Leaseholder Improvement Group (LIG) 25th March 2010

In lieu of Minutes as yet unavailable, here is my report from the LIG meeting. See foot of this post for update.

Matters Arising from Previous Minutes

In the previous meeting it was noted that a new Grounds Maintenance contract was in place. The area covered will now be based on an Estate Plan, rather than just the old HELM maps (don't ask me what HELM stands for). This new system will be digitised and can be viewed on the LH website. Residents will be able to see what areas are being paid for. It was confirmed that the contract was not based on frequency, but on required levels, eg grass not to exceed a certain height etc. Penalties for poor performance would be more severe than previously (even though it is still the same old contractor).

Since it was not minuted, I asked when this new 'Estate Plan' would be viewable online. The answer was it should be up and running some time in April 2010 (in the next four weeks then).

Pest Control, Caretaking, Estate Inspections

Dave Tutt (Quality and Performance Manager) addressed the meeting.

Pest Control

Pest Control is one of those grey areas: it is the responsibility of the Council, not Lewisham Homes, but the work is outsourced. Pest Control used to be provided free by the Council but now the policy is to offer free block treatments only when an infestation involves more than ten homes. Gaining access is a problem with block treatments and they have recently been using the Environment Protection Act to force entry.

Leaseholders questioned whether this could be changed to less than ten homes, but Lewisham Homes is powerless to change policy apparently. When an infestation is in less than ten homes, we all have to pay for it, even if it is just one or two homes in a block.

A leaseholder pointed out that the process took a long time and that her block had been having treatments for four years even though her flat was not infested. Often there was not enough notice given and she wanted to know how they measured effectiveness of treatments.

I pointed out there was no contract for cleaning the bins (in bin chambers) since LH took over. LH said there was no contract before. (However, in a reply to Joan Ruddock in August 2009, Estate Services said that "this used to fall under the responsibility of Lewisham Council").

I also asked if it were true that new building work could drive out rats into other areas. Tutt agreed it could. Developers were required to do a Proliferal Baiting before commencing work. I asked if, with prior knowledge of new building developments, the council could predict where infestations would take place and act accordingly. He said they did not operate on a prediction basis.

I pointed out we did not know we were paying for Pest Control in our Charges unless we asked for Repair Breakdowns where it was included, but not in any detail with no reference or date. (However, we requested and now have details of where Pest Control took place on Crossfields). Sandra Canham said Pest Control would be separated out from Repair Breakdowns in future.

Caretaking

All leaseholders present were concerned about the hike in Caretaking Charges. One elderly gentleman was quite upset about how long the caretaker took on his block (half an hour a week and not the three hours he was told it was). I said we were told the hike was due to 'buying new equipment' but we had never seen anything but a bucket of cold water and a mop and although portable jet washers had been introduced to clean inside bin chambers, they couldn't be used because there were no nearby powerpoints. The elderly gentleman was told by a bullying Dave Tutt to stop going on about charges since that wasn't the subject under discussion. A feisty black lady wanted to know who was there for the leaseholders, since it appeared to be nobody.

Estate Inspections

Most leaseholders present thought these to be inadequate. The elderly gentleman said they were meaningless since there was always a 90% plus score. I said the standards were set too low for caretaking and that repairs that needed doing were often not noted. Sometimes repairs were noted and recorded as having been done a week later when they were not.

A leaseholder pointed out that caretakers knew when inspectors were coming. LH said there were ad hoc inspections carried out that caretakers did not have advance warning of, and also residents could become 'Resident Inspectors' and report stuff themselves. 

I said many people were out at work when inspections took place and this was a cue for LH to announce that they would shortly be introducing  Saturday walkabouts and as the days grew longer, Evening Inspections, so that tenants and residents had more opportunity to take part. There would a focus on 'Key Priorities' from April. I can't remember what was meant by this.

Communal Repairs

Mick Duncan (Response Repairs Manager) announced they would be introducing a system of Customer Satisfaction Surveys. This would work in much the same way as when a tenant asks for a repair to be done in their flat: they are asked to fill in a small form to say that the job has been completed satisfactorily. This has never been the case with Communal (external) Repairs. But now (due to lobbying by our own Raphael in the Repairs Focus Group, methinks) when external repairs are required and reported by a tenant or leaseholder, they will be contacted by text when the job is done.

I said that whilst this was good news, who would fill out Customer Satisfaction Surveys if the repair had been ordered by a caretaker? And how would anybody but the person who reported the repair know what repairs were taking place? The whole point should be to have a system whereby Leaseholders know what repair work is being done so that they would later know what they have been asked to pay for. Another information route is required: all repairs should be notified to the TRA, who would keep a record, which leaseholders could request sight of.

Other leaseholders pointed out that this should be possible since if all repairs are logged electronically, it should be possible to add another recipient into the chain. Mick Duncan agreed that it might be possible to do this, but only on a monthly basis. He promised to look into providing Monthly Reports.

I asked Mr Duncan if his team could be trained to write more detail into their logs, such as exact location of a repair (for instance, outside no.11, near no.12), since Repair Breakdowns were not detailed enough.

I asked him if there was an Estate Plan used, like the one now available for Grounds Maintenance. For instance, the plan might show what drains were where and could be numbered for easy reference. That way it might be easier to spot where there were persistent and frequent problems, since presently there appeared to be no monitoring of this and Leaseholders are asked to pay again and again for the same problem. It was stated that there was no Estate Plan for Repairs and that such a thing could cost thousands of pounds. I said I'd be happy to draw one up for our estate for a couple of hundred.

There was general concern among leaseholders present over the standard of repairs, and the reporting of repairs done and charged for when they were not, and that the number of post inspections was inadequate (6% of a 10% target).

Future Topics

Sandra Canham closed the meeting with a brief address on what the LIG might discuss in future and suggested that topics might include, among other things, changes to leases to include a compulsory requirement to obtain yearly gas servicing. Generally, this idea drew no objections, not least because it is common sense, but especially since it was already gone 9.30pm. No doubt the legal implications and costs of changing the leases will be discussed at future meetings.

This report will be supplemented in due course by the official Minutes taken by Anne Fitzgerald on behalf of LH, which may fill in some holes in my notes, but of course may not be a completely accurate record of the meeting either. 

I assume these minutes will be posted to me (or Raphael who I was substituting) as hard copy and, if the last minutes are anything to go by, will probably include an extra six or seven pages of A4 with nothing on them except the LH logo and four bullet pointed sentences. 

Quite frankly, if Lewisham Council wants to pursue credibility as a leader in Sustainability, it will have to review its report procedures. I will, no doubt, have to make a special request for a digital version which I will of course post here so that at least some people can read it, which will be more people than ever read the hard copy.

Leaseholders' overcharged £160 each for Communal Lighting

In January 2010, leaseholders received their Actual Statements for the previous year's charges which must be paid in April 2010. These were over 4 months late (they are normally sent out in September). The letter accompanying the January statements was dated November 2nd, two months earlier.

Leasehold Services told me that the reason for the extreme delay was because they had been double-checking the Communal Lighting charges. It soon became apparent that these particular charges may not have been checked at all, not even once, since individual leaseholders in two blocks were to be charged 900% more than had been estimated.

Frankham House Estimated charge: £10.35, Actual charge £163.81
Castell House Estimated charge: £18.46, Actual charge £178.73
Other blocks have been charged more or less as estimated (even though there are large anomalies between equally sized blocks). Communal lighting covers external lights and those in the stairwells.

Four leaseholders that I know of wrote to complain in early February. Two who were advised to copy their (email) complaints to Cllr Padmore, received a reply just over two weeks later. Leasehold Services said the bills were correct since they were based on the bills received from the energy company. But since Leasehold Services were unable to explain the substantial increase, they would reduce the bills to the leaseholders and credit accounts accordingly (to the tune of around £160 to each leaseholder in Frankham and Castell).

On 5th March I wrote to Leasehold Services requesting a copy of the energy supplier's bill, and since this had not been responded to, I wrote again on 26th March. We wonder if Lewisham Homes will be following this up with enquiries to the energy supplier to find out why there was this astronomical increase and, if necessary, bringing in the council's lawyers to reclaim the overcharge, or will they do nothing and swallow the costs for which we shall all have to pay for in the end?

If EDF or whoever it is (we're not told) insist their charges are correct, perhaps Lewisham Homes should be alerting the police to the possibility that power is somehow being syphoned off – perhaps to run a couple of energy intensive cannabis farms in the lofts?

Letter to the Mayor

The Council's own Scrutiny Committee reviewed leasehold services last year and produced a report published in Dec/Jan 2010 that contains many recommendations which cut a swathe through the garbage leaseholders have been fed by Lewisham Homes over the past year (see previous post). The recommendations must be passed by Mayor and Cabinet first. This was scheduled for 3rd March but has now been deferred to 24th March. We wrote to the Mayor on 2nd March but still await a reply.

Dear Mayor,

Lewisham Council's Scrutiny Review into Leasehold Services

We are told that tomorrow you will be responding to the above at the Mayor & Cabinet meeting. We sincerely hope that you will accept all the recommendations for service improvement.

Presently, gross errors are afforded by Lewisham Homes (and the council's) failure to properly audit accounts, with 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, this is tantamount to fraud.

There is little or no monitoring of communal repairs and maintenance and standards of caretaking remain appalling. There is still no contract in place for cleaning refuse bins, nor – until recently – grounds maintenance. Overdue reviews of Repairs & Caretaking, and Leasehold Services are not scheduled to take place until 2012. Estate inspections are wholly inadequate and record fictional repairs. All residents, both leaseholders and tenants are still charged varying amounts for exactly the same services depending on the size of their block, and we have seen absolutely no benefit from the additional payment for Antisocial Behaviour and Resident Involvement.

In challenging Lewisham Homes we have met obsfucation and defiance from its senior managers, both in our own communications and in forums such as Area Panels and Special Interest Groups, where serious questions are ignored. There is widespread dissatisfaction across the borough, and because there are no checks and balances in place for communal repairs, contractors and workers are not held to account, and both the council and leaseholders are charged for work that is not done, or done badly.

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 ever increasing impact on the proper appropriation of public funds.

Yours sincerely,
Crossfields TRA

The Council's Obligation to Leaseholders

The Council’s Obligations to Leaseholders: A Review by the Public Accounts Select Committee

Last year, after a great number of complaints, there was a Lewisham Council Scrutiny Committee review of the leaseholder situation in the borough. It surveyed a small sample of Lewisham Homes and Regenter B3 leaseholders and published its report in early 2010. Before any of its recommendations can be implemented it must first be passed by the Mayor in Cabinet. Some of the recommendations are paraphrased here. Contact us for full text and report. Download the Recommendations with timelines here.

• The Council’s clienting procedures be reviewed, eg particular attention given to how the Council monitors how Lewisham Homes check the quality of repairs, maintenance and major works and whether the bills issued are accurate.

• A system to be implemented whereby Lewisham Homes are required to make a reduction to the annual service charge bill if performance targets fall below a certain level with a mechanism whereby leaseholder input can help drive forward this change.

• Service charge instalment arrangements to be reviewed; consideration given to extending the time allowed for the service charge to be paid from 10 to 12 months.

• the target to respond to letters, emails and phone calls from leaseholders within ten working days should mean that a meaningful response is received, and not just an acknowledgement.

• a strategy is developed to raise awareness of the complaints procedure.

• the way in which information on costs is communicated to leaseholders is changed to allow a clear and complete breakdown of costs (what work took place, when and how much it cost) to be provided with every service charge so that leaseholders can more fully understand what they are being asked to pay for. If feasible, service charge and major works files, including redacted invoices, should be made available on the Lewisham Homes website.

• Separate service charges for Anti-Social Behaviour, Customer Services and Resident Consultation should not be levied on top of the existing service charge as these services should be funded from within the standard service charge.