Islington Leaseholders Association
To: Catherine West (catherine.west@islington.gov.uk), james.murray@islington.gov.uk, paul.convery@islingtonlabour.org.uk, richard.greening@islington.gov.uk, richard.watts@islington.gov.uk
Dear Catherine.
Since the ILA’s last proposal to raise cash for Islington (99 year Lease Extensions) appears to have drawn so much attention (including from other borough’s!) we hope that you will also consider another of our schemes, which although not as lucrative as the first, will potentially raise a great deal of much needed cash, very quickly.
Very briefly…
A/ In Islington’s leases, Leaseholders only own the glass, not the window frames!
B/ A major source of problems has been due to window repairs/replacement for which contractorsgrossly over charge. (Most windows have under gone extensive work through the Decent Homes Project already)
C/ So..When contacting leaseholders re a 99 year lease Extension…also offer to sell them their windows…at a discount…as a one off offer…in the same time frame as the lease extension?
Back ground…
Formally, to buy your windows through HFI you were required to seek planning permission and alicense…all of which cost money and involved administrative costs to the order of approximately £1000-2000 per property.
The ILA has finally convinced HFI that both the planning permission and license were an unnecessary cash burden, which prevented leaseholders from buying their windows via a “Deed of Variation”. However, as a result of years of negotiations with HFI, leaseholders can now purchase the DOV within a couple of weeks, at a total cost of £380. (I purchased mine last month).
If this sum was reduced to £180 in a one off promotion, I am sure that the majority of Islington’s leaseholders would be happy to take part.
Peripheral advantages to this scheme…
1/ Many more leaseholders would be inclined to use the small local builders…thereby generating bothcash and employment in the borough, and reduce both the council’s responsibility and contractual work load!
2/ The large contracts currently being allocated cost the borough a fortune, and are totally un-manageable and impossible to monitor…and, invariably uses sub-contracted labour from…who knows where?
3/ If the leaseholders are satisfied with this arrangement they will have no need to challenge the billing at law (LVT), so saving the borough a great deal of cash during the course of the year in defending issues related to cost and quality of works by employing very expensive external firms of solicitors. See Tremlett Grove…!!!
Legal safe guards…
In order to ensure that the leaseholders comply with council requirements in regard to conservation areas etc…Caveats can be included, if and when required…
Possible income of…non-ring fenced cash…
Math…11,000 x £180 = £??????????
Brian.
For those of you unable to obtain last weeks Islington Gazette dated 6 September 2012.
Please click here IslingtonGazetteLetters06.09.12
The Islington Gazette – Thursday 6 September 2012 , Page 18 – Letters
1) Letter of the week – ‘Legalised money laundering’ by Council
By Dr Brian Potter, Islington Leaseholders Association/
Federation of Islington Tenants Association
2) Leaseholders – A silence that is far from golden
By Kay Newsom, Islington Leaseholders Association member
3) Democracy – Champions must not be chumps
By Richard Rosser Highbury New Park. N5
Send your letters to islingtongazette.letters@archant.co.uk
Islington Gazette reports calls for investigation into Islington Coucil “…Islington council had a vested interest in overcharging by contractors …… The message being sent out to contractors by Islington council is ” if you get caught overcharging, don’t worry we will pay the legal cost with public money to defend your actions…..”
Full Islington Gazette articles here
One of the most important Leasehold Valuation Tribunal LVT decisions to date, from an Islington leaseholder’s perspective, was announced last week, (Merryweather court and Brennand court vs the mayor & burgess of Islington 29.3.12).
Please see the downloadable LVT decision pdf for details on the bill reductions, and to see how Islington leaseholders supported their claims before the LVT, plus the degree of detail they provide in evidence of shoddy workmanship, overcharging and gross mismanagement. LVT – Merryweather & Brennand court vs LBI 29.3.12
Examples of the council overcharging identified by the LVT include roof works charges of £208,661 which were reduced to £50,000, i.e. £25,000 per block. and asbestos removal charges of £157,371 that the Tribunal reduced to reasonable expenditure of £15,737.
This is one example, where the Council has authorised expenditure without satisfying itself that the expenditure is really necessary, and it demonstrates what can be achieved when leaseholders have the courage to challenge the bills they are sent, and demand that council officers , councillors and their contractors are made accountable for their actions.”
Since the ILA can only supply ‘useful information’ on our web site, and not “advice”, as always, we suggest that you should obtain ‘professional independent legal advice’ before considering issuing such a challenge.
The Islington Gazette has reported that millions of pounds of public money could have been wasted.
The ILA has already lobbied Islington Council, and, both the leader of the council, and the chair of housing, in regard to applying the reductions obtained by Merryweather/Brennard Courts leaseholders to all leaseholders in the same contract, and insisted that the council also reclaim, on behalf of the public purse, all monies related to tenanted properties in the same contract. LVT – Merryweather & Brennand court vs LBI 29.3.12
Please feel free to pass on to other leaseholders you think may be interested
Late News: The ILA understand that LBI intends to appeal the decision.