Agenda item

Deputation - Haringey Defend Council Housing – Paul Burnham

The deputation was put forward in relation to tenant’s service charges. This was a small part of the budget but of great concern to Haringey Defend Council Housing, who were representing tenants in the borough. Over the years, landlords had increased charges but this has been done with the premise of involving the tenant in these decisions. There were 21 different service charges which demonstrated the range and complexity of the charges being made to tenants and further underlined the importance of tenants having their say through a consultation process on the final charges. This was part of the wider right of the tenant to hold the landlord to account.

The deputation asserted that there had been no recent consultation on these tenant service charges and highlighted that, pre 2015, it was the practice to have a consultation process on tenant service charges. The period of consultation was previously announced and this allowed tenants to make representations through a set process. In the past, it had also meant that some charges were not taken forward when the views of tenants was considered so a successful process, in the deputation’s view.

The deputation referred to the December MTFS Cabinet report which released the overall budget for consultation, highlighting that this documentation also did not include the proposed tenant service charge increase. Therefore, there had been no information available in the budget consultation period to signal these increases. Despite this, Haringey Defend Council Housing had put forward representation in relation to service charges to ensure that this issue was considered and also put forward a deputation to Cabinet, prior to the publication of the budget report, and knowing what the detail of the tenant service charges might be.

The deputation referred to the proposed services charge increases in the report which contained no explanation about the reason for the scale of the changes taking place. There was estimated to be a £656k increase in this charge. The deputation questioned what changes were taking place to warrant these increases?

The deputation further reiterated that the tenant service charges have to be specifically linked to the service being provided and questioned the specific changes taking place for these increases as this was not set out in the report.

The deputation referred to the Homes for Haringey recent board meetings which had considered reports indicating good performance with service charges in the current year .There were 7 different service, indicating 5 charges within budget and 2 over budget and an overall surplus of £209k .The deputation was disappointed on how the Council had dealt with this issue and the performance data from the Homes for Haringey Board meetings underlined that there was no need to increase charges. The deputation suspected that the landlord was likely using this income to top up the income from housing rent.

There were no questions put forward from Cabinet Members to the deputation and the Leader asked the Cabinet Member for Finance to respond to the deputation.

The Cabinet Member for Finance thanked the deputation for their attendance at the meeting and for raising these concerns. The Cabinet Member expressed that the budget process was often a complex wide ranging process and it was always helpful to highlight issues. Services charges covered the cost of services to tenants. The Council would only charge the cost of a service. For example, when the cost of utilities decreased by the Council achieving better energy deals through the wholesale process, the charge to tenants had also decreased. In relation to these increased charges, this was related to an increase in the cost of the concierge and street sweeping service on estate.

The Cabinet Member for Finance reported that there was not a legal requirement to consult on tenant service charges but this might be a consideration for the future, as outlined by the deputation, to take forward. The two services indicated above, concierge and street sweeping, made up the bulk of the rise. The increases in the cost of the concierge service were related to staff receiving a pay rise above inflation to ensure that staff in this area were being paid appropriate levels. The Cabinet Member anticipated that the increase in cost, related to street sweeping, was a result of this becoming more of a priority for tenants but the Cabinet Member, committed to explore the wider reasons for this change.

The Cabinet Member for Finance concluded his response by reiterating that consulting tenants and leaseholders on increased service charges was not a legal requirement but he would examine how this consultation could be taken forward in coming financial years.