need to store documents on unencrypted memory sticks, this poses another risk altogether around data leak should the USB device be lost. The chances of the computer being infected under the new set up with a virus are very low compared to the old set up, we wouldn't have to build it from scratch, here we can simply re-create the user profiles, we understand that Kiosk mode does have some limitations and copying and paste is one of them, however this is in the interest of protecting the user, Platform and the PC. I would re-iterate that cloud storage is far safer; it's encrypted, clear audits are done on files with proper change control, zero chance of corruption as opposed to uncontrolled data that can reside on a memory stick which can be lost in most cases. I hope this helps - I am happy to answer any further queries if required. Kind Regards, Mohammed Zabir — Director of Technology and Delivery" This has not helped at all: we still can't do the things we could before they changed things on the computer, and basically, Mr Zabir appears to be saying 'everything's fine'. So this morning I emailed Harriett Baldwin again with this: "Dear Ms Baldwin I sent the email below to you on April 3rd, and received a letter from you in response yesterday. This letter contained a message from Mohammed Zabir, Director of Technology and Delivery, which purported to address my concerns, but as far as I can see, it does not. I had hoped my writing to you would solve the problem, but I find we are no further forward. I think it best to begin by commenting on what Mr Zabir wrote: He claims that tenants' being able to store our data on USB sticks threatens the security of their data, as they may lose the stick. But surely, that is up to the tenant. Platform should not prevent a tenant storing their data on a USB stick just in case he or she loses it. Nr Zabir also does not address the fact that we can no longer upload anything from a USB stick. I will give you an example of the inconvenience this causes. Recently, I had to email a scan of a document from my GP. Before this change, it would have been easy: put it on a USB stick, take it to the communal computer and attach it to the email. But instead, I had to take my USB stick into Worcester, get onto a computer at The Hive, and attach it to the email there. Buses from Kempsey to Worcester are very infrequent: if you need to use an OAP pass, there is only the 10.20am, 12,20pm, 2.40pm, 3.50pm and 5.20pm. Buses back are just as infrequent. This means that if you just want to send an email attachment, you have to waste perhaps half a day doing it. This issue of USB sticks also seems to be a case of 'one hand not knowing what the other is doing', as what Mr Zabir says directly contradicts what Platform's IT department told me in a letter dated March 15th: "Anyone using it [ie: the computer] should be attaching/saving stored files on a USB device". So do they want us to use USB sticks or not? Here is another example of how this change has affected us. Some of us use the computer to book flights, and the airline sends you boarding passes, which of course are essential. If like me, and some other tenants, you do not have a smartphone to display the pass at the airport, you need a printed version. In the past, this was easy; just put the pdf file on a USB stick and take it to a printer. But now, it is impossible. Mr Zabir suggests that it is possible to get around such problems by transferring such a file to websites like OneDrive or Google Cloud, but there are major problems here: 1) We're OAP's and not very computer savvy. I for one do not know how to use OneDrive or Google Cloud on this computer, or even if it's possible. If I had an email attachment like a boarding pass, and wanted to print it out, I would not have the faintest idea of how to use this computer in conjunction with those two websites to do this. As far as I know, there is only one person at The Firs who could figure out how to do it, and he has his own broadband so he never uses this computer. 2) Even if we could figure out how to use those websites to print stuff, we would need a printer. Platform did deliver a printer, but did not give us any clue on how to use it: we just came in one day and found it there. It has no paper, we don't even know if if has any ink, and worst of all, there seems to be no way of knowing if it interfaces with the computer at all. Year ago, the computer had a printer, but when it wore out, it was not replaced. It was easy to use it: if you wanted to print a document, you went to 'My Computer', then 'My Documents', clicked on the document the clicked 'print'. But all of that has been locked away from us now the computer is in Kiosk Mode. 3) The change to the computer has been a major one, and virtually nothing we could do before is now possible now. It might be possible to do them in a different way, but we can't figure out how to do it ( I know more about IT than almost anyone at The Firs, and it defeats me). If we are to adapt to this major change, we need training from Platform Housing, but we're getting none. As I mentioned before, it did not even warn us about the change, or consult us, and it certainly shows no sign of offering to train us to use the new system. They do not appear willing to address even the simplest of these problems. I will mention two: 1) Being able to copy and paste text and links is a crucially important part of using the Internet, but we can't do it anymore. This has nothing to do with Kiosk mode, it's just that there is a fault in the way the computer is configured. Platform Housing has promised to fix this, but weeks have gone by and nothing has been done. 2) When we had Chrome, it had its own ad-blocker, but now, we are plagued with distracting animated pop-ups. Some websites have so many, it is very difficult to use them. Edge has its own ad-blocker which can be enabled in seconds, but we the tenants cannot do it because we are locked out of all settings, and Platform Housing refuses to enable it . When I complained, all I got back was a letter saying, "We're under no obligation to provide this particular facility". When I first came to The Firs, it was run by a HA called Elgar Housing. It offered training courses in computing, and if we had any problems with using this computer, or did not know how to do a particular thing on it, IT staff were willing to come here and actually 'walk us through' how to do things. There were even notices on the wall of the computer room urging us to get training to use the Internet. But now, with Platform Housing, everything has changed. I will finish by saying that I strongly suspect that Platform Housing is no longer even prepared to have a dialogue with us about this problem. I say this because I emailed its CEO, Elizabeth Froude, describing the problem in detail, and though I sent the email on April 15th, I have not as yet received a reply. Despite what Platform Housing claims, I maintain that we at The Firs are largely (though admittedly no entirely) digitally excluded. If you read Platform's Customer and Community Engagement Strategy (available online) you will see that it expresses various aims regarding tenants' access to digital technology, and I would suggest that with us at The Firs, it is almost completely failing in these aims. I realise how busy you are, Ms Baldwin, but I hope you will appreciate that we at The Firs are elderly social tenants, that some of us cannot afford private access to the Internet, and that we live in a rather isolated rural situation. I am sure you will therefore see how vital the one computer we have here is us, and how severely this change is affecting us. Yours sincerely" I'd appreciate people's opinions on this. I'm sorry that this post is so long, but this is what tends to happen when you're in a long-running situation like this. In order to get Mr Zabir's message and my message to my MP into this post, I had to take a bus into town. I think this is a ridiculous situation.