Decent Homes Work - costs for leaseholders

taodas

Hello <div>I am new to the site and moved to Finsbury Park recently with my partner. We live in a leasehold property and Haringey Council are the freeholders. Today we got a letter through the post outlining the proposed work they want to carry out under the decent homes act totalling.....£53,000!!!! Of which they want us to pay out £20,000. </div><div>The breakdown of the costs seems absolutely absurd! e.g. £8000 for scaffolding and over £5000 for fire risk assessment works.</div><div>Have any other leaseholders received similar costs and think that it all seems ridiculously high?</div><div>Would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts as I know they are carrying out a lot of work across Haringey.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks! </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>

marko

This is a problem in Islington as well.    There, they council has entered into framework agreements with large building firms, whcih seem to have been a license to inflate cost whilst delivering poor quality work.<div> </div><div>You have a right to challenge the cost of the works.  You also have a right to propose a different contractor or challenge the costs in the Leaseholder Tribunal. </div><div><br></div><div>You also have the right to manage the property yourself (providing you can get a majority of lessees to agree), or buy out the freehold entirely (seem condition).</div><div><br></div><div>This isn't incidentally isn't just a problem with local authority owned freeholds, but councils do generally have a 7 year maintenance cycle and when they actually do maintenance, don't seem to exactly get good value for money: They will insist on a ultra-safe method of working, but seemingly not on good quality workmanship. </div><div><br></div><div>What kind property is it that needs a fire risk assessment? </div>

taodas

Hi Marko,<div>It is a Victorian terrace converted into three flats. We are the only leaseholders and the other 2 flats are occupied by council tenants so no way to to buy the freehold.</div><div>We are definitely going to write them a letter to challenge the costs as it just seems so ridiculous</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div>

marko

The costs of the project are mind-boggling, and I'm left wondering what they intend doing for that.   <div><br></div><div>Feel free to message me privately.  I live in a 3-story, 2 flat victorian terrace conversion, and we own the freehold.  We've replaced the roof and had renovation works to all of the sash windows + total external redecoration,  so can give you some idea of how much this kind of thing costs of these.  </div>

wani28

<span style="font-style: normal;">Hi taoda</span><span style="font-style: italic;">s</span><div><span style="font-style: italic;"><br></span><div style="font-style: normal;">I'm a leaseholder in the Stroud Green area and just received a large bill from Homes for Haringey.   My property is a split level maisonette in a victorian house.  The property is a very unusual conversion as my property is the whole of the back of the house</div><div style="font-style: normal;">and my neighbour who is a council tenant has the whole of the front.    Nobody from Homes for Haringey or Keep Moat has come out to look at my property, just my neighbours but yet they have now sent me an estimate for works to replace all windows £28,900 and my share of the bill is £12,900.   The majority of the bill is made up of £9,316.43 scaffolding  and Fire risk assessment £4,443.  The bill for actually replacing the windows is £12,956.41 nearly the same as my share of the bill, it looks like they want me to pay for the window.     I'm going to challenge the bill also and try to get them under the Freedom of Information Act to provide me with a complete breakdown of the bill and the reasons for each works.  Don't know if I will get any joy but I will be writing our local councillor.  </div><div style="font-style: normal;"><br></div></div>

marko

You should ask for a breakdown of the bill, and ask whether they have been out to competitive tender for it (they almost certainly haven't; they'll have a framework contract which in theory ticks the boxes for that).

wani28

Thanks Marko will do.

verga

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flos-law-new-cap-for-council-house-repairs-comes-into-force

taodas

Let me know how you get on wani28 - i have a sent them a very long letter rejecting all of Keepmoats ridiculous costs but we will see how that goes... It appears that they have put the Keepmoat contractors in a monopoly position with a lot of taxpayers and leaseholders money to play with!!<div><br><div>Thanks for posting that link verga. i tried to bring up Florries Law when speaking to someone from Haringey on the phone but he said that Haringey are except from having to abide by this law although he couldn't give me a good enough reason why so have also challenged it in a letter i have sent them.</div><div><br></div><div>The reality of the situation is that some leaseholders are getting shares of the bill up to £30,000 and as a result are having to seriously think about selling their homes. </div><div><br></div></div>

Ali

<p>I used to get ripped of with small but add up over time charges from private landlords as well.</p><p>If the landlord in these cases is the  council does this  mean at one time they were  rented by the council but have been  bought at large discount under right to buy ?  </p><p>Doesn't get around that the council should be looking after their money better so then subseqently  their lease holder s a well. </p><p> </p><p> </p>

marko

<div>And yes, private sector freeholders can take the piss as well. However, they're equally accountable for any charges as the council is.   Buying out the freehold if you can is a very smart move.  </div><div><br></div>The good news if you're able to exercise your right to buy out the freehold on a property that was formerly council owned and sold under the Right To Buy, you'll find that the freehold costs next to nothing to buy out.  <div><br></div><div><br></div>

wani28

I submitted my appeal to Homes for Haringey, now awaiting reply.  I will keep you informed of their reply.   Labour Councillor Raj Sahota  has met with Homes for Haringey and is scheduled to meet with Keepmoat regarding the proposed works.<div><br></div><div>He is trying to get leaseholders in the Stroud Green area together to discuss what we can all do together.  Its worth contacting him for an update.</div>

wani28

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">This was an email from </span><span style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Labour Councillor Raj Sahota</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">Many of you have recently received huge bills from Haringey Council for repairs on your property as part of the Decent Homes programme.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222"><br> <br> <span style="background:white">I have arranged for Alan Strickland, the cabinet member for housing and senior staff from Homes for Haringey to come to Stroud Green to discuss these proposals with you and answer any questions you have.</span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; background-color: white;">The meeting will start at</span><span class="apple-converted-space" style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span><span class="aqj" style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="z-index:-1"><span data-term="goog_360257690" tabindex="0" style="z-index: 0;">6.30pm</span></span></span><span class="apple-converted-space" style="font-size: 10pt;"> at the MIND centre, Stapleton Hall Road, Stroud Green on<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span class="aqj" style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="z-index:-1"><span data-term="goog_360257691" tabindex="0" style="z-index: 0;">Wednesday the 28th of January 2015</span></span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; background-color: white;">.</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">d,</span><br></p>

RajSahota

Leaseholders are invited to this meeting next week.Wednesday 28th January 2015.MIND Centre - 73c Stapleton Hall Road, 6.30pm – 9pm. I have arranged for Alan Strickland, the cabinet member for housing and senior staff from Homes for Haringey to come to Stroud Green to discuss these proposals with you and answer any questions you have.If you want to join my Leaseholders email circular please drop me a line at <a href="mailto:raj.sahota@haringey.gov.uk">raj.sahota@haringey.gov.uk</a> and I’ll keep you appraised of the latest developments.

RajSahota

The meeting for leaseholders to discuss the planned works was well attended and a robust discussion ensured. Report here. http://www.stroudgreenlabour.org.uk/blog/stroud-green-leaseholders-meeting. Raj.<br>

marko

I'm slightly surprised that Labour - in power in London's rotten borough since it was created - are taking up the cause, when Homes For Haringey is essentially their policy in the first place. 

wani28

 A friend of mine that owns a construction company, just emailed me this bit of news below.  <div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">Insider Housing</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">Thursday, 19 February 2015<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 14.5pt;">Court rules in favour of leaseholders over repair costs<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">18 February 2015 | By </span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:45vonst;mso-bidi-font-family: 45vonst;color:#0066CD">Daniel Douglas<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">Landlords must consider the financial impact on leaseholders when seeking to charge for non-vital improvement works to their<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">homes, an upper tribunal has ruled.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">Miss Waaler, one of 140 leaseholders on the Ivybridge estate owned by Hounslow Council, was charged £55,000 for improvement<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">works which included replacement of roofs, windows and exterior cladding and the removal of asbestos. The charge was upheld by<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">a first-tier tribunal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">However, in a landmark upper tribunal decision on 26 January, </span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:45vonst;mso-bidi-font-family:45vonst; color:#0066CD">judge </span><span style="font-size: 7pt;">Siobhan McGrath upheld Miss Waaler’s appeal against the<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">first-tier tribunal ruling.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">Judge McGrath said some of the works were non-vital ‘improvements’ as opposed to vital repairs, which leaseholders have to agree<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">to fund under the terms of their lease. Judge McGrath said for non-vital works landlords must consider leaseholders ‘views on the<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">proposals and the </span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:45vonst;mso-bidi-font-family: 45vonst;color:#0066CD">financial </span><span style="font-size: 7pt;">impact of proceeding.’<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">A barrister, who did not wish to be named, said the ruling means landlords ‘must consider alternative and less expensive remedies,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">and give greater weight to the views of leaseholders’. Giles Peaker, partner at Anthony Gold solicitors, said: ‘I think it’s a significant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">decision and one that a lot of leaseholders will look to.’<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">Mick Donnellan, partner at Trowers & Hamlins and expert in real estate disputes, said: ‘I think landlords will now have to give more<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">thought to improvements. More transparency and justification will now be needed in the process.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">‘It may lead to landlords looking very closely in future on whether something is a ‘repair’ or an ‘improvement.’<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">In her decision, judge McGrath found that the council was justified in carrying out repairs to the roof, but that the council could not<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7.0pt;font-family:45vonst;mso-bidi-font-family:45vonst;color:#0066CD">justify </span><span style="font-size: 7pt;">its work to windows and exterior cladding on ‘extremely speculative’ costings.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">The management decision to replace windows and cladding includes ‘no evidence that the cost of the work to leaseholders was<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">taken into account’, the decision states, and there is ‘in fact, very little evidence to demonstrate how or why the decision was taken<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">at all.’<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 7pt; line-height: 115%;">A further first-tier tribunal hearing will decide by how much the charges to leaseholders should now be reduced.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">I think that HFH  is just going to continue fobbing us off with excuses while they forge ahead with works.    I received the Q&A from the meeting on 28/2/15 and </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">it was nothing different than what was said at the meeting.    I think as Leaseholders we do need to come together separately </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">from any council officials and Labour Councillors to look at how we move forward in light of the news that I have included in this post.    Perhaps we should run a campaign encouraging all Leaseholders in Haringey to not vote for Labour in the Local and General Elections! </span></div>

TerryP

Thank you Wani28 I live in Tower Hamlets and we are undergoing exactly the same issues. What's worrying is inflated costs, poor workmanship, delays ( which also cost)... This is happening not just to us but borough wide- and now I see it's London wide. We are being exploited by large contractors who see Decent Homes as a cash cow. We think we can use Flo's Law, and we are also challenging the quotes and the quality of wk.