Forum Topic

MOGDEN Legal Update - Residents' action against Thames Water

Heres a copy of an email sent by the Mogden Residents Action Group (MRAG) to residents affected by Mogden which may be of interest to some reading Brendford TW8. More proof of how an active community can get action where local authorities and government fail miserably especially when taking on poweful corporations. Dear Residents Mogden Residents Action Group (MRAG) will shortly be issuing a Press Release  to update all on the legal action against Thames Water, the continuing problems being caused by Mogden's management and the apparent complacency and apathy of London Borough of Hounslow officers in confronting and dealing with the situation effectively and to the satisfaction of the residents they purport to serve.In the meantime we thought it pertinent to provide you with an informal update.Most of you receiving this e-mail will be regular sufferers of odour and /or mosquitoes believed to be caused by the neglect of Mogden for many years and will presumably have already registered your intention to claim damages through leading environmental solicitors Hugh James.It was originally estimated that approximately 35,000 dwellings may have been affected by Mogden. We can confirm that following the Judges ruling that all residents believed to have been affected by Mogden since 1.1.1999 should have the opportunity to join the claim, letters have now been sent to more than 17,000 dwellings surrounding the Mogden site. The response to these letters has been overwhelming. Despite the rhetoric from Thames Water that they will finally address the odour and mosquito problems we firmly believe that the legal action is the only way to ensure they do so.Our reasons are exhaustive and based on at least 7 years of trying to communicate reasonably with Thames Water but we have failed to achieve any meaningful or satisfactory results - thus the legal action. Here's a very brief summary of examples of  what you are dealing with: Thames Water have been fully aware that there was  a serious problem at Mogden since at least 1989 but they failed to take adequate action. Following a campaign by residents in 1999 which led to the formation of MRAG and the handing of a 3,000 signature petition to Thames in 2001 they finally agreed to address the problem and advised that it would cost £50 million minimum. Following a Magistrates Court appeal hearing in September 2004 the District Judge concluded "I am satisfied that there existed and continues to exist a level of malodour which amounts in law to a nuisance" Following MRAG's presentations to MP's, Defra, Ofwat and Watervoice, Ofwat agreed that Thames may collect £40 million from water rates payers to assist in alleviating the problem. The work will only begin in 2006! Thames Water have refused to invest the additional £10 million to do the job properly. Twickenham MP Vince Cable met with Thames Water's MD Werner Boettcher last year and it was confirmed  that the odour abatement work which will be completed by the summer of 2008 will only cut odour pollution by around 50 per cent but Thames still refuse to invest the additional £10 million to complete the job properly! Dr Cable advised "It is clear that the improvements will take a long time and that odour problems will not be eliminated, merely reduced" Vince Cable also reported  "There is then a bigger project lasting to 2012 and costing £400m to expand treatment capacity" !!!! Given Thames Water's history of causing odour havoc whenever they attempt to expand the site, do you believe they can be trusted to increase the treatment capacity without causing misery to residents?  Thames Water are required by law to hold regular liaison meetings with residents to answer questions about Mogden. Thames have refused to invite residents who are affected by the odour. You therefore have no avenue to voice your concerns or ask questions on vital issues which are affecting your life and could do so for years to come. MRAG have asked Hounslow Council to host the meetings so that ALL residents groups may be represented. Hounslow have refused to do so. Only Hounslow Councillors who do not represent residents near Mogden are invited. Thames Water have failed to record accurate minutes of the meetings. Thames Water have failed to maintain sufficient odour monitoring equipment at Mogden since it has been standard industry practice in the early 1990's. Following complaints from a particular  area Thames have recently taken a high profile monitor out of service claiming it had been agreed to do so during the February 2005 residents meeting. Minutes of that meeting show no record of the matter having been discussed. Thames are required by law to issue quarterly newsletters to update the community on Mogden issues. They have failed to do so. Thames have refused to provide out of hours telephone numbers of duty managers so that off-site odour can be investigated. Thames have refused to monitor off-site odour. Thames are required by law to advise residents of any potential odour likely to be caused by plant maintenance, plant failure. Experience as recently as early February 2006 has showed us again that they are incapable of  adhering to procedures.  Hounslow Council have refused to address the problem and have refused to take expert advice. A new Odour sensing system has been developed by Manchester University and successfully trialed by Yorkshire Water. Neither Thames nor Hounslow Council were aware that such a new system existed.  Thames have refused to investigate the merits of the new system  preferring to stick with the old system at Mogden. The new electronic nose has been described as  "a revolutionary new odour sensor  system for use by STWS" MP Ann Keen met with Thames Water chiefs on 27 February to discuss our ongoing concerns about the management of Mogden. Despite repeated requests for an up to date assessment, Thames Water have failed to respond. However, following the meeting Ann Keens office has advised us:   "Ann remains  supportive of the action that residents are taking and will continue to lobby" The Community Group have issued a statement:   "The ICG fully and unconditionally supports the Mogden residents' litigation and Group Action, and applauds the residents who have taken this initiative to improve the quality of life for all local people.  "Furthermore the ICG has given its assistance and backing to the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) from the day it was created and recognises it as a definitive example of a community-based campaign which owes its success to its unswerving commitment to its objective, and to its unwillingness to compromise its independence in thought and deed"We believe legal action is the only way to deal with the situation and residents deserve compensation for the years of misery caused by Thames Water's apparent apathy. It has been shown that one cannot rely on the local authorities, Ofwat, Defra (and certainly not Watervoice) to deal with the problem. Don't miss out on this once in a lifetime opportunity to  "improve the quality of life for all local people." For more information on registering your interest to claim damages, please contact MRAG27@aol.com or contact Hugh James Solicitors on Freephone 0845 402 3257. Hugh James are taking cases on a 'no win no fee' basis and this high profile case is also being backed by the Legal Services Commission (formerly the Legal Aid Board)Please feel free to pass this email to anyone you know who has suffered the Mogden stench or mosquitoes.RegardsMRAG CommitteePS.  for your info we have pasted below a letter from the ICG which appeared in the press  this week2005 - Worst Summer on record for residents neighbouring Thames Water's Mogden site.for latest information on Mogden Residents Action Group go to OnLine Communities Ltd Website www.mogden.org.uk For News and Views on local community issues visit http://www.twickenham-online.co.uk/Dear EditorAs we approach the local elections, I have seen a great deal of literature emanating from the Labour Party in more than one ward proclaiming the party's support for the work of the Mogden Residents' Action Group and for the residents' group litigation against Thames Water.Speaking as a founder and committee member of MRAG I am naturally grateful for offers of support from whichever quarter.  The misery inflicted on thousands of local people by Thames with its pongs and mosquitoes is an issue which goes beyond party politics.  It affects us all.So one can imagine how disappointed I was to learn that a recent meeting of the "Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee" (a vehicle provided by Thames Water to liaise with residents, but from whose meetings most residents have recently been barred) was attended by Labour councillors and officers from Hounslow Council, and that during that meeting not one of the councillors or officers present saw fit to even mention, far less protest, the exclusion of MRAG, the ICG, community councillors, the Ivybridge residents' group Ivytag and representatives of several residents' associations from that meeting.By attending these meetings and accepting Thames Water's agenda New Labour and the council must know that they legitimise the exclusion of campaigning residents and assist Thames in perpetuating the myth that it continues to liaise with the community.Saki once observed that whilst politicians are wedded to the truth, like many married couples they sometimes live apart.  So too, it would appear, do the words and deeds of our local Labour Party.Yours sincerelyCouncillor Phil Andrews -Community, Isleworth ward.

Steve Taylor ● 7372d102 Comments

Good to see you admit to being a liar Robin.  I very much appreciate Cllr Andrews'  honest and open post as it is now clear that it was the the Keens themselves who instigated the state of non co-operation with the Council Administration.  Very silly of them I believe.

Steve Taylor ● 6072d

"A lie, no matter how many times it is repeated, remains a lie still."Well you should know.

Robin Taylor ● 6073d

"I seem to remember that they said they would 'reserve the right' not to co-operate."Absolutely correct, apologies for the typo."The council then passed a motion severing all links with them."Not "then", but several months later.  In the intervening period the Keens had already withdrawn their co-operation.  There is not one recorded instance of any co-operation by the Keens with the local authority in the period between when the Keens made their threat and when I tabled my Motion formalising the arrangement.  This is why you lie when you say the local authority, rather than the Keens themselves, instigated the state of non co-operation between the two parties.A lie, no matter how many times it is repeated, remains a lie still.

Phil Andrews ● 6073d

"...the Keens announced that they would "withdraw the right to co-operate with the new Executive" until I was removed from it."I seem to remember that they said they would "reserve the right" not to co-operate. The council then passed a motion severing all links with them.

Robin Taylor ● 6073d

SteveI'm afraid you are wrong to equate the unacceptable lack of co-operation with residents that is forthcoming from the Civic Centre with the stand-off between the Council administration and the Keens, and you are woefully misguided if you accept at face value the New Labour lie that the situation between Council and MPs was of the Council's choosing.When I was first appointed to the Council Executive (with the unanimous support of Borough Council, including that of the Labour Group) the Keens announced that they would "withdraw the right to co-operate with the new Executive" until I was removed from it.  The precise implications of the statement itself are of course open to interpretation, but the demonstrable fact is that the Keens declined to co-operate with the Executive for many months before I tabled the Motion, approved by Borough Council with the support of every Group other than New Labour, to formalise the arrangement.Add to that the fact that the Keens still do not co-operate with the Council some five months after I stood down from the Executive, and the cause of the breakdown in relations becomes obvious and beyond honest dispute.I must therefore challenge your suggestion that Hounslow Council's corporate reluctance to engage with residents over Mogden has anything whatsoever to do with the political situation vis-a-vis the Council and our alleged Members of Parliament.  It absolutely hasn't.However I do accept, of course, that this was not the main thrust of your posting which (amongst other things) quite correctly drew attention to the lack of support that has been forthcoming for the Mogden residents.My contention is that this quite unsatisfactory situation has arisen from our collective failure as an administration to truly change the culture at the Civic Centre to anything like the extent that, looking back three years, I would have hoped it would have changed by now.  I accept my due share of the blame for this.We have, in my view, committed far too much of our time and effort to reducing Council Tax and addressing other fiscal issues which, whilst extremely important, should never comprise the absolute beginning and end of a local authority's aspirations.Let me make clear that on many issues we have made major progress.  The Community Empowerment programme is rolling forward and - Mogden notwithstanding - is pretty much unstoppable.  We have broken the political stranglehold over our tenants' and residents' movement and more and more "ordinary" residents (insofar as anybody is ordinary) feel able to become involved.  Our Community Cohesion work - in fairness begun under the previous administration - has developed considerably.  But Mogden seems to be where resistance is being met, and we have not as an administration developed the structures nor even dare I say the mindset to tackle it head-on.Thus as a consequence of our preoccupation with money matters we approach the next local elections with the old structures having been shuffled but still essentially intact and with the power to impede progress being exercised with increasing bravado and audacity by unelected individuals who seem to have persuaded themselves that we will not be in a position to progress our community agenda after May 2010.  About that we shall see, however in the meantime we in the Community Group are absolutely clear that we wish to break the deadlock over Mogden and to do so soon, certainly before we start discussing the next budget or the winding down of the present administration in preparation for next year's election.  We have a strategy and we forever have a timeframe in the forefront of our minds.Unfortunately though we have no option but to try to take the bureaucracy with us.  I would be absolutely delighted if we could unilaterally overrule the craven and misinformed decision of SDC to approve expansion but there is the small matter of whether any attempt to do so would have any legal standing whatsoever.  These are the kind of obstacles which those on the outside have the luxury of being able to casually wish away, but those of us on the inside actually have to overcome.As you know Steve there are issues that arise from the SDC decision which are still unresolved and we will do everything we are possibly able to do within the law of the land to resolve them in the residents' favour, as indeed we always have.  You know we will do this, and you know the forces we are up against.As the election nears MRAG will as before suddenly find itself in favour with all manner of wannabe councillors and MPs who a few months ago couldn't give a cuss for the residents living around Mogden, as was demonstrated by the SDC decision.  By all means use them to the community's benefit, but please don't by so doing burn your bridges with those who have actually shown an interest between elections.Whether we like it or not we are in this for the long haul (goodness knows we've been all been at it for long enough already) and constructive strategic planning is far more helpful to us than anguished cries for help into an uncertain wilderness.  Thames Water, and the local authority, need to be left in no doubt that we know what we are doing and that we mean business.  Thankfully we do.

Phil Andrews ● 6073d

And the UK deserves to be taken to court for this failure. The fingers will point directly at this Government who have done nothing to hold Thames Water accountable for its failures at Mogden.Since 2000 we have repeatedly warned Ann Keen, Margaret Beckett,Hilary Benn, Larry Whitty, Alun Michael, Elliot Morley and Michael Meacher  that Thames Water was not managing its Mogden site properly and we have repeatedly questioned the failure of the 1999 / 2000 expansion program which cost taxpayers millions to ensure raw sewage would not need to be diverted into the River Thames. This Government has ignored the facts and the Hounslow Local Authority has been negligent and irresponsible in not taking the matter up at highest level. Hounslow Council's Leadership is fully aware of the process failures at Mogden and they are fully aware of why Thames Water is diverting flow to the River when daily flow is well below current process capacity. Despite our requests to meet with the Leader of the Council, Peter Thompson, he has refused to deal with the problem or meet with us because he is determined to bury his head in the sand, because, for petty political reasons, he refuses talk to Ann Keen.  Its a disgraceful situation when a Council is so full of its own self importance, it puts petty politics before its duty of care to the people it purports to serve.

Steve Taylor ● 6073d

The European Commission Press Release on taking the UK to Court for discharges into the Thames :http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1488&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enIP/09/1488Brussels, 8 October 2009Environment: Commission takes UK to Court over waste water collection systemsThe European Commission has decided to take the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice on the grounds that urban waste water collecting systems and treatment facilities in London and Whitburn in north east England do not comply with EU legislation. European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: " More attention needs to be paid to upgrading collecting systems to ensure full compliance with EU legislation on waste water treatment. Such investment will bring enormous benefits in terms of improving the quality of the environment." The Commission is taking action because it considers that the waste water collecting systems in London and Whitburn are being allowed to spill untreated waste waters from storm water overflows (known as 'combined sewer overflows' in the UK) too frequently and in excessive quantities. The Commission is also concerned that treatment capacity for the waste waters collected in London is in need of improvement. These shortcomings represent an infringement of the 1991 EU directive on urban waste water treatment.  The directive required Member States to put in place adequate waste water collecting systems and treatment facilities for large towns and cities by the end of 2000. The waste waters collected are required to undergo appropriate treatment before they are released. The directive provides that collecting systems and treatment plants may be allowed to spill waste water in certain situations such as emergency shutdowns or unusually heavy rainfall, but the spills being authorised in these two cases are excessive and go beyond what the legislation provides for. Untreated waste-water can be a serious threat to human health, since untreated waste water can carry harmful bacteria and viruses into waters used for bathing or other related forms of recreation. Untreated waste water also contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous which can damage the marine environment by promoting excessive growth of algae that chokes off other life. Legal ProcessArticle 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations.If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "Letter of Formal Notice" (first written warning) to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations within a specified period, usually within two months. In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "Reasoned Opinion" (final written warning) to the Member State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, normally two months.If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice. Where the Court of Justice finds that the Treaty has been infringed, the offending Member State is required to take the measures necessary to conform.Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice. The article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.

Tim Henderson ● 6073d

Sorry Simon - I did indeed. I'll read all the legal jargon again and revert but what I can advise is that I have signed it with no problem but my personal circumstances are not similar to yours.

Steve Taylor ● 6103d

Steve did u get my Private email a couple days ago as not had a reply.

Simon Anderson ● 6103d

The Mogden Residents Action Group has asked me to post this on TW8"Dear ResidentsThank you to all who have registered complaints about the failing Mogden site over the last few weeks. It has indeed been horrendous with odour being reported by a ward Cllr as far away as Osterley. There have also been reports of raw sewage smell in the river in Old Isleworth.  Complaints for February are set to break previous complaint levels for this time of the year. One resident of Isleworth has reported that the stench was without doubt the worst odour  witnessed in the 9 years he has  lived in this area. Another resident of Twickenham advised "This is so uncivilised as to be an offence against our citizenship,  not to mention our human rights. They are complacent to  the point of insult."Complaints have been passed to Hounslow and Richmond Councils (as appropriate), Ofwat, Defra and Thames Water. Thames Water has advised that it is unable to directly respond to complaints received via MRAG or any other third party that has been promoting legal action against Thames Water. The Council has advised that the Mogden  storm tanks were in continuous use for a 14 day period following a period of protracted rainfall  in the catchment area. During this period the works was discharging to river, via the outfall located near to Isleworth Ait. We have asked the Council to obtain verification of the protracted rainfall figures. We await a response. We have raised again your queries about Council out of hours contacts to report odour for immediate verification and investigation. We await a response to this too.Thames Water  website reports: "Although peaks were recorded on the odour monitor readings for this period, no unusual operational activity was taking place on site at this time, however following a period of heavy rainfall within the Mogden Catchment, full use of all the Storm Tanks on site were required.  The use of Storm Tanks, to their capacity, is likely to cause an increase in odour"  We have asked Thames Water why they are only covering two of eight storm tanks if storm tank usage is so horrendously odorous when no unusual operational activity is taking place.  We  have also asked Thames Water how many days per annum one or more storm tanks are in use due to heavy rainfall. No reply has been forthcoming.Despite all the odour problems from late January the Council has advised  that he works suffered a loss of sludge processing on Saturday 9th February which was caused by a failure of a level sensor in the thickened sludge holding tank. Sludge levels stood at 8,521m3 on the Monday 11th February.  The operational target for sludge stock levels at Mogden STW is 3000m3, with a trigger level to the local authority at 7000m3, however there is also an alarm level in place of 12000m3 at Mogden STW.  Thames Water maintain that although the levels reached 8,521m3 (nearly 3 times the target level) they believe the level of sludge reached over the weekend was only slightly elevated. What is quite astounding is that although Thames Water attributes some of the odour you experienced to the  "slightly elevated" sludge levels,  it would only issue notification to local residents that it is likely to cause a noticeable increase in odour if the levels reached the 12,000m3  'alarm level' It has been noted from the various complaints that many residents felt ill or had to cancel visitors to their houses etc and we believe that this stance adopted by Thames Water demonstrates a total lack of awareness  if not disrespect for the community or a total lack of understanding of the odour it creates and the processes in place or how to deal with it. It would appear that no effective odour management is in place on site at weekends or after hours.  The Works' plant manger has informed the Council that he is personally patrolling both within and outside the site. We wonder what the purpose of such patrols can be if so many complaints of odour have been registered> Is it to check that your complaints are valid?  We wonder too if such alleged patrols are limited to between 9 & 5 on weekdays only!!And the most preposterous Mogden event of the year! We learnt that odour experienced between 12 and 14 Feb was as a result  of  "Thames Water Research & Development Department have been running a trial on one of the Odour Control Units in the South West area of Mogden Sewage Treatment Works.This trial involved the testing of an alternative odour treatment process. This testing resulted in an unforeseen increase in odour."We believe that to state that R&D were running trials on an Odour Control Unit and that the resultant odour increase was 'unforeseen'  is just ludicrous.It is indicative of either a total lack of experience of Mogden site management or open disrespect for the local community and contempt the Defra Code of Practice and Thames'  own Odour Management Program.We asked Hounslow Council to take this up on your behalf as it was agreed that to run a trial at a time of high sludge levels and following  lengthy periods of odour this month was inappropriate. We have now been advised that Thames Water's Research and Development Dept undertook this trial without prior notification to the Mogden site managers.  We wonder just what calibre of management is entrusted to manage a site which has been served with an Abatement Notice which resulted in a court ruling that unlawful odour existed and continues to exist and continues to blight the communities of Hounslow and Richmond Boroughs. We wonder just what calibre of management is entrusted with managing the environmental impact of a site situated in an urban area when it is unaware of odorous trials been undertaken on their watch and they are oblivious to the nuisance.It would appear that this site still has extremely serious operational and management failures and the current situation is being addressed within the Council at the highest level to see what further options are available in dealing with Thames Water. We are awaiting a full report and will keep you updated. In the meantime please continue to log your complaints via MRAG27@aol.comMogden Residents Action Group (MRAG) Trevor Whittall -      chairman  (Richmond)Cllr Phil Andrews                      (Isleworth)Hanifa Dobson                          (Isleworth)Barry Edwards                          (Richmond)Murray Edwards                        (Isleworth)Simon Eaton-Walker                (Isleworth)Cllr Paul Fisher                          (Isleworth)Phil Hayman                                (Isleworth)Steve Taylor                                (Isleworth)Marianne Welsh                          (Whitton)  ENDS"

Steve Taylor ● 6671d

Extract from Mogden Residents Action Group release:  Complaints against Thames Water's Mogden site  for February are set to break previous complaint levels for this time of the year.One resident of Isleworth has reported that the stench was without doubt the worst odour  witnessed in the 9 years he has  lived in this area. Another resident of Twickenham advised  "This is so uncivilised as to be an offence against our citizenship,  not to mention our human rights. They  (Thames Water) are complacent to  the point of insult"Complaints have been passed to Hounslow Council, Ofwat, Defra, Thames Water. Ann Keen MP, Mary Macleod PPC and Andrew Dakers PPC, . More..............

Steve Taylor ● 6672d

The Mogden Residents Action Group has asked me to post this update: "Dear Residents Many of you have requested an update on the progress of the case. As you may be aware the case is extremely complex and there have been ongoing developments which at this stage are confidential. However, the Human Rights issues have now been listed to be heard on 18 March 2008. Solicitors propose to issue a further update on the Human Rights case to all affected claimants as soon as the outcome of the hearing is known. RegardsMogden Residents Action Group"

Steve Taylor ● 6687d

Bump!

Steve Taylor ● 6690d

I ventured into the area around Mogden this morning and could not believe the whiff!  Absolutely disgusting and surely a threat to human health.

Sarah Felstead ● 6694d

Major problems at MOGDEN again and major problems with Hounslow Council's handling of the post Abatement Notice enforcement of the procedures at set out in the Court Agreement. MRAG are awaiting a response from Hounslow's Leader of the Council.  Press release to be expected soon.

Steve Taylor ● 6694d

SteveThank you for flagging this up.  I too am unhappy with the lack of progress on this front and will be raising this issue at a meeting later in the week.  I hope to have more to report shortly.

Phil Andrews ● 6716d

Once again there appears to be a complete breakdown of Odour Management at Mogden and the last four days have seen several complaints about the failing Thames Water works. The Mogden Residents Action Group met with Hounslow Council on 31 October and requested that several issues be addressed as it is believed that the Council is not acting within the spirit of the Court agreement following the  Abatement Notice being served on Thames Water.  More than two months later the Council has still failed to address the issues. Watch this space for the full story and press releases in due course.

Steve Taylor ● 6716d

No Worries Steve...

Simon Anderson ● 6749d

Well done Simon. Your powers of persuasion are incredible.  Thanks for that

Steve Taylor ● 6749d

Mary has informed me she WILL be there!!

Simon Anderson ● 6749d

Morning...I sent Cllr Reid and Mary a Email this morning (which i copied MRAG into)Cllr Reid has emailed back to say she WILL be attending on the 9th.I will update you when i hear from Mary.

Simon Anderson ● 6749d

I'm confused, so I'm saying nothing till I find out more...

Phil Andrews ● 6749d

SteveIve no idea mate to be honest with you, you would have to address this with her i know as much as you do but i will send Mary and her a Email in the Morning and try and see what i can find out and get back to you OK mate...Have a good Night....

Simon Anderson ● 6749d

Simon This is not looking good for residents! Its difficulty to understand why Cllr Reid requested  back in September for the next meeting to be moved to a Tuesday when as an Executive member she would have been virtually certain NOT  to have been able to attend.

Steve Taylor ● 6749d

SteveI was at the meeting as we had a walk about first.At the end of the meeting we decide on a date for the next meeting at everyone agreed (in the Room) to the Tuesday Date.The as i said i was informed yesterday By Cllr Reid and Mary they had changed it to the Wednesday and that both of them could not attend the Wednesday.I am only telling you what i was told.Maybe a Email to Cllr Reid will clarify what she told me...

Simon Anderson ● 6750d

Philwhen i spoke With Cllr Reid yesterday she brought it to my attention and told me "We all agreed the Tuesday at the Last Meeting - now they have changed it to the Wednesday, Ive emailed them to tell them they have to keep it to the planned date the Tuesday and that she could not Attend the Wednesday" she was very angry about the date change.

Simon Anderson ● 6750d

SteveI was with Both Mary and Cllr Reid yesterday and it will be VERY unlikely they will be there as they informed me they other schedules to attend on the Wednesday Night.

Simon Anderson ● 6750d

Phil / Paul I have no idea because I wasn't there. I did read the minutes though and diarised the date of Tues 8th in case I was invited. I assumed all in attendance, and those whose apolgies were minuted,  would have read the draft minutes and the approved minutes?I am only going by what Simon Anderson posted yesterday: QUOTE:"I spoke To Mary Mcleod and Cllr Reid today and they got emails from them and have told them they are NOT impressed and the meeting has to be kept to Tuesday the day we ALL agreed on at the last Meeting.both Mary and Cllr Reid are very disappointed in Thames for doing this as they both cant make the Wednesday." UNQUOTEThus my confusion! If Cllr Reid couldn't anyway have agreed to the Tuesday date - why is she now 'very disappointed in Thames' for changing it to a Wednesday?I can't see the problem or am I missing something? It is imperative that the Lead Member for the Environment attends.

Steve Taylor ● 6750d

I also had to leave before the end of the last meeting and certainly did not hear any discussion regarding the date or day of the next meeting.

Paul Fisher ● 6750d

SteveI had to leave before the end of the last meeting, but I certainly wasn't party to any discussions concerning the date of the next meeting.I would be extremely surprised if Councillor Barbara Reid asked for what is traditionally a Wednesday meeting to be moved to a Tuesday, because as an Executive member she would have been virtually certain not to have been able to attend.

Phil Andrews ● 6750d

Its getting confusing.  It seems that the next meeting was accepted and agreed by all Cllrs present at the last  to be changed to the Tuesday?  Thus minuted. Then local Cllrs told Thames that they have their Executive Meetings on Tuesday Nights and are not able to attend so Thames changed the meeting to the  Wednesday. Now some Cllrs can't attend on the Wednesday either?  Seems like a shambles or am I missing the point somewhere?!  I can actually sympathise with Thames Water on this occasion as they seem to have done all possible to accommodate local Cllrs. It is imperative that Cllr Reid and Mary Macleod attend this meeting as the odour improvement programme draws to a close. All Cllrs need to be fully apprised of residents'  ongoing concerns about  the management of Mogden

Steve Taylor ● 6750d

Just Received this email from Thames:Dear Mr Anderson Thank you for your email, firstly please accept my apologies for the typingerror regarding your name. Regarding the next residents meeting, although the proposed date was the8th of January I have recently been contacted by local councillors toinform me that they have an Executive Meeting on Tuesday nights and are notable to attend any meetings on a Tuesday.  It has therefore been agreedthat the meeting should be moved to Wednesday the 9th of January in orderfor the local councillors to attend.  We would normally hold the ResidentsMeetings on a Wednesday evening and although on this occasion we didpropose Tuesday the 8th, unfortunately we have had to change the day onthis occasion. If the Tory Candidate would like to send a delegate to the meeting, theywould be most welcome. I do hope that you will be able to rearrange your diary in order toaccommodate the meeting on the 9th of January. Apologies once again for the typing error and change of date. Kind RegardsNatalie P.P. Natalie WilderCommunications ConsultantThames Water UtilitiesMobile:  07747 640077Thames Water Customer Services (24hr/day):  0845 9200 800 Mogden is the second largest Sewage Treatment Works in the UK, serving 1.8million people. Thames Water is investing in a project to significantlyreduce odour at Mogden Sewage Treatment Works by August 2008.  For moreinformation please visit our website at www.thameswater.co.uk/mogden To register for Mogden news email bulletins, email mogden@thameswater.co.ukwith 'Mogden - Register for news' as the subject line.

Simon Anderson ● 6750d

I received an invitation today also.  The meetings have ALWAYS without exception been on a Wednesday. This was agreed years ago at the request of various Residents Associations and Cllrs (and minuted accordingly)  so I can't see that Thames Water are wrong to arrange the next meeting for a Wednesday too. I am sure Cllr Reid and PPC Macleod can rearrange their diaries for such an important issue as Mogden.  It is vital that they attend!

Steve Taylor ● 6750d

maybe....lol

Simon Anderson ● 6750d

Me also!!

Paul Fisher ● 6750d

I just received one too.  Could it be that they read this forum?

Phil Andrews ● 6750d

SteveJust Received this Email: I am writing to inform you that the next Residents Liaison Meeting is dueto take place on Wednesday 9th January 2008.  There will be a guided tourof the odour improvement works starting at 4.15pm, this will take place atan earlier time on this occasion due to the shorter daylight hoursavailable.  The Residents Liaison Meeting will then commence at 5.30pm inthe Conference Room at Mogden Sewage Treatment Works. I hope that you are able to attend this meeting and I would be grateful ifyou could confirm your attendance to either the site tour and meeting. I look forward to hearing you. Kind RegardsNatalie P.P. Natalie WilderCommunications ConsultantThames Water UtilitiesMobile:  07747 640077Thames Water Customer Services (24hr/day):  0845 9200 800 Mogden is the second largest Sewage Treatment Works in the UK, serving 1.8million people. Thames Water is investing in a project to significantlyreduce odour at Mogden Sewage Treatment Works by August 2008.  For moreinformation please visit our website at www.thameswater.co.uk/mogden To register for Mogden news email bulletins, email mogden@thameswater.co.ukwith 'Mogden - Register for news' as the subject line.Ive Sent a reply which i copied MRAG into.

Simon Anderson ● 6750d

LIke I said Nor was I

Simon Anderson ● 6750d

Not me Steve.

Phil Andrews ● 6750d

I haven't been informed about the next meeting at all. Perhaps I am persona non grata again!! I'll check with MRAG if any members have been invited.

Steve Taylor ● 6750d

SteveHas Mogden contacted you to inform you they are changing the date of the next Meeting to a Wednesday?I spoke To Mary Mcleod and Cllr Reid today and they got emails from them and have told them they are NOT impressed and the meeting has to be kept to Tuesday the day we ALL agreed on at the last Meeting.both Mary and Cllr Reid are very disappointed in Thames for doing this as they both cant make the Wednesday.

Simon Anderson ● 6751d

On the issue of Thames Water's proposal to submit a Planning Application to almost double the capacity of Mogden, I hope as many activisits from Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and Green will support the community by supporting Cllr Paul Fisher at the IBAC meeting on 17 May  meeting by getting comprehensive answers from Thames Water. Expansion of the site, whilst residents continue to suffer, is not an option and all the the storm tanks must be fully enclosed without further delay. Thames Water must set targets for odour reduction and commit to investigating complaints and responding to residents responsibly via the Mogden Residents Action Group. Enough is enough as Thames Water shareholders have profiteered enormously whilst continuing to ignore the misery caused to residents by years of lack of investment and mismanagement at Mogden. The current OFWAT funding to reduce odour by a mere 50% is not sufficient. Thames Water must commit to contributing the balance required to do the job properly once and for all. When that is done they can start talking about expansion - but not before!

Steve Taylor ● 6955d

The following update has been issued to all residents who have registered complaints against Thames Water via the Mogden Residents Action Group (MRAG)  Dear Residents  (copied blind to protect email privacy) Solicitors representing residents in the case against Thames Water  have been informed by the Court that we are unlikely to receive a Judgement until towards the end of May. Residents argue that they should be compensated for the interference with their lives and reduction in property values caused by odours and mosquitoes from the site. They are also asking the Court to grant an injunction to prevent future problems. In the meantime complaints against Thames Water for odour during April have doubled against the same period last year and Thames Water has refused to invite key members of the MRAG committee to its next residents liaison meeting. Mosquito complaints started very early this year which Thames Water is unable to explain despite its claim to follow a strict year-round programme to treat and control mosquitoes at Mogden.  The company claims to spend  £139,000 on mosquito control at Mogden annually on a programme based on independent expert advice so we are unable to understand why the company cannot get answers from its independent expert advisors on why so many mosquito complaints are being logged.  We asked Thames Water why it is only contributing 40% towards residents' costs for gully cleaning and, as it has been proved that the mogden mosquitoes are now affecting residents well beyond 400 metres, why is Thames Water not making additional contributions so that the 400 metre limit can be extended? The questions remain unanswered.  Once again we thank the  many residents who took the time to register complaints via MRAG. Your complaints were passed to Thames Water Management but yet again the Company has advised that it will not respond to your complaints via MRAG. The company has also refused to  post complaints in full on its website as it advises that it only aims to give readers a 'general view' of the  issues raised  and questions have to be  "summarised to fit on to the webpage"  Likewise we asked Thames Water why it can't post full responses to questions raised and it advises  "We answer questions received with as much detail as necessary" We have asked Thames Water the relevance of boasting a Questions and Answers forum if it has such limited webspace. The question remains unanswered. During April Thames Water has cited the use of storm tanks used due to high rainfall as a possible cause of increased odour. Thames Water claims to have spent £millions on storm tank improvements to control odour since 2002 namely:  the 2002 improvement to the storm tank return line,  the 2003 storm tank control improvement and the cleaning and return uprating , the 2004 Storm Tank pump replacement, the 2004 Storm Tank Automatic cleaning system. We asked Thames Water if the current odour problems are as a result of the above improvements being failures. Thames Water advise:  "The improvements carried out to the storm water storage tanks at Mogden have not failed." Thames Water previously boasted spending £40million on increasing Mogden  treatment capacity to 810  megalitres per day. However it has now admitted that since the improvement works were carried out, it has been identified that suspended solids can sometimes have an adverse impact on river quality. To reduce this impact the Environmental Agency have consented to only  690 megalitres per day.  However, as a  legal requirement under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Thames Water have announced a project that will require an extension to Mogden, which will increase the amount of sewage that can be treated during wet weather. Thames Water had previously advised that there will be a small increase in the quantity of sewage coming to the site caused by changes in the catchment that drains to Mogden but it has now announced a planning application, which will be submitted in the summer of 2007,  which will be for a new treatment stream to be located in the west of the works which will enable Mogden  to have a peak flow capacity of  a massive 1,064  megalitres per day. The question one has to ask  ask is - if the site currently has a peak flow capacity of 810 Ml/d  but only 690 Ml/d under EA consent, has no targets for odour reduction, is unable to identify or tackle current odour problems, what can we expect in terms of odour level increase and frequency if the site is expanded to cater for such a huge increase to 1064 Ml/d? Surely the results of the current  odour improvement program should be evaluated on completion before any expansion of the site can be considered? Thank you for your support and please continue to register your complaints via MRAG. We will ensure they are passed to the Local Authority and Thames Water management. In all cases your house number and e-mail address will be kept confidential. If you no longer require updates on the Mogden situation please let us know and we will remove your email address from our addressbook immediately. Regards Mogden Residents Action Group (MRAG)www.mogden.org.uk

Click here to enter name ● 6963d

bubblers were out and about yesterday. my position is, after an outing yesterday morning in a four, pretty close to a toilet. :(

Jamie Halliday ● 6971d

No message...Er...what's the present position?Smelly summer coming up!

Jim Lawes ● 6971d

Can Steve comfirm that MRAG was finally invited but sent there appologies?Also i found it weird that Thames Water Chaired the meeting when its usally a Local Councillor.Good Meeting though.I did make a point on Communications that i did not recieve an email about the Site Visit.But we didnt let up about the Way MRAG has been treated, when Simon Eaton walker was discussing this at the Begining before leaving it was clear That Richard Aylard Director of Thames Water wasnt really intrested in what Simon was saying but kept stating we will talk....Good for Simon Well done and Well said!!

Simon Anderson ● 7070d

Hi Matt,Glad you found it interesting last night even though these meetings can get very technical at times.I will send you the link as promised last night,but if there is anything in particular you wanted to research then please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Paul Fisher ● 7070d

Interesting meeting. It's clear that there are a number of committed people living around the site and we have to ensure that Thames Water follow up on their promises to improve. It was my first meeting there so I was happy to listen; there are some areas in which I need to read up on. In the meantime I'm in debt to Steve for the notification about the meeting.

Matt Harmer ● 7070d

Good on you Councillor.  Don't forget to take your invitation with you or you may be stopped at the gate by a big fellow in a yellow Thames Water jacket as we were last year!

Steve Taylor ● 7071d

And its because we haven't heard from Ann that we asked Alan Sheerins (as campaign leader?) to give her a nudge

Steve Taylor ● 7072d

Matt,Ann Keen has indeed been invited and we have advised her of this and also informed her of the date of the meeting etc but unfortunately we have not heard anything from her.

Paul Fisher ● 7072d

About what? If  it's Mogden, then the first question is, has she been invited? I haven't told her about it but as it's not my meeting, invites aren't really mine to give. Anyway, see you there.

Matt Harmer ● 7072d

Well done Matt,its just a shame that some of your colleagues who actually live near the plant cannot be bothered.Have you had any response from Ann Keen by the way?

Paul Fisher ● 7072d

I'll be there, and I'll report back here afterwards.

Matt Harmer ● 7072d

Steve,I`m sure you will be aware that before last years local elections,the New Labour candidates for the Isleworth Ward distributed leaflets published if my memory serves me correctly by Alan Sheerins heralding all the work they had done regarding MogdenThe truth of course is that not one of them ever attended any meeting whatsover before the elections and it would seem they have no intention of starting now!

Paul Fisher ● 7072d

AlanTake it from your silence that your offer to assist was merely rhetoric and that the long suffering community  cannot expect any support at all from New Labour at the meeting on Wednesday?  Quite strange really as I genuinely believed that this invitation was a golden opportunity for your activists to finally get involved and actually do something? Anyway no problem as ICG Cllr Paul FIsher will be attending and confronting Thames Water on behalf of all concerned residents.

Steve Taylor ● 7072d

Alan Any news?  We really need to know who will be supporting MRAG and the local community by attending the Mogden Residents Liaison meeting and confronting Thames Water on all the issues mentioned.

Steve Taylor ● 7075d

I see your point mate!!

Simon Anderson ● 7077d

Simon I think you'll find that if you tell them you are going as an MRAG member you'll be stopped at the gate!

Steve Taylor ● 7077d

SteveIve Been invited back to the meetings and i am a member of MRAG so i will be going not just as Chair of My Residents Group but as a MRAG Committee Member

Simon Anderson ● 7077d

Alan MRAG is extremely grateful for any assistance it can get and any new involvement by labour activists would be most welcome. MRAG has always urged local  labour activists to become actively involved in the Mogden saga. As you know the next Mogden Residents Liaison meeting takes place on 17 January and will be chaired by Thames Water's Environment and External Affairs Director.  Unfortunately since Thames CEO left the company as part of he sale, his decision to invite all MRAG Committee members has been reversed and MRAG as such has been banned from the meeting again!  We have advised Ann Keen of this and informed her of the meeting but unfortunately we have not heard anything from her regarding Mogden  since MRAG committee members instigated the legal action and effectively pushed Thames into belatedly applying to Ofwat for funding. As you know the rest is history and we were partially successful  in our campaign inasmuch as we managed to convince Ofwat to approve £43 million of the £ 70 million required to do the job properly.  Thames Water have thus far not contributed any additional funding and there are still ongoing serious issues regarding the management of Mogden, the progress of the project, communication with the Mogden team, future planning applications which Thames need to have approved in order to comply with  EC Urban Wastewater Directives and Thames Water's adherence to the long overdue legal action taken by LBH at the behest of MRAG members etc. There are also issues regarding the Defra Code of Practice for STW's to which MRAG were consultees. These all need to be addressed. In this respect parliamentary involvement is extremely important and necessary so it would be appreciated if you could ascertain if Ann, or any local labour activists, will be attending the meeting or not.

Steve Taylor ● 7077d

"It is good to see the excellent work done by the previous Labour Council is being continued, and much praise must go to Ann Keen MP and of course like MRAG."AlanIt's a shame this forum isn't sophisticated enough to allow us to see the poster's face alongside his comments, because it would have been interesting to see whether you managed to keep a straight one when typing the above.Nevertheless I am grateful that you did at least have the grace to acknoweldge MRAG's humble contribution towards this excellent New Labour campaign, albeit in such a way as to suggest that this was something of an afterthought.

Phil Andrews ● 7078d

The offer of a meeting between Isleworth labour activist and MRAG to see how we can contribute to the future of their work/campaign is still open.  It is good to see the excellent work done by the previous Labour Council is being continued, and much praise must go to Ann Keen MP and of course like MRAG.

Alan Sheerins ● 7078d

Does anyone know if Cllr Barbara Reid has been invited and if she will attend this time?

Steve Taylor ● 7082d

AlanYour help would have been useful when you were in power and in a position to do something for us.  However MRAG welcomes support from all quarters and if you feel you have something to offer our campaign then it would be most welcome as always.

Phil Andrews ● 7082d

Hi MattIt would be great if you could go and keep us all in the loop. The Isleworth Party's offer to meet with MRAG has not been taken but is still open, we are anxiuos to help resolve this problem in any way we can.

Alan Sheerins ● 7082d

SteveI'm free that night and would like to attend. Should I just turn up on the night, email the organisers in advance - what would you suggest?. Would also be very pleased if you could cc me on the email to Thames Water. matt.harmer@hounslow.gov.ukMuch appreciated.

Matt Harmer ● 7085d

The next Residents Liasion Meeting at Mogden is on 17 Jan at 6pm  but MRAG members have been banned (again) Little wonder if you look at the minutes of the last meeting - it was mainly MRAG members who asked any questions and Thames Water had great difficulty giving straight answers!  Ann Keen MP, as well as the ICG and Lib Dems have been copied in on our e-mail to Thames Water advising of the shambles within Thames Water's Mogden communications department and our disappointment at being excluded once again.

Steve Taylor ● 7085d

Hi Steve,my e-mail address is chris_boucher69@hotmail.com.Now that it is confirmed that as a litigant I can attend meetings I would be only too happy to do so.Please feel free to contact me at any time.My e-mail address is in the public domain, but I am sure that you will understand my reticence to publish my phone numbers on this site. However, I am quite happy to provide you with these on a private e-mail.Regards,Chris Boucher

Christopher Boucher ● 7146d

Hi ChrisYes,  please send me your e-mail address as I don't seem to have it but in any event I can confirm that the suggested date for the next meeting is in the minutes of the last as previously advised in this chain. I can also confirm that Ann Keen's office and Vince Cable's office were informed of the meeting and we requested participation or delegation by both. I am surprised that the info wasn't passed on to Alan Sheerins. We were at pains to stress that it was only after months of discussions and meetings between MRAG's Simon Eaton-Walker and Thames CEO Jeremy Pelczer that we had Mogden management over-ruled. In any event Mr Pelczer has now delegated Environmental and External Affairs Director, Richard Aylard, to take control of the Mogden residents' issues and Richard has suggested a private meeting with the full MRAG committee before the next residents meeting.

Steve Taylor ● 7146d

Hi Steve, seems to me that many people were not informed of this meeting, myself included. As I am party to the civil action I was under the impression that I could not attend any meetings and in the past have relied on Mike Carman and Simon Eaton Walker to pass on info. Had I been made aware that the "twelfth hour" agreement had been reached then I would have attended. Perhaps I can send you my e-mail address, although I am sure that you have it, so that you can alert me to the next meeting?RegardsChris Boucher

Christopher Boucher ● 7149d

Hi SteveI did not know of the meeting but have read the other posts and am now more infromed. I assume that you have checked the political leanings of all those who attended to see if they were Labour or not. A curious thing to do i believe, but if that keeps you amused then good. Our offer to meet is still open whenever you are ready to take it up.

Alan Sheerins ● 7159d

Thanks SteveI wouldn't have expected to look at a Thames Water page for a residents meeting but now I know. And I can assure you that I wan't invited to this meeting. Still, at least I'll know when the next one is.Take careMatt

Matt Harmer ● 7159d

Hi Jim You raise some pertinent points which I'll try to answer and yes - you are quite right - when most people see 'Mogden'  they switch off!  Which reminds me of one of my meetings I had with Thames MD and he shook my hand and said "Hello - well,  here we are back again"  and I couldn't resist to retort  "yes - like a very bad smell"  Anyway at the risk of probably boring most I'll try to answer your questions. All MRAG Committee members and any resident taking legal action against Thames have  been banned from the meetings for the last year or so.  Only residents not taking action or Cllrs in far distant  wards but remaining within LBH or LBRuT were allowed to attend. i.e. those not really representing residents affected.  MRAG has vigorously pursued and challenged Thames on this issue at CEO level and at the 11th hour it was agreed that two MRAG members could attend. Not good enough we said so at the 12th hour it was agreed that all MRAG committee could attend provided they introduced themselves as representatives of other associations or bodies or as private residents etc. Thus you will see that only two people are minuted as MRAG when in fact Barry Edwards, Murray Edwards, Phil Hayman, Hanifa Dobson, Simon Eaton-Walker, Trevor Whittall  and others at the meeting are all MRAG members. Unfortunately many could not attend due to the late hour of the invitation. Even me - I was out of town. Cllr Andrews I believe has attended every meeting since 1999 but neither he nor Cllr Paul Fisher could attend the 20th Sept meeting due to the 11th hour unbanning and invitation. I am not political and being a junior committee member have always promoted political involvement from all parties. I have tried to attract  the interest of Alexander Northcote and Susan Kramer as well as Andrew Dakers. Both Alexander and Susan were refused invitations on the grounds that they were not elected to office. Alexander made a big issue of it in the press. MRAG also tried over the years to solicit the involvement of Vanessa Clark, Alan Sheerins, Chris Boucher, Sue Sampson and Tony McKendry. Whilst Alan showed some interest he never bothered to follow it up or make any attempt to attend the meetings whilst MRAG and others were banned.  The others never bothered to respond to our repeated requests for involvement. Its purely a matter of interest in the local community. As recently as last week there was an article in Twickenham Journal regarding a  letter from Vince Cable MP to Thames CEO Jeremy Pelczer calling for guarantees that this weeks sale of Thames Water to Macquarie Bank will not affect the £43 million spend at Mogden. Dr Cable has been vigorously supporting residents and has openly confronted Thames Water and attended several of our meetings over the years. He has also had several meetings with the Thames board  and taken our case to Ofwat and Defra despite his heavy schedule and despite that fact that his constituency is not the worst affected by the Mogden disgrace.MRAG always maintained that the only people confronting Thames at the meetings and demanding answers were those involved in the Group Action.  Have a look at the minutes of 20 Sept and see how many points were raised by MRAG members and have a look at the minutes of the previous meetings whilst MRAG were banned and see how the meetings were effectively dominated by Thames Water employees or contractors. Then have a look at the earlier meetings and you will understand just why MRAG was banned. We simply asked too many questions Thames couldn't answer.  They couldn't answer because the site has been badly managed and underfunded - thus the legal action. We have tried to solicit interest from Worton Road but as far as Ivytag is concerned - Simon Anderson has been banned by Thames. With regard to the next meeting I assume as usual it will be by invitation only. The intended date is shown at the bottom of the minutes of the 20th Sept  meeting.JIm please email  mrag27@aol.com with your email address and I'll ensure that MRAG include you,  or anyone else who is interested,  in their  addressbook for regular updates on Mogden and the work of MRAG.Best rgdsSteve

Steve Taylor ● 7159d

SteveThanks for those URL links..a gateway to other interesting webpages it seems.It was interesting to read the list of attendees at these quarterly meetings.Name RepresentingBrian Pailin Queensbridge (South) Residents Company LtdPetra Pailin Queensbridge (South) Residents Company LtdA Marshall Bankside CloseCllr Paul Fisher Hounslow CouncilTony Bull LB HounslowJ Clarke Thames WaterA Spillane Birse WaterS Case LB RichmondClare Montgomery Cole Park Residents AssociationAndrew Gosling Thames WaterKeith Gardner Thames WaterKeith Knight St John’s Residents AssociationBilquis Mahmood CHAIR  Thames WaterElaine Cobb Thames WaterAndy de Bell Thames WaterSo Cllr Paul Fisher (ICG) is one of  two Hounslow Council’s representative on this Committee.COLE PARK and ST JOHN’S residents are represented too.As you’ve explained before,the Thames Water website states that local councillors,MPs and representatives from residents groups can attend too. But there seem to be restrictions. Isn’t that so?  Weren’t there shut outs recently and people banned from attending a meeting?In addition to the your admirable Mogden Resident’s Action Group (MRAG ) ….should not all the Syon Ward political representatives (all ICG) be there? Matt Hamer(Lab) Ruth Cadbury(Lab) and Andrew Dakers (LDem) represent wards further afield ..Brentford.  Is it imperative that they attend too? (perhaps because they have seats on the Borough Council).What about the Ivybridge residents? Or the Worton Road Estate Residents are they represented?You have opened my enquiring mind..and I’d  to clarify a few points in my mind….and perhaps for the benefit of others too!  I much admire all the work you and your colleagues have done. And wish to understand a bit more about the topic…and of course there is a lot to be read from your previous postings on the issues.  Sometimes people may switch off when they see the word “Mogden”  but it’s important., as you have displayed on many occasions.Where is  a NOTICE for the next meeting to be found..or is it “by invitation” only!

Jim Lawes ● 7159d

Matt  / Jim The meetings are hosted by Thames Water and are enforced upon them.  As such the minutes are obviously in the Thames Water pages of the Community site  www.mogden.org.uk    I would normally not direct people  directly to the Thames Water pages as they contain quite some marketing propaganda which I sometimes think is even more vomit inducing than the Mogden stench.However I will make an exception in this case.  Go to  http://www.thameswateruk.co.uk/UK/region/en_gb/content/General/Download_With_Text_000330.jsp?SECT=Download_With_Text_000330It must be mentioned that residents had serious concerns as the minutes were posted without approval as being accurate but we have since had several discussions with Thames Environment Director, Richard Aylard, who has today re-posted them with the notation that they are 'provisional' You will note from the preamble that the meetings have been taking place since 1992 and Thames claim that MP's and Councillors are always invited. I am aware that Ruth Cadbury has attended several meetings in the past and Mike Carmen chaired several for us whilst he was still a Cllr.  I am also aware that Ann Keen's office was informed about the last meeting.  Residents have always been extremely grateful for the unwavering support of Ruth and Mike and appreciative of the time and effort they devoted  to the environment and the Mogden saga but it seems that since they moved on,  support has waned. Best regardsSteve

Steve Taylor ● 7159d

SteveI'm following Jim's request with a similar one. I keep an eye on that site, though I haven't seen any new posts for some while - let me know the URL to bookmark. Unfortunately, It's hard to attend meetings without being told about them or having a reliable source of information on when they might be.No matter. Can you forward me the minutes of the previous meeting, any action points that I may be able to help with, and the date of the next meeting so that I can get it in the diary in plenty of time. Best to use the council address, matt.harmer@hounslow.gov.ukTake careMatt

Matt Harmer ● 7160d

www.mogden.org.uk SteveWhere on the Mogden website are details of the meeting?A quick visit to that website indicates various sections..and on the "Residents" one I could find nothing appropriate.Could you please post a more lengthy URL which would lead viewers to the meeting reference.I ought to add the website to my Forum Website List

Jim Lawes ● 7160d

Matt  /  Justin The Mogden Residents'  Liaison meetings have been taking place approximately quarterly for decades and minuted since 2 June 1998 as anyone who is the least bit interested in the well-being of the communities of Isleworth, Hounslow, Twickenham, St Margarets and Whitton, would be aware.  For details see  www.mogden.org.uk    If its any consolation, Cllr Barbara Reid,  Conservative, Lead Member, Environment and Planning, didn't attend either and no apologies were minuted!Best regardsSteve

Steve Taylor ● 7160d

Wouldn't it have been better to have highlighted the meeting before it took place rather than complain about people not attending afterwards. Isn't it likely that those that didn't attend didn't know it was on?

Justin Harris ● 7161d

SteveI never recieved notification that it was happening. Let me know how the notice was sent out - email, letter via the Civic Centre, whatever - so I can chase it up and find out why I never received it. Many thanks,Matt.

Matt Harmer ● 7161d

It was noted that no labour activists or councillors turned up to support residents at the Mogden Residents' Liaison Meeting on 20 September.

Steve Taylor ● 7161d

SteveI will email you directly. Thank you for your response

Alan Sheerins ● 7356d

Alan Sincere apologies for not replying sooner.  MRAG has several committee members so it took some time to obtain views from all. The chair has now asked me to respond. We are naturally pleased to welcome meetings with all political groups as we have tried to do and have done over the years. Our current criticisms have been of the council or those trying to piggyback on our campaign without trying to contact us first. The Mogden issues are extremely complex and MRAG will not tolerate those with little or no knowledge of the situation making statements for political gain.  No Cllr., environmental officer, MP, cabinet minister or Ofwat, Defra, WaterVoice, EA, can claim to fully understand residents rights or expectations which is why residents have pursued the legal avenue.  MRAG has received much support from the ICG and they have provided us with publicity but any statements from the ICG are their responsibility. We believe the ICG has acted responsibly and we have found no fault with any statements concerning Mogden made to date. The ICG's statements are founded on fact and ICG officers have attended every Residents Liaison meeting held at Mogden since MRAG was formed and prior to the formation of MRAG.  ICG officers  have also attended three separate meetings with Thames Water's Managing Director, Operations Director, External Affairs Director  together with residents. The ICG were invited by Thames Water. MRAG have no idea why other residents groups or political parties were not invited but MRAG have members from all political groups. We can only assume that the perseverance of the ICG with Thames Water at senior director level caused Thames Water to accept that the ICG and MRAG were to be recognised as the representatives of the people whose lives are affected on a daily basis. MRAG recognise, accept and appreciate the efforts of Cllrs Carman and Cadbury over the years. Both have chaired the liaison meetings professionally and, in our opinion, fairly and excellently. Both have held Thames Water to account and have not permitted residents' concerns to be belittled by Thames Water. We have at all times expressed our appreciation of the efforts of Mike and Ruth. However, in view of MRAG's current open criticisms of the council's handling of the Mogden situation since the 'agreement'  between the council and Thames Water,  Mr Suresh Kamath LBH Director of Street Management and Public Protection,  has requested a meeting with MRAG and MRAG's environmental scientist to discuss our many concerns. The meeting is being scheduled for some time after easter subject to MRAG members'  availability.  Due to travel plans of some MRAG members it will probably only be possible to meet with yourselves in late May and the chair has suggested that we should make an open offer for all parties to meet with us together and we will ask you openly for your support. Perhaps you / we could invite the press? As stated previously - the Mogden issue is way beyond politics and it is being watched carefully by thousands of residents nationwide and obviously by all water utilities companies and the legal profession. We look forward to your comments. Obviously we fully understand that this thread may not be of much interest to TW8 so please feel free to respond by email if you wish to MRAG27@aol.com

Steve Taylor ● 7356d

SteveI am sure that Labour Councillors would be happy to meet with MRAG to discuss the exclusion issue. I am happy to try to arrange that meeting. As far as I am aware Labour Councillors have never been asked to meet to discuss this with you. It is a little disconcerting when there are letters to the papers and press releases from MRAG, having a go at Labour Councillors about this issues. These often take the form of attachments of ICG press releases. The ICG is a political party. Please email me and I will call you back straight away if you wish to discuss this.

Alan Sheerins ● 7366d

AndyI totally agree there shuold be no exclusion from the meetings, i do not understand why TW have done this. However that is not what i was posting about

Alan Sheerins ● 7366d

I fully understand where Liz Brown is coming from and appreciate her contribution. I would  agree that under normal circumstances those such as Thames Water would be delighted to see divisions in the cause. However, I also believe that Thames are fully aware of how committed MRAG is to the cause (thus our banning from liaison meetings) and they are also aware of how easy it has been to string our civil servants along for many years without any commitment to improving the situation. I do however feel quite saddened that Robb Miller feels driven to namecalling the residents who have achieved so much in such a little time and whilst I do not intend to reply to Robb I can advise those remotely interested of some basic facts.MRAG is run by experienced professional people as already explained in this forum.MRAG are not trying to make trouble but we are committed to holding accountable those responsible for running Mogden. Being unable to achieve this through Ofwat, Defra, Watervoice and the local authority we have pursued legal channels on behalf of all interested residents. We have kept records of all press articles, statements, letters to press from all Cllrs, MP's,  residents  and Thames Water etc since 1999.We have no record of Labour Cllrs speaking out loudly against Thames Water but we do have records of one ex Cllr V.Smith (RTT 29 June 2001) condemning the work of residents as being "half cocked and achieving nothing" and an August 2001article stating "the Mogden situation hasn't been too bad over the last four years" Thames must have loved hearing this from an elected Cllr.  What happened after that? - its history now but the highest number of complaints ever were recorded over the next 4 years. Strange that said Cllr was not re-elected isn't it?  Once again I urge any Cllr.,  from any political group, who has spoken out against Thames Water to correct me if I am wrong and use this forum to 'speak out loudly' again and tell the TW8 & TW7 community where they stand on this issue and where they stand on attending the now farcical "Residents Liaison Meetings"  to which no residents are invited to liaise! I doubt whether they can or will but we don't care. The legal case started by residents is going ahead with or without political assistance and all residents who have been affected by Mogden are invited (as ordered by the Court) to apply to join the action. The cut-off date is 2 June 2006. Join now - even you Robb!

Steve Taylor ● 7366d

Whilst I hope you are successful in your efforts to get more done on this matter I can't help but conclude that Thames Water would be delighted to see the divisions amongst those lobbying for change. My suggestion to both sides is that, no matter how unhappy you are with the actions of other groups, don't lose sight that your objectives are the same and the important thing is results not who gets the credit for them.

Mark Evans ● 7367d

Not true I'm afraid, I think youl find the Labour councillors spoke out loudly against Thames Water but quite rightly wanted to take the fight up through the proper channels via the council rather than through some half-baked protest group run by inecperienced people. All "action groups" achieve is make trouble and provide a platformj for tinpot demagogues sucxh as the people running the "non political" ICP. This is what voters elect Labour councillors for, to use their expertise in these matters and the network of contacts they ahve build.

Robb Miller ● 7367d

In answer to Martin Gray's questions,  but at the risk of being boringly repetitive I say again: I have no idea how many ICP members are on the MRAG committee. I also have no idea how many Gories, Lagour, Lip Dims, Groans, Comservatives or any others are on the committee and again I say. WE DON'T CARE!  All are welcome if their objective is to hold the owners and managers of Mogden accountable. I am aware of an ICG member being on the committee and one Lib Dem but I have said this all before.... On the question of why no Labour councillors joined the committee when it was initially formed. I haven't a clue. Ask them why they didn't join - not me. Ask them why they didn't turn up at the Jolly Roger for the first meeting. Everyone was invited and it was widely publicised. Ann Keen didn't turn up - neither did Vince Cable but at least Vince sent his apologies and wished us well!  No hard feelings from us - we are well aware that these are busy people and perhaps Mogden wasn't an important issue for them (then).If you can find out why the two Isleworth  Labour Cllrs didn't turn up or join the committee - let me know. We certainly could have done with their support (then) Why did MRAG 'slag off'  Labour when they put out a leaflet telling people about the £40 million?  We don't believe we did but we certainly advised the public that  the leaflet was factually totally incorrect and we advised people that those responsible had never attended a Mogden meeting, knew little about the history of Mogden or the legal case and didn't appear to understand that printing and distributing information about which they know little,  could jeopardise the legal case.  In fact so much so that the people in question had to contact the solicitors handling the case. I telephoned the one Labour Party member 'author' to advise that the leaflet could have serious ramifications for residents and he claimed he know nothing about it because he had been on holiday. He was not aware that the leaflet had been printed and distributed. However - all are welcome to join the fight for justice and the offer remains open.

Steve Taylor ● 7367d

Martin, you really should get your facts right before replying to anything on this forum.First of all there is no organisation in Isleworth called the ICP, but then I suspect you already know that.Secondly all three councillors, and I believe the MP for Isleworth, were invited to attend the meeting that led to MRAG's foundation. Only one councillor bothered to turn up and that was Cllr. Andrews. Between the other three people invited, all Labour party members, not one of them could find the time to turn up. In fact the Labour Party did not want anything to do with MRAG until it realised that it wasn't just a fly by night organisation. Thirdly the "£40 million" that Thames Water has proposed to spend is not actually coming out of their own pockets but is being funded by an increase in water rates agreed by OFWAT. To actually do what is needed to put an end to the foul odour and mosquito nuisence at Mogden will cost around £50 million but Thames Water refuse to put their hands in their pockets to raise the extra £10 million. So you see it is the public that will be funding any improvements at Mogden and not Thames Water.

Andrew Sibley ● 7369d

Yeah right, so how many ICP members are there on the MRAG committee, and why did you slag Labour off when they put out a leaflet telling people about the £40 million spend which Thames Water is giving to put things right thanks to Hounslow LABOUR council? When MRAG was started there was two Labour councillors in Isleworth so why did only the ICP one end up on your committee?

Martin James Gray ● 7369d

In reply to Alan Sheerins I believe it is important for all to be aware that MRAG is an independent non political group of residents who formed a committee and launched a petition and obtained 3,335 signatures of support from residents whose lives have been blighted by Mogden stench and mosquitoes. The signatures were obtained within 8 days by committee members knocking on doors after hours in their own free time. The committee consists of people from all walks of life from the engineering, medical, accountancy, journalist, legal, clerical, an Environmental Health Officer, an Environmental Scientist, a banker and  a Ward Councillor to name a few. The MRAG Chair used to be  a Lib Dem Cllr.  many years ago and deputy mayor of Richmond.  There is nothing sinister about this and we have never hidden this fact.  The Ward Cllr is in the ICG. We have never hidden this and have always welcomed his tireless support and effort.  There are some members on the committee who have never divulged their professions and they have never been asked to do so because it is totally irrelevant. MRAG have only one objective and that is to ensure that those responsible for running Mogden, do so without causing misery to thousands and without making Hounslow and Richmond Boroughs an embarrassment to live in. MRAG firmly believe that Hounlsow Borough Council and,  to a lesser degree Richmond, could and should have done a lot more in dealing with the problem before residents had to take the problem on board for themselves. In that respect and in terms of EPA 1990, MRAG hold LBH accountable to a certain degree. This is not political bias - it is based on expert witness statements on the Mogden operation. It is freely available for all to formulate their own opinions from the Court hearings. Before the MRAG Committee was formed a public meeting was held and all political parties in Isleworth and Richmond were invited to attend including MP's Vince Cable and Ann Keen.  Neither could attend but following the formation of MRAG,  MRAG invited both MP's to chair the Thames Water Residents' Liaison meetings. Vince Cable has to date chaired three and Ann Keen has chaired one. MRAG also invited Lib Dem designate Susan Kramer to chair a meeting (before she became an MP) but Thames Water refused the request advising that there were too many politicians attending. MRAG also invited Conservative MP designate  Alexander Northcote to attend and possibly chair a liaison meeting but his request was refused by Thames Water on the grounds that he was not an elected MP. With the exception of the meetings chaired by Vince Cable, all meetings have been fairly chaired by Labour Cllrs or Hounslow officers. MRAG have not objected and have in fact welcomed Hounslow's involvement.  MRAG are also closely involved with St Margarets Green Party designate.  MRAG have no political bias. All work on behalf of residents taken on by MRAG committee members is voluntary and in their own time. MRAG does not accept donations or funding of any kind. MRAG does not take subscriptions. MRAG does not have a bank account or any funding whatsoever and does not want any. MRAG does not have a limit on committee member numbers. Anyone wishing to join the committee may do so irrespective of race, religion, sex or political persuasion. All we ask is that they are committed to taking on those responsible for causing & prolonging the Mogden stench and mosquitoes. There is nothing sinister and nothing political in our motives. If anyone feels they can gain political points by assisting MRAG, we don't care as long as they are genuinely assisting MRAG and consistent in their approach.  MRAG will remain only for as long as there is a problem at Mogden. MRAG will see residents through to the litigation claim and beyond if compensation claims are extended.One thing is 100% certain. MRAG will not step back  and now allow matters to run their course.  MRAG are well aware of theefforts of LBH  in the Statutory Nuisance case. MRAG members assisted with the case and were witnesses for the Council. However,  MRAG are aware of the costs involved in that case and are aware that LBH would now like to put the matter behind them. MRAG will not allow that to happen. MRAG are aware that some LBH officers are fast becoming apologists for Thames Water. MRAG will not tolerate complacency from LBH and MRAG will not accept incompetence from Thames Water. Any hint of complacency or mismanagement will be recorded and reported by all means at our disposal. We have made it clear on many occassions that we believe our exclusion from the Thames Water Residents' Liaison meetings is unlawful. Thames Water are a regulated utilities Company. In terms of the Court approved Agreement  between Thames Water and LBH, Thames are obligated to hold quarterly meetings with residents. THames have no choice in the matter. If they want to stop these meetings it has to be agreed by LBH and the district judge. LBH are obligated to ensure that the terms of the agreement are met. If Labour Cllrs or any Cllrs attend these meetings without voicing their outrage that residents are barred from the meetings, those Cllrs and Council officers are doing a great disservice to the residents they purport to represent. This has absolutely nothing to do with politics  or political bias - its about human rights, legal rights, our environment and living in the greatest capital in one one the most interesting and diverse communities in the world. Please lets keep it that way.  For more information on MRAG or the legal action visit the Twickenham OnLine Community Website  www.mogden.org.uk

Steve Taylor ● 7369d

Do you not agree then Alan, that Thames Water's actions to exclude MRAG representatives and Isleworth ward councillors from it's resident liason meetings is wrong?

Andrew Sibley ● 7369d

The issues is very important and should not be used to further the aims of any political party. I certainly share the same objectives as local resident in Isleworth and the other parts of the Borough. Councils officers have worked very hard to make progress on this, so also has Ann Keen MP and many local councillors of various political hues. I wish that MRAG would take a step back and try to ensure that its good work over the years is not now sullied by political bias.

Alan Sheerins ● 7370d

The Mogden smell also affects passing traffic through Isleworth as well as residents.  I and others passing through have  noticed it in summer on particular days in daytime and evening.

Michael Fletcher ● 7372d

I must admire your consistancy Antony. You constantly refer to the ICG as the "ICP", you constantly assume that anyone who lives in TW7 is associated with the ICG and you constantly attack anyone who posts on this forum from TW7. This makes you consistantly boring.Instead of attacking people like Steve Taylor why don't you put forward an alternative argument as to why people shouldn't take on Thames Water in this way and explain to the people of TW7 why you think that they should put up with the foul odour and moaquito nuisance that eminate from Mogden. This would be far more constructive than just dismissing this subject as "worthless ICP propaganda".

Andrew Sibley ● 7372d

Thank you Neil.And hopefully some of those TW8 residents will join the group action claim. Even if they have never complained in the past, they are still entitled to register a claim.

Steve Taylor ● 7372d

This issue is of importance to TW8 residents as the smell can reach parts of it.What is it with some posters, just because it had Phil Andrews by-line they start moaning. get a grip.

Neil Chippendale ● 7372d

It can't be opened as an Isleworth one Sarah, remember your friends in the ICP own the website address and wont release it.

Antony Mardough ● 7372d

ICP ??!!  Isn't it a shame that this presumably TW8 resident doesn't appreciate the efforts of his TW7 neighbours. Isn't it a pity that he is so naive as to not understand that this action being taken by Isleworth, Twickenham, Whitton, St.Margarets, Richmond, and Hounslow residents and supported by at least one Brentford ward councillor has far reaching implications which will affect tens of thousands of residents in England and Wales. Isn't it terribly sad that he has no pride in the local environment and he is quite happy for the UK to host international rugby matches at the RFU in the middle of a stenchpit not to mention the Rolling Stones and U2 having to perform in the arguably smelliest environment in a first world country.. And,  isn't  it beneath contempt that he thinks this is petty party politics. Oh no Mr  whatever your name is  this is far bigger than party politics and obviously far bigger than you are able to comprehend. However, if your view is the same as other TW8 contributors I will gladly cease contributions to Brentford TW8 and stay with Twickenham OnLine which welcomes constructive, intelligent debate. However, lets hear from other TW8 residents. All views are most welcome so 'outsiders' with news of alleged  'naff-all' relevance know exactly where they stand with their friendly  Brentford TW8 neighbours.Best regards  'Outsider'

Steve Taylor ● 7372d

I find this sort of comment quite strange.  It is a real shame that general interest subjects cannot be posted without this sort of back chat - at least if you are going to criticise maybe you could actually be specific about the subject or ignore the subject - many postings will not interest some people.  You are spoiling what is a very useful forum if it is allowed to be open and to be free for people to add to.I have just penned an addition to the election thread about reactions I have received.  These are after I added extra photographs of the same smashed slabs used by the Conservatives in their campaign newsletter.  The e-mails I have received are varied and should all add to the forum as a general area for people to explain their views - I found myself hesitating in posting my response because I have been warned that this sort of reply is likely to ensue.The responses I have received have been across political party (a subject such as this spans the political divide) and from people with no political interest but none of them are happy about adding their comments to this forum.Maybe the 'agenda' is to close the forum down?In which case – please open it as an Isleworth one and I am sure we will happily and successfully take on Brentford and general Borough issues.

Sarah Felstead ● 7372d

Just another load of worthless ICP propaganda from TW7 with naff-all relevence to Brentford, in other words?

Antony Mardough ● 7372d