Agenda item

[Cllr Chandwani left the meeting at 6.42pm]

Deputation in relation to item 9

Mr Michael Hardy and Ms Gaby Vandanberg, Haringey Leaseholders Association, addressed the Committee in relation to item 9 – Alterations Policy for Leaseholders.

Mr Michael Hardy noted that leaseholders cared a lot about their properties and that they sought high standards for works carried out. In relation to consultation, he stated that he would like the policy to be reconsidered as he was not convinced that councillors had been provided with an accurate reflection of leaseholder views. He commented that there should have been more consultation and noted that, in considering the revision to this policy, there had not been a leaseholder panel or a comparison of the policies in other London Boroughs.

Mr Michael Hardy stated that the consultation letter to leaseholders, which implied that there was an inherent risk from windows in relation to fire safety, was misleading as windows did not have fire ratings and there were no fire safety regulations for windows, except for fixed panels. It was noted that there had been no indication to leaseholders that the ability to undertake their own works could result in cost savings and higher quality works. Mr Michael Hardy commented that leaseholders understood concerns about fire safety but considered that protection from fire could be retained based on the existing policy for alterations. He stated that the regulations on fire safety had not changed since 2018 and there was no evidence that doors or windows fitted by leaseholders had a role in causing or exacerbating fires.

Ms Gaby Van Den Bergh noted that the front door to her property was not secure and she did not feel safe in her home. She had applied to have her front door re-fitted in 2017 but had been directed to an incorrect form and then the policy had come under review. She outlined that locksmiths had looked at the door and it was not considered to be secure but she had been unable to obtain a replacement and had reached an impasse. Ms Gaby Vandanberg explained that her shed had been broken into and, as she did not feel that the property was secure, had lived with others. She urged the Cabinet to reconsider the policy and explained that, if leaseholders could afford to install doors and windows in accordance with the fire safety regulations, they should have the choice to do so.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal thanked leaseholders for attending the meeting and for their deputation. She noted that it was important that issues could be raised and urged residents to contact her where they felt that there had been inadequate performance or responsiveness and she would raise it directly with Homes for Haringey. In particular, she urged Ms Gaby Vandanberg to contact her so that this issue could be resolved as soon as possible.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal explained that the Council’s primary concern was the safety of residents and that the decision to change the Alterations Policy for Leaseholders was not taken lightly. It was the Council’s view that allowing leaseholders and their contractors to install their own windows and doors presented an increased fire risk and the Council had an overwhelming duty as a freeholder to keep all buildings and all residents safe. In relation to windows, the Cabinet Member stated that windows could make a significant contribution to the spread of fire and therefore did pose a concern in relation to fire safety.

The Cabinet Member noted that there had been a suggestion that the Council could allow leaseholders to fit their own windows and doors but could sue leaseholders where fitted items presented a risk to the building. She acknowledged that this was possible but highlighted that, following the Grenfell fire, the Council could not take risks that could lead to fire and physical harm to residents. It was added that the ability to sue would not provide any comfort and that ensuring safety was part of the Council’s responsibility as the freeholder.

It was stated that, regardless of a change in policy, the Council was still responsible for the maintenance of buildings, including the windows and doors of each flat. It was noted that, if leaseholders believed that the Council was in breach of its maintenance obligations, they could make a claim of disrepair against the Council. The Cabinet Member encouraged use of this right if it was applicable. In addition, if leaseholders believed that the quality of works carried out was insufficient or that the costs were not reasonable, they could apply to the First Tier Tribunal to seek redress.

In relation to consultation, the Cabinet Member noted that all leaseholders were written to and asked to submit their views on the proposed change to the policy. It was explained that residents’ views had been summarised and included in the Cabinet report. She commented that it was unclear how these views had been misrepresented but the Cabinet Member noted that residents were welcome to contact her about this. It was explained that there was not a clear majority of leaseholders in favour of the proposals and that this may not be a very popular decision but it was noted that views were fairly evenly divided between those in support, those against, and those who did not know. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that there was some opposition to this policy and stated that Homes for Haringey had not sought to avoid presenting these views.

The Cabinet Member noted that the previous policy, ‘Service Improvements Initiatives for Leaseholders’, had been introduced in 2008. She stated that she had not been a councillor at this point but highlighted that the current position was difficult as the risks attached to the previous policy were significant. The Cabinet Member noted that she had gauged views from other boroughs and found that they were taking a similar approach to that set out in the proposed policy; she considered that this was a more appropriate course of action. It was added that it would still be possible to have conversations about how the policy could be implemented with some options for manoeuvre and choice.

The Leader noted that deputations were not normally permitted to ask additional questions but stated that, without setting a precedent, the deputation could ask an additional question. Ms Gaby Vandanberg noted that, during the past two years, she had been unable to have a secure door fitted. She accepted the fire safety issues in principle but explained that, if she purchased a door, she could be assured that it was secure and fire safe. She stated that her front door was not safe against burglary and she did not believe it was safe against fire. Ms Gaby Van Den Bergh noted that it was possible to get repairs but that, as the door had been replaced within the last 10 years, she was not permitted to have or to purchase a replacement. She enquired what would be done about people in her position who felt unsafe, particularly vulnerable people.

The Cabinet Member noted that these were legitimate questions about Homes for Haringey’s responsiveness and ability to resolve situations and she asked Sean McLaughlin, Managing Director Homes for Haringey, to respond. The Managing Director for Homes for Haringey stated that he was not familiar with this individual case but would be happy to investigate the details. In relation to doors in general, he noted that this was one of the reasons for the change in the policy. It was explained that front doors needed to be fire resistant and that it was very difficult to obtain certifications, across the industry, that new doors met the required standards. It was added that the industry was not regulating to a sufficiently high standard and that Haringey Council and Homes for Haringey had commissioned their own tests to ensure that doors were acceptable.

The Leader thanked the deputation for attending and presenting their views.