Leaseholders service charges tribunal

  Is illegal and punishable   

So why do local Authorities do just that, but are rigorous in reminding private landlords that this is illegal and punishable by a hefty fine.

"even though the directors were neighbours. He succeeded only after the intervention of the borough solicitor, who wrote to the directors of the company warning them that a failure to disclose the accounts was an offence punishable by a fine of up to £2,500.".

Extract from

an article in the Telegraph

 i had to laugh when i read it because i am fully aware that many councils are blatantly refusing to reveal proper accounts to leaseholders. I remember when i asked to see the accounts for my BLOCK the person who deals with such things, said to me over the phone no you dam well can't and this was a local authority, that is fully aware of the requirements, seems they can enforce the laws whenever they sniff out the opportunity to rake in a bit of ready cash for themselves in the form of fines.

Although each case is different and there is no guarantee that the leasehold valuation tribunal will always decide entirely in the leaseholders favour, there have been some encouraging tribunal decisions, that made it worthwhile challenging the service charges.

Such as

this leasehold valuation tribunal decision in Waltham forest

East London and be assured there are others all over the country who are gaining results, but to be honest with you these results are varying. With some leaseholders being more successful than others at the tribunal.

Forcing an open independent audit just like  this petition asking for leaseholders accounting transparency with many more councils

I will let you decide upon the contents of this report the suggestion is that many councils are falsifying tenant satisfaction surveys and that work is being signed off as done when it isn't. 

How is this ? a survey is carried out of say aprox one out of ten blocks and/or flats within a block, to determine the work required to all blocks or whole estates based upon this "core sample". But problems arise later, because not all blocks are the same, although they appear to look the same from the outside.  e.g some blocks have different roof structures than their apparent identical twins nearby. So that when work starts there is a a re pricing needed when it's discovered a block that was not part of earlier "core sample" has a different method of construction much cheaper to repair, BUT YEARS EARLIER THEY HAD ALL BEEN "core sample"  PRICED with THE SAME HIGHER COST.

What happens next is, the Leaseholders living in the block needing less extensive work and therefore very much cheaper to repair, ARE UP IN ARMS about being overcharged based upon the "core sample".

It does not end there because the "core sample" approach is used to inspect finished works and the stupidity of it all is the "partnering contractors" know in advance  what is to be the sample to be inspected to get paid. There are reports that the contractors do a throughly decent job to the pre determined "sample area", and for the rest of the block they either do nothing in some instances or very little, or skimp it badly. 

I know that this has happened on my estate in London and this has been bought before a leasehold valuation tribunal to challenge excessive service charges , not by one or two blocks  but several blocks acting independently and all having witnessed the same thing happening to their individual blocks and/or cluster of blocks within the same estate.

 I hope so because there is a common puzzle needs answering 

Why if the service charges and major works bills for the governments decent homes program are accurate and correct. Then how come there are downward negotiations taking place all over the country just like the one reported here mentioned in this BBC news report down from £200,000 two hundred thousand to just over one hundred thousand £100,000 ? and still being negotiated.

Is there any substance in the rumours that some local councils are doing deals with those that put up a strong coordinated fight, forcing them to sign confidentiality agreements.

If so then why apparently persist in charging the weaker ones the original excessive bills?. What is going on when will this ever be officially looked at and why isn't it being officially investigated !!

"The worst case I have heard of is at a council-owned mansion block in Camden, where leaseholders were asked to pay £200,000 for repairs," Mr Paterson said.

We had been particularly careful with savings and pensions, but that would probably [be] wiped out  Reg Adams, homeowner with a £17,000 repair bill 'My savings have been wiped out'

"This has been negotiated down to £104,000 and is still being argued.

Is there any truth in the suggestion i have often heard put forward that maybe local authorities are simply intent upon getting the full £10,000 ten thousand pounds on average from each leaseholder.

That would be the maximum they would have to pay for any works done under the governments "New deal for communities scheme". Many are deeply suspicious that some councils have hi jacked this initiative and deliberately pitched their estimates way too high, with the intention of agreeing to reduce the demands to about the £10,000 mark even when the actual cost may be less than the  £10,000 that leaseholders, have been lulled into believing would be a fair and accurate price. Even if it's not entirely true one can't help but ponder upon this when  there are documented cases of massive bills being reduced considerably. What the heck is going on and why the secrecy hopefully one day we might see transparency and not have to wait for whistle blowers to reveal the truth, which has happened in Southwark. 

Also in Southwark a group of leaseholders managed to force the council into releasing accounts that were examined and errors of over a million pounds were found. Southwark were at one time i believe responsible for procurement of tenders in partnership with Hackney another london borough. There is much about this on the internet just google it and you will see for yourself. There are other leaseholders like here in Tower Hamlets calling for "support for a motion that calls for in depth independent scrutiny by an external auditor of the calculation,

the apportionment

and the collection of service charges in this borough." of Tower Hamlets 

TOP