Agenda item

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.

The Chair thanked the deputation party.