|
|
 |
| |
 Cllr Catherine West |
£6m spent on lawyers’ fees – to avoid doing home repairs
HfI chiefs defend running up bill for legal challenges to tenants’ claims
HOUSING chiefs have spent nearly £6million on legal fees in a bid to avoid doing repairs.
The Tribune has discovered that Homes for Islington (HfI), which runs all the borough’s council estates, has dug deep into its coffers to contest whether it should carry out repairs such as putting right faulty windows and poor plumbing.
In some cases, disputed work may have cost the company only a few hundred pounds and the figures are dwarfed by the amount spent seeking legal advice on how to lawfully avoid doing the work – but HfI insists there is a principle at stake.
A spokesman said the tough resistance to some claims for repairs had been pursued to avoid setting a precedent for entertaining needless – or “unjustifiable” – requests by tenants for work to be done.
Nevertheless, the Tribune has unearthed spreadsheets showing HfI has spent roughly about £5.9million on legal fees and compensation, and a further £2.4million on repairs it had to complete anyway after its legal challenges failed.
The revelations have led to calls for a full-scale inquiry into “rip-off Islington”.
HfI is an arms length management organisation (Almo), set up and funded by the Town Hall to look after council homes.
The figures, unearthed after requests were made under the Freedom of Information Act, cover the company’s first seven years of existence.
One man, who lives in Weston Rise estate, off Pentonville Road, King’s Cross, won compensation of £26,360 in January 2005 over the general poor state of his home – the highest payout in the past five years. In August 2004, another man, from Theseus Walk at the Angel, won £12,543 for a claim over water leaks.
And in May 2005, a resident of Ella Road, Stroud Green, won £11,000 compensation after suffering damp caused by water leaks.
Labour group leader Catherine West described the situation as alarming, adding: “This is another example of rip-off Islington. I’ll be asking for an inquiry into who decides to fight the cases and the legal costs.”
Former chairman of Islington Leaseholders Forum Brian Potter said: “It’s a gross misuse of public money, an absolute, total disgrace. They should use the money on repairs instead of wasting it on costly legal battles.”
Mr Potter said his own claim for £50 roof repairs was finally settled out of court but believes the council ended up with a legal bill topping £90,000.
An HfI spokesman said the contractor will have spent £600million on council housing by 2011. “The decision to fight disrepair claims is taken on a case-by-case basis with legal advice,” he said. “HfI always aim to deal with any claim as quickly as we can and to resolve it where possible before it goes to court.”
He said compensation claims have fallen from 240 in 2001 to 30 in 2007. “The work undertaken by the legal repair team and investment made in our stock have reduced overall costs,” he added.
“Past cases we have won have included unjustifiable claims that, had we not contested them, would have created a requirement for a whole programme of unneeded works running into millions of pounds.”
Lib Dem deputy leader Councillor Lucy Watt said: “HfI are saying if they don’t challenge some of these cases the floodgates will be open for all the ambulance chasers. Since 2001 the cases have come down massively.” |
 |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
