Why it is crap

These are the notes we gave the Audit Commission:

Notes for Meeting with Audit Commission 29 June 2010

a)     Charges increased enormously last year and since Lewisham Homes took over

• We are told this is because we were undercharged before, except for Caretaking charges where we are told the increased costs are to buy more equipment which we haven’t seen used.
• Large increases are based on estimates which are later seen to be over-estimates, thereby causing unnecessary financial hardship by increasing monthly payments by 100% one year and reducing them by 30% the next year, making it impossible to budget.

b)     Service Charge Bills are unaudited

• Bills are full of errors due either to typing errors or because of charges for work that wasn’t done.
• Bills are accompanied by a letter that says bills are audited (when they are not), a misleading and fraudulent statement.
• Leaseholders are charged differing amounts for the same item, eg changing a light bulb
• Communal repairs, caretaking and grounds maintenance are often charged more to smaller blocks, and charged differently to same sized blocks.

c)     Charges for Repairs cannot be traced adequately

• With only 6% inspection of repairs, Lewisham Homes do not know whether a job is done or not, nor satisfactorily, and leaseholders know even less.
• Until Repairs can tell us what they’re repairing when they repair it and allow us to comment on its satisfactory completion or indeed whether it has been done at all, leaseholders do not know what they’re paying for up to 18 months later. (Highlighted by us for years, and now also by Scrutiny Committee. Persistently denied by Leaseholder Team, but now being considered by Potter)
• Due to lack of monitoring, we are charged for work that is re-done many times – there is no planning or understanding of persistent problems, eg no plans available for drainage networks.

d)     False claims for consultation

• At Leaseholder Improvement Group Meetings, issues that a clear majority want to discuss affecting whole estates are described as ‘individual’ problems and not minuted.
• Managers in Repairs and Caretaking have suggested ways forward but are then ‘silenced’ by their seniors – recommendations they make ‘in the field’ are not put into place.
• Meeting agendas are set by LH, and taken up with presentations rather than discussion
• Minutes are inaccurate if unfavourable comments are made, and are later not rectified.
• Changes to charges are made with claims that consultation with residents has taken place, when less than 0.5% have attended meetings where changes are presented.

e)     Querying charges

• Details of repairs only available by requesting a breakdown which are full of jargon with no glossary provided and are supplied variously in either date order or Repair Number, or a mixture of both, so are hard to decipher. Also sometimes supplied as Excel files.
• Anomalies become apparent when Repair Breakdowns for different blocks are compared. The average leaseholder has no means of comparison since no benchmark figures are available (eg average tariffs).
• Requests to see supplier’s invoices and queries on charges are unfulfilled.
• Photographic evidence provided by leaseholders has been persistently ignored.

f)  Caretaking

• Procedures are so poor in many cases that dirt and grime have built up to unacceptable levels. Persistent complaints about these procedures have been ignored.
• Charges for caretaking have increased for all leaseholders by as much as 300% with no visible increase in standards.
• On smaller estates charges are applied regardless of far lesser requirements
• On large estates, smaller blocks may pay more than larger blocks
• There is still no contract in place for cleaning bins, resulting in flies on all balconies on estates with bin chambers
• Pest Control: infestations do not get sorted until there are enough infested flats to do a block treatment, and we are charged whether it is successful or not.
• Inspections adhere to low standards and are marked high.
• If a resident attends an inspection they may point out repairs required that are otherwise missed. These are marked up to be actioned then recorded as done when they are not.
• Reports are not available to view on website as claimed.

g)     Grounds Maintenance

• A charge for sweeping was removed from Caretaking to be added to Grounds Maintenance – Caretaking charge went up anyway, as did Grounds Maintenance
• No provision of maps telling us where work is to take place. Work is now done according to need (eg grass height) – breaches of contract have already taken place. Leasehold Services said Estate Maps would be online by April. They are not.
• No effective monitoring of grounds maintenance contract, no inspecting during winter months (no contract was in place this past Winter)

h)    Value For Money

• Leaseholders must pay their own building insurance as well as a charge to Lewisham. Residents  often asked to claim on their own insurance because Lewisham don’t want to claim on theirs when it is usually their fault that a claim must be made.
• Antisocial Behaviour charged to Leaseholders on estates and not to those on street properties. The Scrutiny Committee recommends its removal as a charge. It Is totally ineffective (as proved by a recent focus group).
• Too much money spent on Lewisham Homes branding. A proliferation of institutional signs bearing the logo and Homes magazine are perceived by many as propaganda, serving no useful purpose.

i)    Poor communications

• The website is difficult to use (the search facility is poor)
• Enquiries are only responded to when a councillor is copied in.
• Letters to Andrew Potter, Adam Barratt, and other senior managers are rarely replied to (also letters to the Mayor). A letter from Joan Ruddock to Potter was replied to by the Council’s PR Head.
• Complaints via the Complaints Team about service levels are forwarded to Leasehold Services who spend so long ‘investigating’ that the complainant gives up and the Complaint is deemed closed.
• Leasehold Services hinder rather than help to obtain information about services and do not want us to talk to other services.
• These meetings with the Audit Commission were not publicised until one day before via Homes magazine. A handful of residents were contacted directly. Those wanting to attend who are awaiting transfer to L&Q whilst experiencing an abysmal level of service were denied access.