Tag: Leaseholders pay the bill

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

Leaseholder Letters 5

“Empty barrels make the most noise”

It’s all very well Councillor Una O’Halloran (Daily Telegraph 26/7/25, “Islington plans purchase of 900 former council houses”) boasting about the Council’s scheme to “buy back” former council homes for temporary accommodation. What she fails to say is that these properties are owned by former council tenants — people who paid their rent in full, 125 years in advance, by purchasing their flats.

Now long-standing residents are being pushed aside so the Council can parade its “achievements” as a triumph of social policy. In truth, it’s little more than an act of displacement dressed up as compassion.

When leaseholders challenge the ever-escalating major works bills, the Council falls back on its same hollow excuses — shouted ever louder, as though volume were a substitute for reason. The old adage certainly fits perfectly, “empty barrels make the most noise”.

If this Council genuinely believed in equality, it would use the 11–14% from over-specified, building projects — the very excesses that create these problems — to support leaseholders. Reducing re-chargeable costs or extending payment terms (without the insult of compound interest) would show leadership. Instead, the Council behave like a debt collector.

Few outside this experience grasp the reality of being a council leaseholder : the relentless anxiety, sleepless nights, feeling of being treated as a “cash cow” by the authority that once offered security and community.

At the I L A, we hear this pain month after month. The stories are heartbreaking — ordinary residents bullied, threatened, and financially bled by a Council that seems more interested in retaining control than serving its residents.

If the Council wants to create a “fairer Islington,” it should start by treating its leaseholders with fairness, dignity, and respect — not as collateral damage in a PR campaign.”

Mr/Ms name and address supplied

Categories
Councillors Cyclical Works Election Financial IBC ILA Islington Islington Council LBI Leaseholders Partners Repairs Service Charges

Leaseholder Letters 4

Leaseholders deserve transparency, proper oversight, and fair treatment

Dear Editor,

I am writing to inform readers that I intend to stand as an independent leaseholder candidate in the May 2026 local elections.

Over recent months, I have personally attended a number of Section 20 (S20) consultation meetings on behalf of concerned leaseholders, and I am deeply shocked by the attitude and approach of Islington Council.

s20 notices are being issued without full and proper surveys being carried out. In some cases, leaseholders are being told that new roofs are required when a simple drone survey could easily determine whether such major works are actually necessary.

Even more concerning is that unqualified individuals — some still in training — are being appointed as project managers for these costly schemes. Meanwhile, certain S20 notices are as much as five years out of date, yet the Council continues to push forward with the projects and expects leaseholders to pay tens of thousands of pounds.

At the monthly Islington Leaseholders Association (ILA) meetings, many residents are now expressing serious distress — including stress, anxiety, and depression — as a direct result of the Council’s handling of these issues. People feel ignored, overwhelmed, and financially trapped, with little to no meaningful support or communication from those responsible.

This situation is unacceptable and demands urgent scrutiny and reform. Leaseholders deserve transparency, proper oversight, and fair treatment — not outdated paperwork, questionable assessments, and indifference to the human cost of these failures.

Yours faithfully,

John Doherty

Independent Leaseholder Candidate (May 2026)

N1 area

Categories
Leaseholders

Scaffolding Vs Cherry Pickers

scaff crop vs

Leaseholders often wonder why vast amounts of scaffolding, erected on council property, never appears to be in use. Why it remains so for months, and some times for years even? 

Understandable, on high rise blocks, perhaps, but on low rise and street properties the costs can’t be justified, surely? Since the use of modern “Cherry Pickers” and Tetra systems, can vastly reduce costs. They also cut the time required to do the job.

The council usually argue that regardless of time on site, cost of scaffolding remains fixed at a set price by their contract…So whether it remains up for a week or six months is totally irrelevant…!!!

Arguably, I would assume that if this is such, the council might be accepting “Front loading” of the contracts to justify such fixed priced arrangements, since builders do not work for free.

Recently I witnessed (photographed) replacement of tiles on a four floor block of flats, using a cherry picker…workmen arrived at approximately 8am the repair completed by 9am, while I watched…no scaffolding used, and only three workmen…job done…!!!

Furthermore, I have pictures of a similar machine being used on higher council blocks adjacent to the Town Hall…So, given scaffolding is extremely expensive, damages buildings, is unsightly, encourages crime, and requires netting, why does the council continue to use it.

The leaseholders theory is generally, that it profits the contractors by allowing them to store their materials for free, thereby removing the necessity for expensive “striking” and costly storage, until required elsewhere, the council however would argue that it greatly facilitates future “on going” works, and actually saves leaseholders money…!!!

Leaseholders pay the bill…You decide…!!!

Dr Potter…

Chairman ILA