Dear residents,
Urang has circulated a survey asking residents what they think of the concierge service. We are asking every household to complete it — but please read this first, because the survey is not what it appears to be.
Why Urang is asking now
The 2026 service charge demand is being challenged before the First-tier Tribunal (case LON/00BG/LSC/2026/0135), and the staff cost for the concierge is one of the four items in dispute. TTMC’s written response to the Tribunal, signed by its director Tom Squires on 26 June 2026, argues that the cost is reasonable and the role necessary. What it does not contain is a single word from residents about what the service actually delivers.
That is the gap this survey is designed to fill. A handful of residents ticking “satisfied” out of politeness is exactly the kind of document Urang will put in front of the Tribunal to paint a picture of a valued, well-used service. If you do not respond, or respond vaguely, that picture goes unchallenged. If you respond honestly and specifically, Urang will be putting our evidence into its own bundle.
What we are paying
TTMC’s own budget breakdown, disclosed to the Tribunal, shows the concierge costs leaseholders £51,741 a year for one person — around £424 per flat per year across the 122 flats.
On a standard full-time week that would already be around £25 an hour. But our concierge is on site for roughly 3.5 full hours a day: he takes an extended lunch break, leaves early, and nobody at Urang or TTMC monitors his hours or attendance. On the hours actually worked, leaseholders are paying around £57 for every hour he is at his desk.
The £51,741 is not just wages, either. It includes holiday and sick cover (£6,213), a bonus payment (£577), a £3,000 “porters management fee” to Urang, and £7,588 of VAT — meaning roughly one pound in every five we pay for the concierge goes to Urang’s fee and VAT rather than to anyone doing anything on the estate. Ask yourself what the bonus is for.
For context, the 2023 accounts recorded total expenditure of £681,477 against a budget of £530,547, and only £323,154 of that spend has ever been supported by invoices.
What TTMC says the role is — and what it actually is
This matters. Urang’s survey calls him a concierge. TTMC’s case to the Tribunal calls him something else entirely: a “security officer who also acts as the site manager”, employed to combat “theft, drugs, knife crime and anti-social behaviour” as part of the gates scheme approved by Tower Hamlets in 2022. TTMC says the cost is justified because the security office was built to be his base. Over the past year the same post has been described to residents as a concierge, a site manager and a security officer, depending on who is asking and why. A role that cannot be consistently named is unlikely to have a job description, and a role without a job description cannot be measured — which is precisely why your account of what he actually does is so important.
So ask yourself: when did you last see any security patrol of the estate? Has the concierge ever intervened in, or reported, an ASB incident you were affected by? Does anyone staff the security office in the evenings or at weekends when the problems actually happen? If the answer is no, then TTMC’s justification for the cost falls away on its own terms.
And whatever the job title, at a comparable London development £51,741 a year would buy someone who receives and logs post and parcels; changes communal light bulbs and reports faults the same day; monitors access and security; keeps the entrances presentable; and holds basic qualifications (SIA licensing, first aid, fire marshal training).
Residents have told MCRA that at Maltings Close the concierge does not take in post or parcels; communal bulbs stay out for weeks until a separate contractor is called out at additional cost; there is no evidence of any relevant qualification or training; and the service has produced no measurable saving on our repairs bills — the one thing an on-site presence is supposed to deliver.
Meanwhile grounds maintenance is invoiced separately at approximately £24,000–£42,000 a year. Hedge trimming and basic grounds upkeep is precisely what an on-site caretaker could be doing. Re-scoped as a caretaker/handyperson role, the same money could save leaseholders up to that amount every year before counting reduced call-out charges.
How to answer the survey
Answer every question, and answer from your own experience. Where there is a free-text box, be specific: dates, what you asked for, what happened. Useful things to record include whether the concierge has ever accepted post or a parcel for you; any fault you reported (bulb, door, lift, cleaning) and how long it took to be dealt with, and by whom; whether you have ever seen the concierge carry out maintenance, grounds work or a security patrol; whether you know what hours the desk is actually staffed and whether it is ever staffed outside office hours; and whether you consider the service worth £424 a year from your flat.
Keep it factual and about the service, not the individual. Our complaint is with Urang and TTMC, who set the scope of this role, decided what to charge us for it and have never reviewed whether it delivers value. Personal remarks about the person on the desk help no one and will be used to discredit genuine complaints.
One more thing
Please take a screenshot or copy of your answers before you submit, and email it to info@maltingsclose.org. Urang controls the survey and the results; we want our own record of what residents actually said, so that the Tribunal sees the full picture and not Urang’s summary of it.
Thank you for your continued support.
MCRA Committee