Categories
Financial Housing Information Leaseholders Leases Major Works Repairs Service Charges

THE LAW

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

sets out the basic rules for service charges. It defines what is considered a service charge, and sets out requirements for making sure costs are reasonable. Landlords should consult leaseholders before entering into any agreement for work or services which would lead to a service charge.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also applies to payments of service charge under a lease whilst a management order is in place under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Section 18 (1) of the act defines a service charge as ‘an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent

  • which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord’s costs of management; and
  • the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs.’

The costs of the services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and management must be reasonable, and the tribunal may decide whether they are.

Please note: the definition in section 18 (1) does not overrule the lease. The item or service must still be included in the lease for your landlord to be able to charge for it.”

Categories
Councillors Financial Housing ILA Islington LBI Leaseholders Leases Major Works Repairs Service Charges

Follow the money!

A simplistic explanation of why we pay so much…!!!

Why are council Rents and Maintenance bills, so inexplicably high? …simple,  …Just follow the money!

The council state that their main funding stream is basically via council rents, and maintenance billing. This is paid into the Housing Revenue Account by tenants, leaseholders, and 4000 absentee landlords…So…

1/ Islington Council issue contracts to maintain the borough’s estates.

2/ The Contractor scopes out the work, price the job, and bill’s the Council for work completed.

3/ The Council (using 33% of the housing Revenue account) pays the tenants contribution. It apportions the remainder between their leaseholders and absentee landlords.

4/ The absentee landlords then recover their cash by raising their rentals.

Who gets this public money?

1/ Builders get paid directly by the council, come what may.

2/ The council simply raise the tenants rents, and present Home owners with a massive bill.

3/ Landlords increase their rental charges to cover their liabilities.

Where does the money wind up!

1/ Contractors reinvest their massive profits in new projects.

2/ Builders simply “rack it in” by piecemeal subbing-out of the fractionated contracts.

3/ Council reduces its gross over spending to appear efficient.

4/ Landlords pay off their Mortgages.

5/ Private tenants reduce their renting costs by flat sharing.

6/ Mortgage lenders always win in the long run, since their investment is inevitably founded in “Bricks and Mortar”. 

All financed from the constant uncontrolled wastage of public money.!

Solution

1/ Council reduces contract sizes

2/ Council stops issuing astronomical bills to pay contracts

3/ Council controls Building and Maintenance costs by bringing building projects “Back in House”…

4/ Council demands total accountability

5/ Council demands value for money

6/ Council accepts “Individual Corporate Responsibility”, as the norm. 

Which is no more than what they’re already being handsomely paid for doing…!!!

Dr Potter…

Chairman ILA… (www.ila.org.uk

Categories
Councillors Financial Housing ILA Islington LBI Leaseholders Major Works Repairs Service Charges

Council asked why are Leaseholders getting huge £72K Bills?

ILA’s Dr Potter asking Islington Council staff Ian Swift and Councillor Una OHalloran at last nights February ILA meeting on 14.02.24 why individual Leaseholders are getting huge bills for £46K and £72K.

Islington Council staff Ian Swift and Councillor Una OHalloran and ILAs Dr Potter at ILA meeting 14.02.24. IMG_5945

Categories
Councillors Cyclical Works Financial Government Housing ILA Islington LBI Leaseholders Repairs

Questions For Islington Council Causing Distress To Residents

Dr Brian Potter, sent the Letter of October 23 from MP Michael Gove to Victoria Lawson, CEO Islington Council to the tribune this week obo the ILA.

The Tribune published it in this weeks edition…

The letter discusses the Housing Ombudsman’s Special Report condemning Islington Councils  “severe maladministration rate [which] is four times the national average”.

Gove goes on  “This is unacceptable. The report identifies unreasonable delays, poor record keeping and communication with your residents, and a failure to follow your own policies and procedures. You failed to identify underlying issues – instead, you took a superficial look at problems such as damp and mould. It is not surprising that, as a result, many of your residents have suffered prolonged periods of distress”

Since it was dated Oct 23., Dr Potter suggests the Questions we should ask are…
Why did we not know about it until this week…?
and what has/will the council do about it now that it is in the public domain…?

Categories
Councillors Cyclical Works Financial Housing ILA LBI Leaseholders Repairs Service Charges

ILA in Gazette 08.02.24

This weeks letter in the Gazette…

Judging from what I have read in the press of late, plus the horror stories which I hear at the monthly meetings of the Islington Leaseholders Association, (in Islington Town Hall), leaseholders are being unmercifully targeted financially by the council and their contractors.

Whilst the Cyclic/Major works costing are of primary interest to leaseholders, of secondary concern is the actual “Quality” of the work observed. Unfortunately this aspect of leasehold complaints is probably, due for the main part to the overall neglect of adequate inspection by the councils own building control department.

On behalf of the ILA I have frequently asked the upper echelon of the council how many surveyors do the council directly employ in order to provide a sufficient degree of control over their contractors, and even more important, SUB CONTRACTORS on council estates…their answer has always been 70…!!!

My secondary question has always been, how many are RICS members, the answer is invariably, none, except on one occasion when they corrected themselves and stated, one..me, but I do need to pay my fees, straight way…

A further question as to why were they not RICS, elicited the reply, “cost of membership”.

So, Just who will inspect the INSPECTORS. In the main, the problems associated with massive bills, enforced on both leaseholder, as well as TENANTS, who pay for the councils disgraceful lack of control by way of ever increasing rents, sits firmly on the council shoulders as result of their inability to control the contracts they issue on our behalf…

Any way you look at it…since the council use our money to pay the contractor directly, surely they must be considered to be simply a managing agent…and as such responsible to the Residents of this borough…Corporate responsibility…???

Dr Potter

Chairman ILA  

read more in Gazzette

Categories
Councillors Cyclical Works Financial Housing ILA Information Islington LBI Leaseholders Major Works PFI Repairs Service Charges

£9million of taxpayers’ money went to ‘offshore tax haven’ through Islington Council’s out-sourced housing deals

From PFI article in ISLINGTON GAZETTE this week

Between 2012 and 2018, JLIF which invested in 65 PFI and Public Private Partnership schemes around the world, had pre-tax profits of £526.1m but paid only paid £2.1m (or 0.4pc) in UK tax. Academic and housing campaigner Stuart Hodkinson, whose 2019 work Safe As Houses scrutinies the “corporate greed” of PFI schemes, estimates the total contract value of PFI 1 is £357m, while PFI 2 is said to be worth £421.3m.

Dr Brian Potter, chair of Islington Leaseholders Association, led a campaign to stop the PFI deals in the early 2000s. He argues offshore or tax haven registered companies profiting from PFI deals, while not illegal, is “unethical” and “insidious”. He said: “This is one of the major problems with selling off contacts. Once you have sold the contract you have no control, so there is no quality control – nobody accepts responsibility for anything wrong with the original contract. You’re just left with a money spinning machine just eating money over the years. It was the worst council financing decision.”

Read the full story here

Categories
Councillors Financial Housing Information Leaseholders Major Works Repairs Website

London Mayor betrays 34 estates over housing ballots

Mayor quietly signs off funding for 34 estates, dodging new ballot rules

At Mayor’s Question Time this week, the Mayor gave me a firm promise not to sign off any new funding for estate demolition while his new policy to require a ballot of residents was out for consultation. But he was concealing the fact he has recently rushed through funding for dozens of controversial schemes, allowing councils and housing associations to dodge his new policy.

The new policy to require ballots was announced on 2 February, with a consultation on the details (such as the size of schemes, who can vote, whether independent organisations should carry them out etc) open until 3 April.

I asked him at MQT this week not to sign off any schemes meanwhile, and he was clear he would not do this, saying: “I will be signing no new funding contracts until the consultation has ended and we’ve published the final guide.”

This seemed quite good. Along with campaigners from many estates across London, and with the support of the Assembly, I’ve been working to change the Mayor’s policy on giving residents a say since his truly appalling draft ‘Good Practice Guide’ to estate regeneration was published in December 2016. A consultation on that draft closed nearly a year ago in March 2017, and the results were that 95 per cent of responders asked for ballots for residents facing demolition.

However,

I have now found out that, all this time, the Mayor has been quietly signing off funding for some of the most controversial estate schemes in London….despite promising in his manifesto to “require that estate regeneration only takes place where there is resident support, based on full and transparent consultation.”

By Sian Berry

Read More

Categories
Government Housing ILA Information Leaseholders Leases Repairs Service Charges Website

Government’s approach to dangerous Grenfell-style cladding replacement consistent

Grim it may be, but the government’s approach to getting dangerous Grenfell-style cladding replaced on tower blocks certainly appears consistent. Credit: Private Eye, Housing News

 

Click Here

 

Categories
Information Leaseholders Repairs

Private Eye -High-rise, higher costs

From Private EYE –  Cladding safety, Issue 1462

IT WAS always hopeless optimism on the part of communities secretary Sajid Javid to think wealthy speculators in the freeholds of private blocks of flats would pay to remove Grenfell-type cladding. And so it has proved.

As Eye 1457 reported in November, the Tchenguiz Family Trust, based in the British Virgin Islands, is off to court to dump the £2m cost on 97 leaseholders at Citiscape in Croydon – that’s around £20,000 per flat owner, most on low incomes.

At Heysmoor Heights in Toxteth, Liverpool, where the 98 flats sell for less than £100,000, Abacus Land 4 Ltd, a Guernsey company, is demanding £18,000 from each leaseholder. It is administered by the Long Harbour/Homeground fund of David Cameron’s brother-in-law Will Astor, the heir to the viscountcy. This opens up the spectacle of hard-pushed flat owners, who cannot pay, possibly losing their homes through lease forfeiture to an offshore entity where the beneficial ownership is hidden – and where they may have benefited from tax advantages.

Astor’s spokesman, the former Tory MP turned PR smoothie Adrian Flook, assured the Eye the offshore owners of the freehold to Heysmoor were “exclusively UK-based pension and life insurance funds”. As they are all UK tax-exempt, he added, there are therefore no tax advantages, and registration in Guernsey is for “administrative efficiency” only.

‘Saving its skin’
Flook, who works for Sir Lynton Crosby’s lobbying firm Crosby Textor, also said Abacus had “swiftly and voluntarily” injected £750,000 on to the leaseholders’ service charge – as a loan – to cover interim fire wardens as well as building costs. He claimed that without this generosity the residents would have had to move, which would have been even more expensive.

However, Sebastian O’Kelly of the campaign charity the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, said: “Contrarily, one could say that Abacus has imposed a £750,000 loan and then proceeded to spend it as it chose. This wasn’t philanthropy; the freeholder was saving its skin with the fire authorities.

“Flook’s blather would be more weighty if Astor’s Homeground did not also charge old ladies £50 to keep a cat, and demand £108 to consider a freehold purchase – all familiar ploys in the leasehold game, which Astor spent six years learning at Vincent Tchenguiz’s side.”

To date, 17 freeholders are off to court to let a tribunal decide whether the terms of the leases mean hapless leaseholders have to pick up the tab for removing dangerous cladding.

One particular case would be notably unjust. A vast 980-flat development, New Capital Quay in Greenwich, which also has Grenfell-style aluminium composite material (ACM), was completed by Galliard Homes only four years ago. The freeholder remains Galliard’s own company, Roamquest Ltd.

‘Absolutely clobbered’
Huge sums are being racked up to provide fire marshals, and Galliard is showing every sign that it expects the leaseholders to cough up to remove the cladding that it put up itself. If the cladding and safety costs are as extensive as at Citiscape in Croydon, the total could be as much as £19m.

Local Labour MP Matthew Pennycook told the Commons before Christmas that leaseholders “bought their properties in good faith and bear no responsibility whatever for failures in the building regulations regime, but as things stand they are going to be absolutely clobbered”.

So far, the only freeholder to agree to pay to remove Grenfell-style cladding is Legal & General at the Blenheim Centre/Reflexion site in Hounslow, west London, where the bill may exceed £10m. Unlike Astor’s clients, it has not chosen to hide its ownership.

Elsewhere, Javid’s pleas appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Will we have to wait until it’s too late and the courts have decided the leaseholders are liable before the government intervenes?

Categories
Cyclical Works Financial Housing ILA Information Islington LBI Leaseholders Listed Buildings Major Works Meetings Partners PFI Repairs Service Charges

Housing Scrutiny – Information on Partners Resident Scrutiny Arrangements Meeting Tuesday 6th February 2018.

Housing Scrutiny-Information on Partners Resident Scrutiny Arrangements Meeting Tuesday 6th February 2018.

In advance of next week’s Housing Scrutiny meeting which will be considering the performance of Partners, please find attached a note submitted by a Partners tenant on the organisation’s resident scrutiny arrangements. This may inform discussions at the meeting.

The meeting will be held on Tuesday 6th February, 2018, at 7.30pm in Committee Room 4. The pre-meeting will be held from 7-pm in Committee Room 3, at Islington Town Hall.

Please click on this link –PartnersResidentScrutinyNote2018.pdf

Categories
Financial Housing ILA Information Islington LBI Leaseholders Partners PFI Repairs Service Charges

Inquiry into Local Authority Governance Scrutiny etc

Dear Islington Leaseholders,
Overview and scrutiny in local government inquiry

Dr Potter has asked me to forward this onto you all and has kindly suggested that everybody should reply to this by sending in a written submission….. A.S.A.P…. Deadline = Friday, 10 March 2017

Please click on the link below in BLUE to submit your written submissions.

Dr B.S. Potter Chairman (ILA)

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry6/

MPs launch inquiry into overview and scrutiny in local government

Tuesday, 24 January 2017 14:58

The Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee has launched a “long-overdue” inquiry into overview and scrutiny in local government.

The committee said it would “consider whether overview and scrutiny arrangements in England are working effectively and whether local communities are able to contribute to and monitor the work of their councils”.

Written evidence is invited on:

Whether scrutiny committees in local authorities in England are effective in holding decision-makers to account

The extent to which scrutiny committees operate with political impartiality and independence from executives

Whether scrutiny officers are independent of and separate from those being scrutinised

How chairs and members are selected

Whether powers to summon witnesses are adequate

The potential for local authority scrutiny to act as a voice for local service users

How topics for scrutiny are selected

The support given to the scrutiny function by political leaders and senior officers, including the resources allocated (for example whether there is a designated officer team)

What use is made of specialist external advisers

The effectiveness and importance of local authority scrutiny of external organisations

The role of scrutiny in devolution deals and the scrutiny models used in combined authorities

Examples where scrutiny has worked well and not so well

The deadline for written submissions is Friday 10 March 2017.

Clive Betts MP, chair of the committee, said: “This inquiry is long overdue. Local authority executives have more powers than ever before but there has not been any review about how effectively the current overview and scrutiny arrangements are working since they were introduced in 2000.

“Local authorities have a considerable degree of discretion when it comes to overview and scrutiny. We will examine these arrangements and consider what changes may be needed to ensure decision-makers in councils and local services are better held to account.”

Overview and scrutiny arrangements were introduced by the Local Government Act in 2000 as a counterweight to increasing decision-making powers of Leaders and Cabinets or directly elected mayors.

The committee said that shortcomings had been exposed, however, following a number of high profile cases, including child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, poor care and high mortality rates at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and governance failings in Tower Hamlets.