Agenda item

To receive an update on the improvements being made for leaseholders in the Council’s Homeownership Services.  

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the improvements being made for leaseholders in the Homeownership Services, as part of the Housing Improvement Plan. The report was introduced by Suzanne Prothero, Head of Ownership Services as set out in the agenda pack at pages 31 to 47. Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning was present for this item, along with the Director of Placemaking and Housing. The following arose during the discussion of this item:

a.    The Panel sought assurances around the extent to which the Council provided a clear set of expectations to leaseholders, in terms of what they could expect in return for service charges. In response, officers advised that the individual leases would set out what services the Council provided as the free-holder, and that details of, say, the cleaning schedule would be put up on communal notice boards. There were FAQs up on the website in relation to leaseholders and there was also a dedicated phone line and email inbox in place.

b.    The Chair asked for further information around key areas of improvement that were raised by the leaseholder continuous improvement group. In response, officers advised that in relation to service charges, it was about modernising the approach and being much more transparent. In relation to repairs, it was about these not being completed on time. In relation to policies and procedures, it was about a lack of consistency in the approach, a feeling that the rules were not standardised, and the need to professionalise the service.

c.    In response to a question about how much input leaseholders got into the development of new policies and procedures, officers advised that each policy would be signed off by the continuous improvement group (CIG).

d.    In response to a follow-up, it was noted that the CIG met quarterly and that Haringey Leaseholder AGM still happened annually. It was confirmed that an officer was present at the AGM meetings. Officers advised that a Member of the Haringey Leaseholders Association sat on the CIG, but that the two bodies were separate.

e.    The Panel sought assurances about how disputes about leaseholder charges were recorded and monitored. In response, officers advised that the service still operated a manual system, but that processes had been put in place to resolve previous issues around leaseholders being billed for repairs that were not carried out. Officers also set out that regular estate inspections were carried out and that issues of repairs not being done would be picked up then.

f.     In response to question about a sinking fund, which would allow leaseholders to pre-pay for costs towards major works, officers acknowledged that they had the ability to do it, and that they were looking at bringing something like this in, subject to the need for consultation.

g.    The Panel sought assurances that leaseholders were made aware of the permissions needed to do work on their properties, and also requested confirmation that the Council had withdrawn permission for leaseholders to change their windows and front-doors. Officers responded that there was a leaseholder alteration policy in place, which meant that leaseholders had to request permission to make changes and that they were also charged a fee. Separate to this, there was also a Cabinet decision taken that prohibited leaseholders from replacing doors or windows.

h.    Members commented that the Haringey Leaseholders Association had been problematic in the past, involving a lot of legal cases. Members queried whether relations had improved. In response, the officer advised that she had only been in post for 18 months, but that in her experience the relationship was cordial and that she suspected it had improved from the position it was in ten years ago

i.      The Panel asked officers if they were aware of case involving leaseholders at Brewery House taking the Council to the Ombudsman. In response, officers agreed to provide a written note to the Panel on this case. (Action: Suzanne Prothero).

j.      The Panel raised concerns about how the Council engaged with the tenants of leaseholder landlords and suggested that a leaseholder having to get permission to change a lock from the freeholder (the Council) would inevitably cause delays for the tenant. In response, the Panel was advised that Leaseholders were free to rent out their flats, but that the Council should be informed of this. In the scenario outlined, the Council’s relationship was with the leaseholder landlord, but that it would take reasonable steps to inform tenants where possible. The Director advised that in the case of a landlord acting in a less than responsible manner, it was expected that the private rented sector housing team would be responsible for engaging with the landlord and that rogue landlords would be caught through the various licensing schemes in place. It was added that the only way that the Council would have information on a tenant for certain, is if the Council had placed them in a leaseholder property as Temporary Accommodation.

k.    The Panel question whether there was scope for leaseholders to carry out works and bill the Council, in circumstances where there had been lengthy delays and there was a possibility of the leaseholders taking the Council to court. In response the Cabinet Member set out that leaseholders were not able to carry out works to communal areas and that there were issues with leaseholder repairs being done badly and damaging neighbouring properties. The Cabinet Member suggested that the priority was to get the repairs service up to standard, rather than changing the existing policy.

l.      In relation to the revised responsible repairs policy, officers advised that the previous policy wasn’t clear enough about what was and was not the responsibility of the Council. Similarly, the Council had received feedback from the Ombudsman about the need to make clearer what could be the subject of an insurance claim.

m.  The Panel highlighted the 18% leaseholder satisfaction score mentioned in the report and sought assurances about how this compared with other boroughs. In response, officers set out that Haringey’s was in the lower quartile and required improvement, but that these scores tended to be low across the board.

RESOLVED

That the Panel noted the report.