LHV

look at your lease and view your proportion of the work you are liable for. Try to look at the costs in terms of the whole amount charged and not just your own. 19 flats at the amount you quoted is just under 300,000 grand. Next view documentation from the Council by booking an appointment (invoices,receipts, memos e.t.c. Do you have an idea of who LH used to do the work? Get all the documentation and from there we can go further with the scrutiny. The Section 20 notice needs to be looked at and other features of the steps leading up to the work.

If you had scaffolding up for 10 weeks and the work took only 5 weeks but you were charged for the 10 weeks then this is something to contend.


[size=x-small]Leaseholder loans to pay for repairs[/size]

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 | By Emily Rogers

* Print
* Email
* Share
* Comments (2)
* Save

Regulations have been laid before Parliament to enable social landlords to ease the burden of service charges for leaseholders though equity loans.

The regulations allow councils and housing associations to offer interest-free loans to their leaseholders, or to buy shares in their flats, to help them manage charges for repairs, maintenance and improvements.

Concerns have been raised in recent years about the size of the bills faced by leaseholders, particularly in London.

The regulations would enact powers introduced in last year?s Housing and Regeneration Act. The government plans to consult over the next few weeks on whether the fees for such loans should be capped, to encourage leaseholders to take up the offer.
Readers' comments (2)

*

Jim Paton | Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:36 GMT

A rarely mentioned effect of the over-hyped "decent homes" programme is the huge, often unaffordable, bills which result for leaseholders in the case of external works. Insult is added to injury by the frequently overpriced, tatty, 5th rate work produced, some of it never properly completed and some of it already falling apart.

I'm glad I'm a weekly periodic tenant rather than a long tenant (or leaseholder), but I don't join in the smug chorus of "Ha! Serves 'em right". (So much for 'mixed communities', eh?). The fact is that the merely greedy who went for the right to buy have cashed in and gone years ago, leaving:-

(a) The gullible who took the propaganda at face value and are now, in many cases, in serious trouble and at risk of losing their homes. These people are victims of the last 20-odd years of housing policy, not co-conspirators.

(b) The innocent who bought flats on council estates from the cashers-in because they were cheap, all they could afford, and the only way they had of housing themselves.

Many of these people are far from well off, some have lost jobs or otherwise find themselves in much worse circumstances than they were a few years ago.

A better way to help would be to offer the option of reverting to Secure Tenancies. And yes, this should be offered to all, including those who were not Secure Tenants in the first place. Of course, it would make sense only in the context of a huge emergency programme of building new social housing, preferably by councils.

I doubt we'll see either, though. All we'll get is a bit of pre-election tokenism.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
*

sharon | Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:55 GMT

Many people bought their own council homes without being made aware that due to the age and state of the stucture of the developments, they would be hit with massive repair bills at a later stage. Providing loans for leaseholders to pay these exhorbitant bills without them even knowing how these quotes were reached will still leave them with somewhat questionable and cetainly massive debts.
Sharon
Leasehold Life

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment