The Panel received a deputation from
Sarah Klymkiw and Michael Jones on behalf of a number of
leaseholders in the Noel Park area of Wood Green. It was noted that
a similar deputation had been made to the meeting of the Full
Council on 16th November 2020.
Sarah Klymkiw introduced the deputation
covering the following key points:
- That in September 2020, a number of leaseholders on Gladstone
Avenue in Noel Park were issued with Section 20 Notices for major
works incurring costs of up to £120,000 for some households.
The leaseholders understand that these are the second highest set
of estimates for leaseholder work that have been issued anywhere in
the UK.
- The affected properties are maisonettes in the Noel Park
conservation area. In the early 1970s the Council had installed
temporary prefabricated bathroom ‘pod’ structures to
the rear of the properties which should have been removed 30 years
ago. Sarah Klymkiw said that she understood from comments made by
Cllr Ejiofor at the Full Council meeting on 16th
November 2020 that these structures were now considered to be
unsafe so she queried how long the Council had had concerns about
this and why action had not been taken sooner.
- In the 1970s, residents had been offered the option not to have
a pod at all. However, in 2020 residents were not being given that
option as they were being told that the old pods will be replaced
with new pods despite other options being possible. The
justification for this appeared to be convenience rather than
sustainability or value for money because the change could be made
in a day without the need for residents to be decanted.
- Leaseholders had been told by the Council that the new pods
would last as long as brick built structures, which she said were
claims that simply parroted the manufacturers’ PR. She said
that the 60-year warranty for the pods did not mean that they would
actually last for that long or that the cladding would not need
replacing as it was a risk-based warranty for mortgage
purposes.
- The proposals also involved replacing windows and doors, but no
justification for the need for these works had been given and
tenants were now concerned that these extra works would cause
delays to the work on their bathrooms.
- Detailed individual surveys would be carried out only after the
contracts had been signed which raised concerns about the
impartiality of the surveys in terms of incentives to drive down
costs or determining the works that are necessary.
- In the opinion of residents, communications and consultation had
been handled very poorly by Homes for Haringey (HfH) and many
questions from residents had not been answered.
- Leaseholders agreed that the situation with the pods needed to
be addressed, did not want to prevent tenants from benefitting from
these works and did not expect the money to come from the rent of
tenants. However, the leaseholders had been led to believe that the
costs to leaseholders would be in the region of £25,000, but
the expected costs were now ruinous as they reached figures of up
to £120,000 and she said that leaseholders should not have to
pay for Council failings. The only solution being explored was
flexible payment plans that would do nothing to address the overall
cost.
- The leaseholders proposed that the scheme for new pods be
scrapped and that the Council and HfH work with leaseholders to
explore alternative options that offer best value for
money.
Sarah Klymkiw and Michael Jones then
responded to questions from the Panel:
- Cllr Hare asked if there had been anything like a 20-year notice
to allow for the leaseholders to plan ahead. Sarah Klymkiw said
that, in her case, when she purchased her flat five years ago she
was told was the cost of the pod would be £12,500 and so they
borrowed on the mortgage accordingly. When going through the
process of buying the property the quoted cost then jumped to
£25,000. However, there was no indication that the costs
would ever reach the current amount of £108,000 that was now
being estimated which would effectively be a second mortgage.
Leaseholders had tried to engage in dialogue with HfH about
possible solutions and there had been no indication of the level of
costs until leaseholders received S20 notices. The only other
option offered by HfH was to relinquish some equity. Michael Jones
added that the first that he had been aware of the costs associated
with the bathrooms was in 2009 when the figures for costs talked
about were £20,000. He had yet to receive a full breakdown of
costs which he said was another example of the lack of information
being provided by HfH.
- Cllr Brabazon asked whether Sarah Klymkiw had received a reply
to her letter of 21st Oct 2020 to Tracey Downie at HfH
which included a number of questions. Sarah Klymkiw said that she
had not yet received a reply and had been notified by the Council
on 12th Nov 2020 that there would be a
delay. Cllr Brabazon requested that the
members of the deputation keep the committee informed about any
response that they received.
- Cllr Brabazon asked about the cladding and the potential fire
risk associated with the new pods. Sarah Klymkiw said that there
were a lot of unanswered questions on this, many of which had been
included in the letter to Tracey Downie. Cllr Brabazon observed
that the wrong type of cladding can render properties
uninsurable.
- Cllr Brabazon asked about the door-step meetings with
Cllr Ibrahim and Sean McLaughlin on 8th Oct 2020 quoted
in the letter to Tracie Downie. Sarah Klymkiw said that these were
impromptu meetings and she did not feel that the
leaseholders’ main concerns were addressed through these
meetings.
- Cllr Barnes asked whether there had been the
opportunity for leaseholders to have formal meetings with officers.
Michael Jones said that there were two formal meetings, one in
November 2019 and one in summer 2020. Since the S20 notices had
been issued there had been a further meeting with the Leader of the
Council (Cllr Joe Ejiofor) and the Managing Director of HfH (Sean
McLaughlin). At the November 2019 meeting no indication had been
given of the potential high costs that were now being quoted. Cllr
Gordon asked if any minutes had been taken at the meeting with the
Leader of the Council. Michael Jones said that he was not aware of
minutes being taken and had not been notified of minutes being
taken.
- Robbie Erbmann, AD for Housing, informed the Panel
that there were 242 properties that the works were planned for, 76
of which were leasehold properties (39 resident leaseholders and 37
non-resident leaseholders).
- Asked by Cllr
Diakides about the potential for alternative options, Sarah Klymkiw said that the leaseholders wanted a
pause to be able to discuss options with officers and Cabinet
Members. Alternative options could include:
o
not having a pod at all and to
incorporate the bathrooms back into the properties;
o
to renovate and reclad the existing pods,
estimated to cost around £10,000 per pod;
o
to create permanent brick-built
structures on the back of the properties.
- Asked by Cllr
Brabazon whether the leaseholders had received a full breakdown of
the estimated costs, Sarah Klymkiw said
that she had only received a partial breakdown and that
leaseholders had requested further information but were still
waiting for this.
- Asked by Cllr
Brabazon whether the leaseholders had been invited to attend
meetings with officers/Cabinet Members, Sarah Klymkiw said that there were no meetings booked
in but Catherine West MP had offered to Chair a meeting on their
behalf. The leaseholders intended to take her up on this offer and
would also be writing to Cllr Ejiofor to request his attendance.
Michael Jones added that a recent letter from Cllr Ejiofor
indicated that he would “be in touch shortly to confirm how
we will conduct a further programme of
engagement”.
Cllr Gordon thanked Sarah
Klymkiw and Michael Jones for their deputation and for the
information pack that they provided to the Panel. Cllr Gordon said
that the Panel was not in a position to answer the questions raised
through the deputation as the Leader of the Council would be
responsible for this. Cllr Gordon proposed that a special meeting
of the Panel be held to which the Leader of the Council and others
would be invited so that the Panel could put these questions to him
directly.
RESOLVED: That a special meeting of the
Housing & Regeneration scrutiny panel be organised to discuss
the issues raised by the leaseholders of Noel Park and that the
Leader of the Council be invited to attend to respond to questions
from the Panel.