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:

Several months ago, I posted the topic 'Housing association has partially withdrawn our Internet access',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:

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!

This is the letter I sent,

"Customer Care

Severn Trent

PO Box 407

Darlington

DL1 9WD

14 September 2022

Dear Sir-Madam

I would be grateful if you could help me with two questions:

1) Last December I was told I owed £1,384.78, but on August 30^th I got a bill for £2,092.17. I do not recall getting any bills in this period.

Could you please therefore give me complete details of all the charges you made between December 2021 and August 30^th 2022 so I can see exactly how £1,384.78 became £2,092.17 in just eight months?

2) Examining the bill for August 30^th, I found that you claimed my average water usage was 0.71 cubic metres per day, and that that was the equivalent of 1,250 pints or 4,175 cups of tea per day. This is simply absurd.

Here is my water usage for the average day:

• I boil a kettle about 5 or 6 times, using only enough for one mug.
• A couple of times a week I boil one or two potatoes.
• I wash the dishes twice a day.
• I wash my face and hands at the washbasin about twice a day.
• I flush the toilet about twice a day.
• I never use the bath or a shower – instead, I use a communal shower away from my flat.

This must surely amount to a tiny fraction of the 1,250 pints you claim I use.

I would like to check if there is any leakage, but for that, I would have to mxake two meter readings, and the metre is completely inaccessible to me because of my physical state – it’s nearly on the floor, deep inside a cupboard, and if I lay down to read it, I do not know how I could get back up again.

So, assuming you accept that my usage is as outlined above, can you agree that the usage figure you quote must be a wild exaggeration?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely"

Thanks.

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.

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

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.

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

Stu007 kindly suggested a message I could send them, so I based my latest message partly on those suggestions. It's a bit long, but I can't really help that. I get a bit shirty towards the end, but that's just the way I'm feeling about the way we're being treated. Anyway, here it is:

"Thank you for your email; unfortunately, I have not found it very helpful, and it has just added further issues to this matter that I must make you aware of. I think it best if I describe the present position we Firs residents are in with respect to this computer:

Sorry it's here twice. This tablet's a nightmare.

OP here. Have just found their 'manifesto' on digital inclusion. Will attach it here if my ancient tablet and my supermarket's Wi-Fi allows:

Customer-and-Community-Engagement-Strategy-2021-2026.pdf

gy-2021-2026.pdfCustomer-and-Community-Engagement-Strategy-2021-2026.pdfCustomer-and-Community-Engagement-Strategy-2021-2026.pdf

Original poster here. I thought I'd bring people up to date on this.

I'd contacted my local newspaper, and a report did phone me and ask me about the problem. I told her everything as carefully as I could, and said I'd be more than willing to be interviewed. She said she'd contact the HA, but I've heard nothing since. My guess is that whoever she spoke to convinced her I was a 'vexatious complainant' (my HA is fond of using that term) and that's cwhy the reporter has just dropped the story.

I have just go an email from the CEO, but I don't find it satisfactory at all, and I'm not even sure I believe what she's saying. Here it is:

"I trust you are keeping well and believe we have also had a similar enquiry from your local Councillor, so thought I would write to clarify the situation regarding the computer at The Firs.

The computer was actually replaced last October, when the last one died. There are routine upgrades done to all Platform computers usually for security reasons.

The changes you have noticed on it’s operating systems and the shift to Kiosk mode are for exactly that reason, to keep the computer and our residents personal data safe and secure.

Google Chrome will no longer be supported as a product from January next year and since June last year is only getting “necessary “ maintenance by Google. So like you we are all having to move over to Edge as our new browser, although you will find once you get used to it the functionality is exactly the same as Chrome. So we cannot go backwards and re-instal a product which is going to become a security risk soon.

Regarding the ability to print documents from your mail box. Whilst USB drives are equally a security risk, to help with this the IT team are shortly due to instal a printer to the computer to allow direct printing of anything you should need.

With direct access to the internet you should be able to access your mailbox and any online storage to allow you to send documents to yourself from the internet.

I have asked the IT team to verify if any of our settings are preventing you copying URL’s to other platforms as this is not a standard setting and it has not come up before. If there is something preventing this which is unique to The Firs it will be removed

I hope you will see that this is for the safety and security of all at The Firs and Platform, which becomes ever more important every day.

Regards

Elizabeth"

She seems to be saying that this is all to do with safeguarding residents' personal data, but I feel certain that this could have been done without locking us out of the computer. 

I got a letter a while ago on this subject, and they don't even seem to be telling the truth about ad-blockers. I'd told them that we had the adblock extension on Chrome, but now, there were popups all over the place. They replied that even their staff computers don't block ads. I think that's disingenuous - I've just looked on Google, and Edge has its own adblocker - you don't even have to use a third-party program. But to activate it, you need to go to Settings, and Settings has been locked out. 

I think what is upsetting me the most is that they're treating us like children - I think they could easily fix it so we could download stuff, store things on the PC itself, and use USB sticks, without compromising security. After all, this was the case for at least the last 12 years. But instead they seem to have the attitude of 'don't let the tenants do any more than WE think they should be allowed to do'.

It's an attitude that pervades this organisation.

If the local newspaper won't run a story, the only other thing I can think to do will be to go to the Housing Ombudsman. 

I did write to my local newspaper (the Worcester News) about this, but did not even get a reply. I tried again this morning - here is the message, with names redacted:

"Dear Ms [NAME]

2 hours ago, dx100uk said:

That will be binned immediately.

 

One page

A few very brief paragraphs of no more than 20 words.

 

Dx

Thanks. The thing is, I've already sent it. What should I do? Should I send a shorter one?

Once again, my thanks for everyone helping me here.

There is one important fact that just occurred to me this morning - it had clean slipped my mind.

Although we've had the same computer for at least 12 years, it used to be configured very differently. For years, every tenant had their own private account if they wanted one. This meant that when you switched the computer on, you got a screen with a list of tenants, each one with an 'avatar' just to the left of the name (if they wanted an avatar). You clicked on your name, then put in your own indidivual password, to gain access to the computer. This meant you could store files securely, you could have your own set of bookmarks for the Internet, and so on.

But then they changed it so there was only one password to access the computer, and no individual accounts at all, which meant that if you downloaded an email or created a text file and forgot to copy it to a USB stick then erase it from the computer, anyone could see it. Then they changed it again: now, there's no password: you switch on the computer and up pops Google.

OP here again.

I'd asked a local council to intervene on my behalf  about this problem and a few days ago I got  a reply. I've pasted it in its entirety (I had to go to the library in town to go on a computer that allows me to do this - it shows what a pain this change to our computer is). The councillor's words are in italic bold, and my responses are interleaved with them.

"I  have now received responses from Platform regarding applications available on the communal computer.

"

12 hours ago, dx100uk said:

does your HA not provide WF-FI?

 

many do.

 

or does your pc not have a wi-fi card or there are no wi-fi signals?

 

have you a mobile phone you can use to see if there are any wi-fi signals nearby.

The only Wi-Fi comes from a box right next to this computer: none is provided in our flats. I couldn't hump my PC here from the other end of the complex, and anyway, it's too old to have Wi-Fi capabilities.

Their are no tenants near me that I could share wi-Fi with.

5 hours ago, brassnecked said:

Looks like the HA IS the problem DX one question for Dave2019 do the HA staff when they do come in use that computer at all?

Reason being they might want to lock you all out due to a Data Security Policy they implemented for GDPR, they do get paranoid some HA IT depts.

5 hours ago, brassnecked said:

Looks like the HA IS the problem DX one question for Dave2019 do the HA staff when they do come in use that computer at all?

Reason being they might want to lock you all out due to a Data Security Policy they implemented for GDPR, they do get paranoid some HA IT depts.

 

 Good solution would be as DX suggests a shared connection,  if another Tenant has their own Broadband and wifi router  or something like BT essentials if you can manage £15 per month cut the HA out of the loop.

 

As you are disabled have you claimed all your entitlements along with Pension like Attandance Allowance?

No, staff don't use the computer at all. Nothing related to the HA has ever been stored on it.

I'm pretty sure I'm getting all the state benefits I'm entitled to.