Summary

March 2010

We very much welcome the recent Recommendations of the Council’s Public Accounts Select Committee’s Review into the Council’s Obligations to Leaseholders. They have highlighted many issues that we have been  raising for some time that have been consistently and comprehensively ignored.

Unfortunately the Committee did not request a review of the laughably low standards of caretaking. However, they have recommended the removal of separate charges for Antisocial Behaviour, Customer Services and Resident Involvement being levied in addition to the Management Charge, which was one of our most contested issues.

The Committee’s Review contains many recommendations that we very much hope will be implemented – and represents vindication and progress of sorts on our own negotiations with a recalcitrant administration. They have identified that there needs to be better monitoring of day-to-day maintenance for which we are often charged (for work that didn’t take place or was done badly) with a mechanism that involves input from leaseholders to measure performance and a system to reduce charges if targets are not met. We hope this means it is finally recognised that until it is possible to know what we are paying for as and when it happens, we will continue to not know what we are paying for.

Last year’s complaint focused on new charges and large increases. It led us to examine bills and inadequate Repair Breakdowns that we found to be inaccurate and undetailed. There has been no full examination of these figures, only those we noted ourselves – conducted in a voluntary capacity, without very much information to go on.

Questionable figures from last year’s – and now this year’s – accounts indicate there may be further inaccuracies. These are not just typing errors. This year’s Actual Statements (08/09) for Crossfields Estate were 4 months late. The reason given for the lateness was that Communal Lighting charges were being double checked. Astonishingly, this is the exact item where there is a spectacular overcharge equivalent to £12,000. Some leaseholders saw an increase in their communal lighting charges of almost 900%.

It is apparent that gross errors are afforded by Lewisham Homes (and the council’s) failure to properly audit accounts, and a corresponding dereliction of duty in scrutinising contracts and contractor’s invoices against the actual work or service supplied. Since Lewisham Homes have collected or continue to collect payment from the vast majority of leaseholders, this is tantamount to fraud.

There is little or no monitoring of repairs, maintenance and caretaking, resulting in inaccurate and mistaken re-charging for repairs. There is still no contract in place for cleaning refuse bins and – until recently – ground maintenance. There has been a refusal to review Caretaking procedures, and Estate Inspections are nothing more than window dressing which also record fictional repairs. Leaseholders are still charged varying amounts for exactly the same communal services, and we have seen no benefit from the additional payment for Antisocial Behaviour and Resident Involvement. We also found, as did the Scrutiny Committee, that there is widespread dissatisfaction across the borough.

At almost every step of the way we have met obsfucation and defiance, not just in our own communications but in formal and informal forums such as Area Panels and Special Interest Groups, where serious questions are ignored. Since we began challenging Leasehold Services about our charges, we have found the classic response from all senior officers concerned has been to reiterate ‘policy’ again and again, whilst failing to address concerns fully documented by us that represent the reality we share with many other estates. On occasion our reporting of ‘reality’ has been rejected as mere ‘opinion’.

Our representatives have also been ignored and insulted. Cllr Padmore’s requests on our behalf have often been treated with contempt. However, the only way we can be assured a proper response to an enquiry is when we copy the Councillor into our emails. Even then, when he has personally written to officers on our behalf to request they respond promptly, he will not be copied into the reply. When Ms Joan Ruddock MP wrote to Chief Executive Andrew Potter on our behalf, she received a reply from Lesley Seary (Executive Director for Customer Services for Lewisham Council). Mr Potter has been conspicuously absent, invisible and unaccountable.

Evasiveness abounds, criticism is glossed over, and historical errors are seen to be ‘inherited from’ and blamed on the previous council management so that present management can appear blameless. New managers took on the same old staff, but whilst attempts to change the internal culture with training and performance targets may have improved staff morale, to the end user current policies and practices in the office and field appear no different from the council’s previous methods. The same people who have been responsible for issuing falsified bills to leaseholders for the last ten years are still in the job, making the same mistakes.

Contractors’ attitudes have not changed either – they know that there are still no checks and balances in place in the fulfilling of their contracts. The culture among council workers and those to whom Lewisham Homes subcontracts has not changed: sloppy work – or reporting the work done when it hasn’t been – prevails without check.

The present system is feudal and unrecognisable to the modern consumer. We must wait 18 months to find out what we have already paid for. Although Repairs & Maintenance form only a part of the overall charge, they can be the most expensive part for leaseholders and therefore deserve the utmost scrutiny. Here lies the chaos at the heart of Lewisham Homes since it is the area that leaks money like water, with no plumber in sight. 

To assist this gaping hole in services, and to allow us to know what we’re paying for, Crossfields TRA have proposed the equivalent of the tenant’s Repairs Satisfaction Slip for Communal Repairs. Via already existing communication channels  (TRA reps, website, block noticeboards, or a single point of contact) full information and details should be supplied as and when a payable service (both Communal and Environmental) has been ordered.

At the very least, this information could be provided monthly, not 18 months later. Notifying those who actually pay for the services would increase awareness of the work involved in maintaining their buildings and environment. Being directly on site, they are in a position to ensure that there is confirmation that the work has actually been done, the standard of the work could be checked and the long-term sustainability of the work is monitored.

This practice would assist the present inadequate 6% post inspection rate, and importantly, give the contractor and management a greater incentive and awareness of their responsibilities. Regular dissemination of more accurate information would enhance the work of all the relevant services, especially the Leaseholder Billing Team, who could access more reliable information to ensure that there is a reduction in errors (and subsequent complaints), better forecasting, and accurate auditing – of both leaseholder charges and the expenditure of public funds.

However, this fundamental request that would immeasurably contribute to accountability, transparency and value-for-money has been consistently disregarded. There is further evidence of the complete disregard for leaseholders in their recently published Business & Delivery Plan 2010-13, where it is stated that Service Reviews of both Estate Services & Caretaking, and Leasehold Services will not take place until 2011-12. 

The evidence presented in this review is relevant to residents across the borough as a whole – tenants included, who also don’t know what they are paying for. We wish to reiterate the absolute necessity of the Committee’s recommendations being implemented as soon as possible, since mismanagement of properties under Lewisham Homes’ care has an impact on the proper appropriation of public funds.