Auditing

Invoices not audited

Only a small sample of leasehold accounts are audited, allowing accounting errors to go unchecked. ‘The audit checks a sample of charges in different blocks and checks the method and processes in place. The audit does not check every charge’ (Lesley Seary to Joan Ruddock, Aug 09). Yet invoices are accompanied by a letter from the Director of Resources stating that the accounts ‘have been examined by the Council’s Internal Audit Service’ followed by ‘it is my opinion that, overall, the accounts represent a reasonable summary of the costs incurred.’ This is a misleading and false statement.

Contractors' work and invoices not checked

In addition, contractors’ work and invoices are not checked, and anomalies in communal charges remain unaddressed – presently, leaseholders pay wildly varying amounts for exactly the same service. (See Note 1 below) Rectifying mistakes takes a very long time and it is only because the TRA (unlike the individual leaseholder) was able to access the breakdowns for all the blocks on the estate and make comparisons that anomalies were exposed last year. One leaseholder had been making enquiries about an obscene overcharge for some time, but it wasn’t fully investigated until our class action. (See Note 2 below)

Lewisham Homes’ Strategic Objectives Regarding Leaseholders

This lists, among others, to:
    - provide leaseholders with up to date and accurate information and monitor satisfaction
    - provide information on spending: up to date and reliable information on actual costs incurred on responsive, cyclical and planned works (Business Plan 08/09, repeated in the 2010-13 plan).

But in practice we are forever being told ‘We are looking at ways in which we can improve the timescales in which information on repairs is given to leaseholders. However, we are mindful of incurring extra costs which will be part of the leaseholders service charge’  Also, ‘Current resources and system cannot supply this level of information.’ (Leasehold Improvement Group January 2010 Info Pack)

The Council's Select Committee noted that leaseholders are entirely unhappy with the accuracy of bills and the level of information provided. ‘The majority of respondents were not satisfied with the billing arrangements for service charges’, ‘Costs could be reduced if work was managed better’, ‘Errors are sometimes made and leaseholders are charged for work that has not been carried out’ and ‘Service charges are increasing above the rate of inflation (but the quality of the services provided are decreasing)'
However, whilst we welcome their recommendation for Lewisham Homes to ensure the bills they issue are accurate, we believe this cannot be achieved unless there is already a system in place that easily cross references work ordered and work done. We believe it should be possible to tailor the system to provide this data which must already be available between LH and their contractors, eg job, cost, whereabouts and confirmation of completion, as and when it happens.

So far, they have only just got around to agreeing to issue Satisfaction slips to anyone who reports a repair. Only the reportee then will know about it, no one else will. We are asking for a monthly report of all repairs requested, which we can then check against to ensure the jobs have actually been done. These reports could be sent to the TRA and kept on file.

Repair Breakdowns

Whilst tenants can order repairs to their homes and sign satisfaction slips when the work is done, the only method leaseholders have for knowing what external maintenance has been done, for which they are re-charged, is by looking at the Repair Breakdowns which are only provided on request. These documents are vague and without detail. Repair items are listed verbatim from Repair Orders, written in shortform (pls rem = Please remedy, Tnt rqst = Tenant requests) and use acronyms (MST = Main Storage Tank?). No glossary of terms is provided. See Appendix: Repair Breakdown 2008/09.

The exact location of a repair is often missing, so becomes uncheckable. It is highly unlikely that a leaseholder can know for sure if a repair took place two years ago unless they can remember reporting it themselves. Items are not presented in date order, nor in fact in repair order. No particular order, in fact. Persistent repairs to the same area are given new order numbers each time so there appears to be no tracking of when a job has had to be done more than once, or even whether it was actually done the first or the second or third time, and there is no indication that a troublesome job might have been completed successfully.

At a recent Leasehold Improvement Group (LIG) the question was asked why the (repair) breakdowns could not be sent out with the invoice. Sandra Canham ‘explained that this would involve huge amounts of work and paperwork, costs would be increased and not everyone wanted all this information’. Yet residents are drowned in a mountain of paper when it comes to consultation on Major Works or awarding new contracts, the contents of which might only be understood by a buildings manager. This is typical of the fobbing off we have had to deal with.

We therefore very much welcome the Select Committee’s recommendation that A clear and complete breakdown of costs (what work took place, when and how much it cost) to be provided with every service charge or major works bill. This is long overdue. However, see Checks & Balances below, where a case is made for a much clearer and complete Breakdown of Costs than the paltry inadequate documents we are currently presented with.

Also highly desirable is the Committee's recommendation that service charge and major works files, including redacted invoices to be made available on the Lewisham Homes website, if feasible. This must be made feasible, if any claims are to be made for transparency and accountability.

NOTES

1.   Anomalies in communal charges ignored
Invoices do not distinguish between repairs that are communal to the whole estate or specific to one building. Additionally, examination of communal repairs alone show large discrepancies in which equally sized blocks may be charged vastly varying amounts for the same services for which they should be charged the same. Both Estimated and Actual caretaking costs vary hugely between blocks with no significant difference in the service provided. We have been told that they are ‘investigating’ the discrepancy between two equally sized blocks (when there are in fact discrepancies between all the blocks). The Actual Statements for 08/09 show that our request at the June 15th meeting for LH to examine these anomalies has been ignored. Caretaking between two blocks varies between a charge to individual leaseholders of £163.81 (49 flats) and £252.44 (40 flats). Are some blocks cleaned better than others? What is so difficult about taking the total cost for Caretaking and dividing it equally between all the flats on the estate?

2.    Inadequate follow up
We raised the issue of overcharging for Bin Chamber Doors at the June 2009 meeting and Sandra Canham reported back via Leif Law’s report: ‘the above charges have been reviewed and leaseholders advised of the changes.’ To date, only Ms Lawes, Cllr Padmore and Lucy Doig and the leaseholders in the block which was singled out as massively overcharged have been informed of Ms Canham’s ‘investigations’. Other leaseholders on Crossfields remain uninformed. We asked Leif Law to find out why the Bin Chamber doors were replaced in the first place. Ms Canham replied in his report: ‘I am advised that the work was required for H & S reasons.’ We asked what were the Health & Safety benefits of the replacements that were not there before with the previously perfect steel doors, but this has not been answered.