Agenda and draft minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the  information contained therein.

Apologies for absence were received from Yvonne Denny.

There was no urgent business. It being a special meeting under Part 4, Section B, paragraph 17 of the Council’s Constitution, no other business was considered at the meeting.

The Chair advised that she was a Ward Member for Noel Park.

Lourdes Keever declared that her son and his partners were both Council leaseholders

Cllr Ibrahim declared that an immediate family member was a tenant on the Noel Park estate. 

The Committee heard representations from Michael Hardy and Barbara Tierney  from Haringey Leaseholders Association. In summary, the Deputation Party raised the following key points:

1. The Deputation party challenged the level and quality of resident engagement on the proposed changes to the Leaseholder Alterations Policy which had only received 147 responses when there were over 5000 leaseholders in the borough. This was not felt to be an adequate context on which to base the progression of these changes to the Leaseholder’s Alterations Policy.
2. How the questions in the consultation were framed was felt to be misleading and did not provide any of the positive aspects of leaseholders replacing their own windows and doors and the cost savings this could provide them.
3. The deputation party sought justification as to why Homes for Haringey was best placed to replace leaseholder and tenants’ windows and doors and why leaseholders were not being provided the opportunity to replace their own windows and doors at a lower cost.
4. An example was relayed to the Committee of a leaseholder fitting some of her own windows and doors in 2008, then being subsequently required to replace all her windows and doors as part of her blocks decent homes works. A personal account was also provided which raised concerns relating to; conflicting information from Homes for Haringey, lack of time available for financial decision making and insufficient communication about the scheduling of the works, which culminated in the leaseholder being billed with significantly increased costs. This had caused a significant amount of stress and for the leaseholder and there were many other leaseholders facing similar circumstances.
5. The first-tier tribunal process was an appeal option only available to the leaseholders where they could dispute the costs of the work, but this was expensive, complicated and time consuming; especially in comparison to the leaseholder undertaking the works themselves.
6. Mainly leaseholders were frustrated with the process and ended up having to undertake the works themselves and then having to seek retrospective consent which left them in a precarious financial position. Leaseholders were directly invested in safety of their properties  and had more of an incentive to procure better products for their properties that HfH.
7. It was accepted that the Council had to reconsider the fire safety of their housing stock in light of Grenfell. However, it was contended that there were different types of properties in the Council’s housing stock and they should not all be treated in the same way. There should be different solutions put forward for ensuring the safety of properties.
8. Confidence in Homes for ‘Haringey procured fittings was also questioned given Homes for ‘Haringey board reports of failed fire safety burns tests on contractor fitted doors
9. Inconsistencies in the charging for door installations by Homes for Haringey, indicated that there were different costs being put forward to leaseholders which was likely to be connected with the procurement packages being taken forward for Major Works for different blocks. This was leading to unequal charging of leaseholders around the borough.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

A. Report of the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer

B. Cabinet Report on Alterations Policy for Leaseholders

C. Cabinet Minutes Alterations Policy for Leaseholders

D. Copy of the Call in

E. Report of the Director for Housing, Regeneration and Planning

The Committee considered Cabinet’s decision to approve the Alterations Policy for Leaseholders on 10^th November 2020. The signatories to the Call-In were Cllr Barnes, Cllr Cawley-Harrison, Cllr Palmer, Cllr Ogiehor and Cllr Da Costa. The signatories did not claim that the decision was outside of the policy or budget framework. The reasons for the Call in were set out in the second dispatch agenda pack at page 71.

Stephen Lawrence Orumwense introduced the Joint Chief Finance Officer and Monitoring Officer’s Report, The Committee was advised that the Chief Finance Officer & Monitoring Officer agreed that this decision fell within both the budget and policy framework. Following an outline of the process for the call-in meeting, and the possible outcomes available, the Chair invited Councillor Barnes and Councillor Cawley-Harrision to present the arguments for why the signatories had requested the Cabinet decision to be called in and the alternative action proposed. The concerns of the signatories were noted as follows:

a.    It was contended that the changes to the policy put forward made the installation of doors and windows less safe and there were local specific examples provided of leaseholders paying for works and not receiving communications about the progression of the works, delays, and then being charged increased costs.

b.    There seemed to be an inconsistency in the approach taken with two different Council blocks where there were urgent safety works to be undertaken.

c.    Questions were raised about whether Homes for Haringey had sufficient processes in place to adequately manage an important safety programme and communicate sufficiently with leaseholders.

d.    Leaseholders had been put in a difficult situation with safety works mandated to them and then these works not being carried out in a timely manner.

e.    It was questioned whether Homes for Haringey could fulfil the proposition of commissioning, managing, and delivering works that ensured the safety of residents.

f.     Examples of specific casework were given relating to Homes for ‘Haringey works  on windows which had to be rectified and the delays in completing these works. It was questioned whether Homes for Haringey were actively learning from these cases and rectifying processes accordingly.

g.    Assurances were sought that fire safety works identified would be completed in a timely way by Homes for Haringey to keep residents safe and provide leaseholders with peace of mind.

h.    Further concerns were noted with the performance of Homes for Haringey on delivering on works and the length of time taken from when the issues were first reported.

i.      Before agreeing this policy, there was a need for assurance that Homes for Haringey had the correct procedures in place, could carry out the works to the required standard and that there was also a process in place for this to be independently checked. Ultimately, the Council needed to ensure that if leaseholders were not permitted to undertake the works themselves, then the quality of work undertaken by Homes for Haringey needed to be up to standard.

j.      Concerns were put forward that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.