Agenda item

Deputations/Petitions/Presentations/Questions

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

Minutes:

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.