| |
Loss of rights will create home owners’ underclass
• FRIGHTENING leaseholders to sign away their rights of challenging major works bills if they are forced to enter Homes for Islington (HfI) agreements (loosely called “estimates” that can be doubled or tripled at a surveyor’s whim) to pay over long-term periods is only the beginning of lifelong problems (Dangers of signing up, September 4).
As most maintenance and major works have an “endless cycle of five or seven years”, the leaseholders taking up to 10 years to repay one bill will have a second or third added as each cycle is reached – often referred to by Islington leaseholders as their second mortgage but without the advantage of ever paying it off.
Even though successive governments encouraged council tenants to get their foot on the home ladder and take up right-to-buy, at the same time they excluded council leaseholders from the rights to challenge their landlords that are enjoyed by independent leaseholders.
Now HfI and Islington Council are adding further restrictions on possible challenge to the majority of leaseholders faced with huge bills, which certainly cannot be claimed as value for money in any sense of the words.
When all leaseholders (private or council) have the same right to make the decisions for any necessary work on their homes, as well as who will be employed to do that work satisfactorily, only then will a true, fair system become available.
Whereas, arbitrarily removing any citizens’ rights effectively downgrades them to second-class citizenship or the new underclass of home owners, which is unacceptable in a so-called classless, democratic society.
HELEN CAGNONI
Wilmington Square, WC1
• IT’S nothing short of scandalous that leaseholders have to sign up for the payment plan at the early stages of the process, before the real costs of the work are made apparent.
The real scandal, however, is that by signing up to this plan leaseholders have to waive their right to appeal against the costs to the Leaseholder Valuation Tribunal. I would very much like to hear councillors’ response on this point, and how they would feel if they were given such an option by contractors doing work on their property, both personal and council.
One has to question why anyone would put such a clause into an arrangement.
DR ADAM HUDSON
N5
• MRS Newsom is right to highlight the dangers to leaseholders of signing up to Islington Council’s “generous” repayment options, thereby removing their right to have the final bill questioned by the Leaseholder Valuation Tribunal.
This smacks of yet another ruse by the council and Homes for Islington to avoid any objective evaluation of the lunatic (some would say criminal) bills with which they routinely present unfortunate leaseholders.
If HfI were a private managing agent, it would have been sacked by leaseholders long ago, and rightly so. Unfortunately, leaseholders don’t have that power – a situation of which the council and HfI take royal and disgraceful advantage.
FIONA RINTOUL
Highbury New Park, N5
• I APPLAUD Mrs Newsom for drawing attention to the scandal of Homes for Islington’s repayment options for leaseholders. When faced with bills for as much as tens of thousands of pounds, some leaseholders have felt desperate enough to take out one of these plans not knowing that they were in effect signing a blank cheque. Isn’t it a basic right to be able to challenge a bill? I can’t believe HfI is allowed to get away with this.
I would never want to have to take out a repayment plan if I possibly could avoid it. But it’s a scandal that not only do leaseholders face outlandishly high bills but, if they feel they might have difficulty paying and take out a deferred payment plan, they have to give up the right to challenge the final bill. It just seems against natural justice.
VICKI LEONARD
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
