| |
Charges can be challenged even if you have pay plan
• LAST week’s letters condemned our efforts to offer options to leaseholders for work done to their properties (Loss of rights will create home owners’ underclass, September 11). Under the terms of the lease, estimated major works service charges are due in full when they are invoiced. However, we realise that if we applied the lease terms about payment very rigidly this would cause many leaseholders significant hardship. This is why we offer a wide range of options to pay, including spreading payments over a number of years with an interest-free period that ranges from two to five years.
It is a consequence of making such an undertaking to pay that the options to challenge the charges at a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) are restricted.
Where leaseholders genuinely do have issues about the cost, quality or “reasonableness” of major work charges, we are committed to resolving these. This is done through inspections and investigations within HfI. In any circumstances, we would always aim to resolve issues without either side having to apply to a LVT. So to all intents and purposes we would say that leaseholders are still in a position to challenge the charges with us even if they have signed a payment arrangement.
As I hope you will appreciate, we need to strike a balance between offering leaseholders flexible opportunities to pay and securing payments that are properly due to the council.
With regard to “estimated bills being doubled or tripled at a surveyor’s whim”, this is totally incorrect. For works carried out under the Framework contract, we negotiate an agreed maximum price with the constructors. The estimated invoice will be based upon this figure and the final charge will not exceed the figure provided at the Section 20 stage. This gives leaseholders some assurance on what the final bills will be.
Doug Goldring
Director of operations, Homes for Islington
|
 |
|
|
|
Your comments:
|
REGARDING Mr Goldring's reply on behalf of Hfi, in respect to the payment plan being offered by Islington Council.It is notable that the explanation offered to leaseholders in this letter is from Hfi rather than Islington Council.
Surely, since Islington Council are the freeholders of all the properties managed by Hfi (arms length company, which is wholly owned by Islington Council) the full responsibility from this latest fiasco should rest with them.Therefore it is incumbent upon Cllr Terry Stacy, Leader of Islington's Lib-Dem Council, to answer those effected by this gross infringement of their democratic rights, and not to just pass the buck onto an elected group of Hfi employee's.With respect to the content of Hfi's reply, I feel quite sure that I speak for the majority of Islington's hard pressed leaseholders by commenting in words of one syllable--RUBBISH--Who in their right mind would consider challenging the billing of such poor workmanship with the very people who are allocating the contracts in the first place, and are supposedly, overseeing the quality of the job on behalf of leaseholders.Isn't it about time that Islington Lib-Dem Councillors decided that management of the Council's housing stock by this ALOMO just isn't working to this boroughs best interest, and take its housing management back into house where ELECTED personnel could run it properly?I await with interest Cllr Stacy's reply on behalf of our Lib-Dem Council, although I really don't expect too much of a surprise in his answer!"
Name and address supplied |
| |
