A Tale of Two Tenants:
This is the story of two blog readers who are leaseholders with their local council. Understandably both of them felt that entering into an agreement with the local authority would be a sensible decision. Given events over the last few years perhaps they may be rethinking that one…
2010:
The council enter into a £200 million contract with a building firm to carry out major renovations to all council properties including roofing, cladding and window replacements. Leaseholders are responsible for paying for some of these renovation costs.
All good so far; lots of money to be spent very wisely on the housing infrastructure. What could go wrong?
2013:
The refurbishment works wend their way across the various estates of the city. There are few grumbles but largely things progress reasonably well. Then the news is received that the councils Head of Audit is “under investigation” and disappears completely from the council (and the city) never to be seen again.
Oh dear. Not good news; but I’m sure it won’t affect the housing work
Spring 2014:
The refurbishments reach our tenants’ flats. Initially a ground levelexternal surveyis carried out to assess what works need to be carried out by the lucky building contractor. The report states that a further detailed survey will be needed before work commences – this doesn’t happen. Internal inspections are carried out on eight (specially selected?) flats. On the basis of this information, work is arranged to replace ALL windows and balcony doors on the entire estate of three hundred flats and to clad the buildings.
Nice though it is to have investment in housing, the evidence to justify this level of mass replacement seems a little sketchy. Particularly if this is public funding and compulsory leaseholder money being spent. Still I’m sure this will all work out…
Early summer 2014:
Consultation carried out with residents and leaseholders. The project was presented with limited information available to residents who all agreed that the decision appeared to have been made already on limited survey information.
Okay; so it’s not getting better just yet but I’m sure it’s all for the best.
Summer 2014:
The council’s Head of Housing is arrested over alleged fraud. He disappears and is not seen again.
Oops. So it’s not getting any better just yet….give it time though.
Late Autumn 2014:
Planning application to carry out the major works submitted to the same council ordering the works.
Sensible, but let’s stick with it
Winter 2015:
Official consultation process (section 20) carried out with leaseholders. All consultation suggestions ignored. £21,000 bill per leaseholder – all without any inspection to their respective windows
Wow! This is now entering the worrying stage. This being the public sector tough I have every confidence that ….
Early spring 2015:
The Council’s housing department planning application is rejected by the Council’s planning department.
Eek; that might be embarrassing for someone! Never mind, at least they can try again.
Mid Springspring 2015:
Version two of the planning application is submitted. Another survey of the windows commences; carried out by the builders who will be carrying out the work. A few weeks later the other works starts anyway!
Brilliant. What could go wrong? No conflicts of interest here!
Summer 2015:
The second planning application is also refused. Work continues to be carried out without consent and based on limited surveys.
Still. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Late Autumn2015:
Planning permission finally received.
Hurray. Get the balloons and party hats ready.
Winter 2016:
Subcontractors working for the council’s building partner are investigated and found to have overcharged the council by £300,000,
Of course this is an isolated incident and there is NO evidence this could ever happen again. Here or anywhere else.
Spring 2016:
Leaseholders start asking for maintenance reports, condition surveys and other information relating to the decision to replace. Most information shows that windows have been without issues for many years and private surveyors confirm that despite some small repairs being required; complete replacement is unnecessary.
Well let’s be honest. It confirms what we were all thinking anyway!
So here we have a pencil sketch of the process followed by councils to carry out major works to their housing stock.
(i)The council asks the partner for a status report on its properties
(ii)The partner asks a surveyor to produce the reports (which are loaded with dreadful problems, ‘beliefs’ and expensive solutions). Some people may suggest conflicts of interest at various stages, but who is to say?
(iii)The council sucks its teeth and stares into the abyss and comes up with a plan to get all these works done over the next 10-20 years signing into an ill-fated partnership deal. No builders are involved in these decisions and the costings are about half what will ultimately be charged. Lots of bureaucrats keep their jobs and councillors feel they are acting for the community.
(iv)Leaseholder consultation is often perfunctory at best and is aimed at ticking the consultation box rather than carrying out effective engagement. Those who challenge are seen as troublemakers.
(v)The partner starts off the work, the council rolls out its processes and the programme steamrollers on – come hell or high water with leaseholders forced to pay out for the works whether or not it is needed
(vi)Success is paraded through the council meetings and any faults are buried in paperwork and computer databases.
This approach (or least the resulting sky high bills for leaseholders) is not unusual unfortunately. The link below outlines just a few from across the country.
Rob: I’m trying to be positive here by simply saying this. Perhaps councils should just take a step back for a moment and accept that changing the way they do things is not a sign of weakness. It shows they are willing to listen and learn. Maybe just a bit more common sense might make all the difference in the way contracts are delivered, partnerships are operated and residents are treated. Fundamental changes are needed in these types of case; but where the mind is willing…