# Service Charges and living in ex-council properties



## petlessfred (Feb 13, 2014)

Hello - boring question I'm afraid! But I'm thinking about buying ex local authority in Brixton Hill.

What's the local authority like? Am I about to get handed a huge service charge bill in the future out of the blue... does anyone know if they are they likely to suddenly raise it? Or how I might find this out?

Also, any happy or horror stories about buying ex local? I really like the estate, feels friendly - but be good to hear if anyone's had any experiences or there are pitfalls to be aware of?

Thanks a lot.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 13, 2014)

This is bound to go well...


----------



## Yelkcub (Feb 13, 2014)

Buy it and let it out. Pass the charges on to your tenants.

Right, U75?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 13, 2014)

Yelkcub said:


> Buy it and let it out. Pass the charges on to your tenant
> 
> Right, U75?



And remember to charge at least £1,500 per month


----------



## Belushi (Feb 13, 2014)

And tell everyone what a great landlord you are. More of a philanthropist really.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 13, 2014)

If it's on an estate, you can expect to get some hefty bills when the council decide to do the windows, roofing, cavity walls etc.  This might explain why "residents" are a tiny minority on this council estate, compared to tenants.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 13, 2014)

Greebo said:


> If it's on an estate, you can expect to get some hefty bills when the council decide to do the windows, roofing, cavity walls etc.  This might explain why "residents" are a tiny minority on this council estate, compared to tenants.



Would the council still take any responsibility for the property though?  Surely if they have sold it on then it belongs to the owner and is now nothing to do with them (I have no clue about any of this sort of thing).


----------



## Belushi (Feb 13, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> Would the council still take any responsibility for the property though?  Surely if they have sold it on then it belongs to the owner and is now nothing to do with them (I have no clue about any of this sort of thing).



Council remains the leaseholder and can charge for communal work.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 13, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Council remains the leaseholder and can charge for communal work.



I don't really understand the whole leasehold thing.  Or why you'd bother spending so much money on something if it isn't truly yours.  Evidently I need to do some reading on this, it's all Greek to me.


----------



## Thora (Feb 13, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> I don't really understand the whole leasehold thing.  Or why you'd bother spending so much money on something if it isn't truly yours.  Evidently I need to do some reading on this, it's all Greek to me.


Most flats will be leasehold though.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 13, 2014)

Thora said:


> Most flats will be leasehold though.



So I've heard.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## maomao (Feb 13, 2014)

Even non leasehold flats have service charges


----------



## maomao (Feb 13, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> So I've heard.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Flats are dependant on each other for their structure. There has to be so way of working out what to do with the structure and land as a whole. Plus most leases are very long, longer than the lifespans of their residents and the projected lifespan of the building.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 13, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> So I've heard.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Leasehold ex-LA are cheap but can cost dear


----------



## colacubes (Feb 13, 2014)

trashpony said:


> Leasehold ex-LA are cheap but can cost dear



Leasehold can be a pain in the arse full stop!

/voice of bitter experience


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 13, 2014)

So who owns the leases on these properties?  Is it big companies or some rich old fart somewhere?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 13, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> So who owns the leases on these properties?  Is it big companies or some rich old fart somewhere?



Can be either of those or the LA.  If you live in a converted house it might be one of your neighbours.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 13, 2014)

DIE YUPPIE SCUM etc etc.


----------



## RedDragon (Feb 13, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> I don't really understand the whole leasehold thing.  Or why you'd bother spending so much money on something if it isn't truly yours.  Evidently I need to do some reading on this, it's all Greek to me.


If the council decide to do a refurbishment of roof & windows you could easily face a bill of £30,000


----------



## Greebo (Feb 13, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> If the council decide to do a refurbishment of roof & windows you could easily face a bill of £30,000


That's what happened on this estate.


----------



## Thora (Feb 13, 2014)

I live in an ex-council house but don't think I would risk a flat.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 13, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> If the council decide to do a refurbishment of roof & windows you could easily face a bill of £30,000



What would happen if you said you didn't want the refurb and refused to pay?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 13, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> So who owns the leases on these properties?  Is it big companies or some rich old fart somewhere?


Council owns the freehold - i.e. the land the building sits on, plus the roof, the walls, the stairs up to your front door, the lift, the walkways etc etc. You 'own' the flat, but on a 99 year lease or whatever. You're basically renting it off them long term, with the lease giving you the right to call it 'yours'. In theory, if the lease expired, ownership would revert to the freeholder. But most people renew the lease when it gets down to 70 years or whatever, by paying a fee to the freeholder.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 13, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Council owns the freehold - i.e. the land the building sits on, plus the roof, the walls, the stairs up to your front door, the lift, the walkways etc etc. You 'own' the flat, but on a 99 year lease or whatever. You're basically renting it off them long term, with the lease giving you the right to call it 'yours'. In theory, if the lease expired, ownership would revert to the freeholder. But most people renew the lease when it gets down to 70 years or whatever, by paying a fee to the freeholder.



I see, thank you. 

Seems a hell of a lot of cash to splash on something that isn't really yours in the truest sense of the word.


----------



## RedDragon (Feb 13, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> What would happen if you said you didn't want the refurb and refused to pay?


They'd take you to court and get a charge levelled against your property meaning you couldn't sell until it was paid.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 13, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> I see, thank you.
> 
> Seems a hell of a lot of cash to splash on something that isn't really yours in the truest sense of the word.



Technically freehold isn't yours either, you hold it from the Crown.

And freehold or not you can still be forced out under a compulsory purchase order if say the council want to build a new road through your house.


----------



## maomao (Feb 13, 2014)

And even freeholds don't have mineral rights in this country so even if you own a house outright you don't own the land under it.


----------



## se5 (Feb 13, 2014)

In reply to the original poster: more than likely you will be fine but check out when major works were last done: avoid if roof/window/other major works are planned in the next few years. Most of the estates have in the past five years undergone significant investment under the Decent Homes programme so you should be ok: maybe check with Lambeth Living or the housing association (should be signs up saying who the freeholder is)  Also check out the service charge and what you get for it and also the general feel of the estate; is there a tenants association, does it feel run down etc etc


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 13, 2014)

Thanks all for the info.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 14, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Council remains the leasefreeholder and can charge for communal work.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 14, 2014)

I just received a notice of a 12,000  bill for maintenance on a flat of which the council is freeholder. Luckily, I don't own it any more. Frankly, the costs they have attributed to the works which need doing are disgraceful. On top of which, I know that a lot of the works do not need doing as they have been done to a very good standard by the leaseholders. So, if council are your freeholder and there have been no big charges lately - anticipate significant charges.


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2014)

Beware the perils of being "cheap" ex-council property. And fuck the government/council for flogging them off in the first place.


----------



## petlessfred (Feb 14, 2014)

Hello everyone,
I'm just about to buy a flat on an estate in Brixton hill. I really like the estate but the service charge is hefty! Just wondering if anyone has had experiences with Lambeth council. Are they any good? And are they about to ramp the service charge up again!?

Be great to know if anyone has any happy or horror stories about buying ex council...

Thanks a lot


----------



## Greebo (Feb 14, 2014)

petlessfred said:


> <snip> Just wondering if anyone has had experiences with Lambeth council. Are they any good? <snip>


Have any of us had any experience with Lambeth council?  Are they any good?  Oh mate, you really should do a comedy tour.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 14, 2014)

pogofish


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Have any of us had any experience with Lambeth council?  Are they any good?  Oh mate, you really should do a comedy tour.



Dont take any notice of Greebo.  Lambeth keep their properties in tip top condition and use master builders and top notch cowboys  contractors


----------



## Greebo (Feb 14, 2014)

Oh yes, our Minnie_the_Minx is always ready to sing the praises of Lambeth - shame she's hardly ever had a reason to do so.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 14, 2014)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Dont take any notice of Greebo.  Lambeth keep their properties in tip top condition and use master builders and top notch cowboys  contractors


And the best surveyors money can buy to specify the new paintwork and replacement upvc windows.


----------



## petlessfred (Feb 14, 2014)

Haha! O-oh... Am I walking into a world of pain? Dare I ask: why so bad? 

(...if only to gather more material for said comedy tour)

Cheers for your responses by the way. Any of you in Brixton hill?


----------



## colacubes (Feb 14, 2014)

This is basically the same thread as you posted last night.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2014)

Their tilers are top notch as well.  It was such a simple task for me to re tile my friend's bogey-green bathroom


----------



## petlessfred (Feb 14, 2014)

colacubes said:


> This is basically the same thread as you posted last night.


Oh dear how incompetent am I... I thought it hadn't worked as cant find it anywhere this morning. I'm thick. Clearly. Bit new round here.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 14, 2014)

petlessfred said:


> Haha! O-oh... Am I walking into a world of pain? Dare I ask: why so bad?
> 
> (...if only to gather more material for said comedy tour)
> 
> Cheers for your responses by the way. Any of you in Brixton hill?


Partly because of the size of the companies they use to carry out their works. If you use a huge firm to change a lightbulb it will cost a couple of hundred pounds a time. Also because of the volume of works they have - they end up employing expensive surveyors and engineers, etc.. for specifying minor jobs, like fixing a front door, painting a hallway, etc.. And partly because council seems used to high prices and does not challenge them on behalf of their leaseholders. They also tend not to carry out maintenance regularly - they leave the condition to get pretty bad and then splurge and hit you with a huge bill.

I really don't know but it would not surprise me if the method of appointing contractors was somewhat ... opaque.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2014)

Click on your name and you'll see you've posted 4 messages.  Click on that number 4 and I'll take you to your posts.  Or just do a search for your name.


----------



## petlessfred (Feb 14, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Partly because of the size of the companies they use to carry out their works. If you use a huge firm to change a lightbulb it will cost a couple of hundred pounds a time. Also because of the volume of works they have - they end up employing expensive surveyors and engineers, etc.. for specifying minor jobs, like fixing a front door, painting a hallway, etc.. And partly because council seems used to high prices and does not challenge them on behalf of their leaseholders. They also tend not to carry out maintenance regularly - they leave the condition to get pretty bad and then splurge and hit you with a huge bill.
> 
> I really don't know but it would not surprise me if the method of appointing contractors was somewhat ... opaque.



Thanks for your reply. Is there any way to make them accountable? I'm sensing a big No!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Partly because of the size of the companies they use to carry out their works. If you use a huge firm to change a lightbulb it will cost a couple of hundred pounds a time. Also because of the volume of works they have - they end up employing expensive surveyors and engineers, etc.. for specifying minor jobs, like fixing a front door, painting a hallway, etc.. And partly because council seems used to high prices and does not challenge them on behalf of their leaseholders. They also tend not to carry out maintenance regularly - they leave the condition to get pretty bad and then splurge and hit you with a huge bill.
> 
> I really don't know but it would not surprise me if the method of appointing contractors was somewhat ... opaque.



As opaque as a little brown envelope


----------



## petlessfred (Feb 14, 2014)

Thank you so much for all the replies. SE5 thank you for your practical advice. Much appreciated. 

The reality is with my small budget ex council is the only option, so I'll do my research and hope there's no heavy hits in the post. The accounts about 30k and 20k bills will finish me!

And yeah, I'm a huge hypocrite: the govt are scumbags for selling off council properties - and I'm probably no better for buying into the "I must own where I live" fallacy. Hmm.

Thanks again one and all - really appreciate your time.


----------



## petlessfred (Feb 14, 2014)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Click on your name and you'll see you've posted 4 messages.  Click on that number 4 and I'll take you to your posts.  Or just do a search for your name.


Most kind of you. Thanks so much! Shan't be making that mistake again.. ! I've found the original thread thing. Hoorah!


----------



## petlessfred (Feb 14, 2014)

Ps any feel good stories of the local authority being held accountable!? Is it even possible?


----------



## petlessfred (Feb 14, 2014)

Greebo said:


> That's what happened on this estate.


It's not a Brixton hill estate is it by any chance. Sorry to hear about your experiences - truly horrible I'm sure. Think I would go mad!! Did you find a solution?


----------



## Greebo (Feb 14, 2014)

petlessfred said:


> It's not a Brixton hill estate is it by any chance. Sorry to hear about your experiences - truly horrible I'm sure. Think I would go mad!! Did you find a solution?


One of the ones on Tulse Hill - the solution was basically lump it.  FWIW I'm a council tenant.

There are plenty of urbanites living in or along Brixton Hill, including on the estates.  Whether they'll out themselves to a complete stranger is another thing entirely.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 14, 2014)

petlessfred said:


> And yeah, I'm a huge hypocrite: the govt are scumbags for selling off council properties - and I'm probably no better for buying into the "I must own where I live" fallacy. Hmm.


 
I don't see it as hypocracy really. Everyone needs somewhere to live and you paying rent won't bring the council houses back.


----------



## colacubes (Feb 14, 2014)

petlessfred said:


> Oh dear how incompetent am I... I thought it hadn't worked as cant find it anywhere this morning. I'm thick. Clearly. Bit new round here.



Easily done.  If we ask editor nicely  he may merge the 2 threads.  This is the other one:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...living-ex-council.320582/page-2#post-12931391


----------



## Winot (Feb 14, 2014)

petlessfred said:


> Ps any feel good stories of the local authority being held accountable!? Is it even possible?


 
Arlington Lodge (bottom of Brixton Hill) had (has?) an active residents' association which seemed to be very effective at holding Lambeth to account.  The model that seemed to work there was (a) everyone uniting behind the RA; (b) forensic analysis of Lambeth's paperwork; and (c) not giving up until Lambeth had answered their questions satisfactorily.


----------



## Onket (Feb 14, 2014)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Their tilers are top notch as well.  It was such a simple task for me to re tile my friend's bogey-green bathroom


So you did get someone else to do it?!!!! I knew it!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2014)

Onket said:


> So you did get someone else to do it?!!!! I knew it!






No I did not!


----------



## Onket (Feb 14, 2014)

se5 said:


> In reply to the original poster: more than likely you will be fine but check out when major works were last done: avoid if roof/window/other major works are planned in the next few years. Most of the estates have in the past five years undergone significant investment under the Decent Homes programme so you should be ok: maybe check with Lambeth Living or the housing association (should be signs up saying who the freeholder is)  Also check out the service charge and what you get for it and also the general feel of the estate; is there a tenants association, does it feel run down etc etc


petlessfred, you don't do this yourself, your estate agent will obtain this information from the seller, as they obtain it from the council and have a legal obligation to pass it on to any potential buyers. Ask them (via your estate agent/solicitor) any questions you have, and if you are not happy with the answers, you don't buy. You want to know not just what major works have been carried out recently, but which ones have alreasdy been billed to the leaseholders and if any charges are outstanding.

DO NOT buy anyway thinking it'll be ok. You could end up buying an outstanding debt.

This is a good website- http://www.lease-advice.org/information/faqs/


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 14, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> If the council decide to do a refurbishment of roof & windows you could easily face a bill of £30,000



You could always MEW it if you didn't have the readies. New roof/windows will increase the value anyway so it would probably end up being cost neutral.


----------



## Onket (Feb 14, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> What would happen if you said you didn't want the refurb and refused to pay?





RedDragon said:


> They'd take you to court and get a charge levelled against your property meaning you couldn't sell until it was paid.



Generally the mortgage lender will pay if a court judgement is obtained. This means you get in trouble with your lender and are in increased danger of repossesion.

The ultimate sanction is forfeiture of the lease. This basically means the lease is destroyed and you no longer have the right to live there, the flat goes back into the possession of the freeholder. You will still owe the mortgage lender, of course, and have no flat to sell to raise funds. This is why the mortgage lender generally pays and then would repossess the property, so that they have the flat to sell on and recoup some of the funds they have lent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> So I've heard.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.



A simple way to remember it:

A freehold means you buy the property free and clear. You own it.

A Leasehold means you buy (for a specific sum) a right to occupy a property for a given number of years, but the person you buy the lease from still owns the property when your lease expires.

Basically, Norman bastards like the duke of Westminster retain freehold of vast numbers of properties, so every 99 years (the standard length of a lease) they get weighed off for that property again. nasty. eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2014)

maomao said:


> Even non leasehold flats have service charges



TBF, it's not the service charges _per se_ that are an issue in ex-local authority housing, it's the ancillary charges levied for fabric repairs/refurbishment (i.e. non-cosmetic stuff).  There's been a fair bit of a debate over the years as to whether local authorities see this as a bit of a cash-cow, in that often they charge for the independently-assessed price of that repair/refurbishment for a single unit, when what the local authority actually *pays* is the assessed price for the entire estate or block, with the economies of scale that such a price implies.
Put simply, they can charge someone £7,000 for window replacement, because that's what a surveyor priced the job at per property, but pay £5,000 per house, because that's the discounted price they pay for commissioning the company to replace windows in 250 units.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Technically freehold isn't yours either, you hold it from the Crown.
> 
> And freehold or not you can still be forced out under a compulsory purchase order if say the council want to build a new road through your house.



True.  All eventually reverts to the Crown, but for simplicity's sake most people find it convenient to think in terms of freehold/full ownership and leasehold/time-limited ownership.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2014)

se5 said:


> In reply to the original poster: more than likely you will be fine but check out when major works were last done: avoid if roof/window/other major works are planned in the next few years. Most of the estates have in the past five years undergone significant investment under the Decent Homes programme so you should be ok: maybe check with Lambeth Living or the housing association (should be signs up saying who the freeholder is)  Also check out the service charge and what you get for it and also the general feel of the estate; is there a tenants association, does it feel run down etc etc



Also worth bearing in mind that if it's one of the older ('30s) estates, that the windows, for example, can be really fuck-off expensive to repair, especially the ones with Deco-ish curved glass and/or multiple panes.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> A simple way to remember it:
> 
> A freehold means you buy the property free and clear. You own it.
> 
> ...


 with private leases at least you get the chance to buy the freehold - although the process can be a little convoluted - I don't think Councils sell the freehold - or if they do, very rarely


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 14, 2014)

We live in an ex-council terrace (lewisham council, though).  We have freehold and pay no service charges / have no liability for any council works.


----------



## Onket (Feb 14, 2014)

marty21 said:


> with private leases at least you get the chance to buy the freehold - although the process can be a little convoluted - I don't think Councils sell the freehold - or if they do, very rarely


Two thirds of the dwellings within the building need to go in together. So it only really happens in converted town houses of 2 or 3 flats.

It's not all good, either. My mate lived in a block where each resident had a share of the freehold and he said it was on the way to becoming a full time job as other residents couldn't be arsed, stopped paying or 'went missing'. He sold up & fucked off in the end.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 14, 2014)

petlessfred said:


> Hello - boring question I'm afraid! But I'm thinking about buying ex local authority in Brixton Hill.
> 
> What's the local authority like? Am I about to get handed a huge service charge bill in the future out of the blue... does anyone know if they are they likely to suddenly raise it? Or how I might find this out?
> 
> ...



Have a read of this by a lawyer who had the misfortune to be a Lambeth leaseholder and was stung for a big increase in service charges. Turns out the a leaseholder from a local authority has less rights than a leaseholder from a private freeholder.

As has been said on top of service charges you could be billed for major works that are done to the estate you are on.

Its not online but there is a piece in South London Press last Tuesday 11 February entitled "Lambeth Council in hot water over "rip off" repair costs to leaseholders". Its on page 3. Copies of SLP are kept in Tate Library.


----------



## Ms T (Feb 15, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> We live in an ex-council terrace (lewisham council, though).  We have freehold and pay no service charges / have no liability for any council works.


That's because it's a house, not a flat.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 15, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Have a read of this by a lawyer who had the misfortune to be a Lambeth leaseholder and was stung for a big increase in service charges. Turns out the a leaseholder from a local authority has less rights than a leaseholder from a private freeholder.



That's a useful article.


----------



## Onket (Feb 15, 2014)

Ms T post: 12933852 said:
			
		

> That's because it's a house, not a flat.


And because it's not on a council estate.

There are situations where Freeholders pay service charges, but there must be communal areas. E.g. on council estates. And the legal agreement is different (it's not a lease, obviously).

When we were still in our Freehold terraced house in Peckham, we paid service charge to L&Q for the communal car park area at the back. They were a fucking shower, I tell ya!


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 15, 2014)

Onket said:


> And because it's not on a council estate.
> 
> There are situations where Freeholders pay service charges, but there must be communal areas. E.g. on council estates. And the legal agreement is different (it's not a lease, obviously).
> 
> When we were still in our Freehold terraced house in Peckham, we paid service charge to L&Q for the communal car park area at the back. They were a fucking shower, I tell ya!


it is a council estate with communal areas (playground etc).


----------



## Onket (Feb 15, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> it is a council estate with communal areas (playground etc).


You've done alright, then!


----------



## petlessfred (Feb 17, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Have a read of this by a lawyer who had the misfortune to be a Lambeth leaseholder and was stung for a big increase in service charges. Turns out the a leaseholder from a local authority has less rights than a leaseholder from a private freeholder.
> 
> As has been said on top of service charges you could be billed for major works that are done to the estate you are on.
> 
> Its not online but there is a piece in South London Press last Tuesday 11 February entitled "Lambeth Council in hot water over "rip off" repair costs to leaseholders". Its on page 3. Copies of SLP are kept in Tate Library.


Thank you so much! That's a great help. It seems very risky to me.. I'm slowly being put off!


----------



## Manter (Feb 17, 2014)

Onket said:


> Two thirds of the dwellings within the building need to go in together. So it only really happens in converted town houses of 2 or 3 flats.
> 
> It's not all good, either. My mate lived in a block where each resident had a share of the freehold and he said it was on the way to becoming a full time job as other residents couldn't be arsed, stopped paying or 'went missing'. He sold up & fucked off in the end.


This was my experience


----------



## alfajobrob (Feb 17, 2014)

petlessfred said:


> Thank you so much! That's a great help. It seems very risky to me.. I'm slowly being put off!



I wouldn't be put off straight away but do check all the details from the agent and then check and check again...then check with other people. 

I hate saying this as I'm sure you know prices in Brixton are ridiculous and not much better in the immediate surrounding areas, but some places are more "reasonable" than others so worth thinking about.

Good luck and I hope you find your pet\flat soon.


----------



## RedDragon (Feb 17, 2014)

Presumably, if you're going to go via the ex-LA route I assume a smaller block or a street property conversion would be the way to go.


----------



## alfajobrob (Feb 17, 2014)

^^^^^^
What he said.

Less liability for sure, but then that is probably reflected in prices.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 17, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> Presumably, if you're going to go via the ex-LA route I assume a smaller block or a street property conversion would be the way to go.





alfajobrob said:


> ^^^^^^
> What he said.
> 
> Less liability for sure, but then that is probably reflected in prices.


The property I mentioned above was a 3 flat conversion.  That bill was 12k each. Although I've heard of much worse in larger blocks. I seem to recall a tower block with 80k per flat about 10yrs ago (don't think it was LA).


----------



## Onket (Feb 18, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> Presumably, if you're going to go via the ex LA route I assume a smaller block or a street property conversion would be the way to go.


Slightly separate note, but street property conversions can have terrible soundproofing (if any).


----------



## ringo (Feb 18, 2014)

I had an ex LA flat in Loughborough Junction for 11 years. In that time the council did works on the building twice. No work was done on my flat but I had scaffolding in my garden for 6 months and had a bill for £2500. This is much less than a mate got for similar work on a Stockwell ex LA flat.

When I bought my flat my solicitor missed the fact that the previous owners (who had bought the flat for £18000 from Lambeth) had not paid the £10,000 bill for the new windows. I told him if he took them to court himself and recovered the money I wouldn't sue him, which he did, but it took him two years and he refunded me my solicitors costs.

I also paid a monthly service charge, which Lambeth miscalculated every year, sent me a made up bill for £2000 outstanding when I hadn't missed a payment, and then eventually admitted they'd got it wrong and dropped the bill. Seven years in a row. They then sold the management of the leasehold to a 3rd party company.

When I sold my flat 18 months ago I was forced to pay the remaining £400 of service charge for the year even though I was no longer the owner. My solicitor then had to get the buyer to pay me back. I'm still waiting for that payment.

So yep, loads of hassle, but it's the price you pay for cheaper property and for many it's the only way to get on the ladder.


----------



## Onket (Feb 18, 2014)

ringo said:


> I had an ex LA flat in Loughborough Junction for 11 years.


United Residents Housing?


----------



## marty21 (Feb 18, 2014)

Onket said:


> Slightly separate note, but street property conversions can have terrible soundproofing (if any).


 yep, and as a housing 'professional' noise is a constant source of complaint


----------



## Rushy (Feb 18, 2014)

marty21 said:


> yep, and as a housing 'professional' noise is a constant source of complaint


The ex LA conversion I worked on had no sound proofing whatsoever. Nor fire proofing for that matter. You could see straight through the recessed ceiling lights to the cracks in the bare floorboards above. Downstairs almost bit our arm off when we offered to install sound proofing if they split costs.


----------



## ringo (Feb 18, 2014)

Onket said:


> United Residents Housing?



Management is now by this lot:

http://www.watmos.org.uk/Home

Didn't have any dealings with them beyond trying to get this refund sorted. They took 18 months to go through the service charge accounts they got from Lambeth and agree the figures. I gather it's now been sorted, but I have yet to receive the money.


----------



## RedDragon (Feb 18, 2014)

Rushy said:


> The ex LA conversion I worked on had no sound proofing whatsoever. Nor fire proofing for that matter. You could see straight through the recessed ceiling lights to the cracks in the bare floorboards above. Downstairs almost bit our arm off when we offered to install sound proofing if they split costs.


Did the SP make a difference, LAs usually argue effective SP in such properties is ineffective due to "impact noise" travelling through floor joist being embedded in walls.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 18, 2014)

ringo said:


> Management is now by this lot:
> http://www.watmos.org.uk/Home
> Didn't have any dealings with them beyond trying to get this refund sorted. They took 18 months to go through the service charge accounts they got from Lambeth and agree the figures. I gather it's now been sorted, but I have yet to receive the money.


I bet their new Chief Executive's pay isn't held up though.
How on earth did an organisation apparently based in Walsall end up managing properties in Brixton? Is this the new localism?


----------



## Onket (Feb 18, 2014)

ringo said:


> Management is now by this lot:
> 
> http://www.watmos.org.uk/Home
> 
> Didn't have any dealings with them beyond trying to get this refund sorted. They took 18 months to go through the service charge accounts they got from Lambeth and agree the figures. I gather it's now been sorted, but I have yet to receive the money.


----------



## ringo (Feb 18, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I bet their new Chief Executive's pay isn't held up though.
> How on earth did an organisation apparently based in Walsall end up managing properties in Brixton? Is this the new localism?



It went to a vote. The residents were so pissed off with Lambeth's mismanagement they took the first opportunity to go elsewhere. Don't know how they were chosen, did Lambeth put a load of them out to tender perhaps?


----------



## marty21 (Feb 18, 2014)

Onket said:


> Two thirds of the dwellings within the building need to go in together. So it only really happens in converted town houses of 2 or 3 flats.
> 
> .


 
We bought the freehold about 12 years ago,we were lucky, the previous freeholder had gone bankrupt so it was sold off by the Insolvency Service - cost about £4k iirc between the two flats

we keep meaning to sort out some sort of agreement between us for communal repairs and that but haven't sorted it out yet


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 18, 2014)

I used to rent an ex-council flat in the middle of Brixton. The landlord had refurbished it with new windows and French doors at the back. A few years after we moved in, the council replaced the whole estate's windows and garden doors anyway and charged the landlord for it and fined her for making structural changes without permission (the height of step at the back had been adjusted, so builders had to do more work to fit the doors).
Silly landlord!


----------



## Rushy (Feb 18, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> Did the SP make a difference, LAs usually argue effective SP in such properties is ineffective due to "impact noise" travelling through floor joist being embedded in walls.


Apparently a massive difference but type and quality of installation is important. We installed a new floor deck and then floated a second one on top. We also sealed all perimeter and service gaps to minimise airbourne. I would not trust council contractors to install properly.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 18, 2014)

Can't add a lot here - definitely yes to looking at leasehold advisory service website.

My flat is ex council (I bought from the person who bought it from the RTB tenant) in a block of 4 (not in Lambeth) and I get a £ 90 a year management charge (which strikes me as a lot for sending me a bill once a year, but sounds like i do better than many) plus a nominal 'ground rent' and I have to pay the council for buildings insurance.

It is definitely worth reading the small print to establish who is responsible for what, and what things you might need permission to do / get done.  Here, for example, the front door is mine, but the door frame is theirs.  I sought and got permission to get a mortice lock fitted.

The potential for big repair / maintenance bills is higher somewhere there's kit like lifts or communal heating systems to maintain, and the bigger the building, the more complex and costly any structural repairs will be.


----------



## damo (Mar 18, 2014)

Is this the right place to moan about Lambeth Living? Or should I do that on another thread?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 18, 2014)

damo said:


> Is this the right place to moan about Lambeth Living? Or should I do that on another thread?


Did you want to moan about the service charges?  If so, this is the right thread.

Otherwise, see if there's another thread in the Brixton section.  If there isn't, feel free to start one.


----------



## damo (Mar 18, 2014)

It is about service charges, but it's more to do with getting information from them when you're trying to buy a property.


----------



## Onket (Mar 18, 2014)

damo said:


> It is about service charges, but it's more to do with getting information from them when you're trying to buy a property.


We've done that one- It's your solicitor's job to get that info.


----------



## damo (Mar 18, 2014)

Not if Lambeth Living will only respond to the seller and their solicitor?


----------



## Onket (Mar 18, 2014)

damo said:


> Not if Lambeth Living will only respond to the seller and their solicitor?


You're paying your solicitor to deal with that.

Surely it's glaringly obvious there are data protection issues here?!


----------



## damo (Mar 18, 2014)

To clarify: I don't want the information directly. I want them to acknowledge they've received the questions and are capable of answering them. 3 months of not answering questions suggests otherwise.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 18, 2014)

damo said:


> To clarify: I don't want the information directly. I want them to acknowledge they've received the questions and are capable of answering them. 3 months of not answering questions suggests otherwise.


That is horribly frustrating. I don't think there is anything much you can do about it as the buyer. Maybe contact Pete Robbins and Florence Nosegbe who are cabinet members responsible for housing matters, outlining the problem and the trouble it is causing you. Maybe a joint letter from both you and the vendor? Unless the vendor kicks up a fuss I imagine they won't have much to say.

If they are being so uncooperative now, imagine what it will be like to have them as your freeholder!


----------



## trashpony (Mar 18, 2014)

I'm casting my mind back but I don't think I ever had direct contact with the freeholder when I bought leasehold. It's up to the vendor to supply the information and the freeholder has no responsibility to supply you with anything at all AFAIK damo


----------



## ringo (Mar 18, 2014)

ringo said:


> When I sold my flat 18 months ago I was forced to pay the remaining £400 of service charge for the year even though I was no longer the owner. My solicitor then had to get the buyer to pay me back. I'm still waiting for that payment.



Finally got my money back last month, and it turned out it was £800 but my solicitor got it wrong somehow. I should send them a bill for interest.


----------



## Onket (Mar 18, 2014)

trashpony said:


> I'm casting my mind back but I don't think I ever had direct contact with the freeholder when I bought leasehold. It's up to the vendor to supply the information and the freeholder has no responsibility to supply you with anything at all AFAIK damo


This is exactly it.^

Also, solicitors ALWAYS blame the Council for any delays. Easy way to shift blame to an easy target.

That's not to say the position you find yourself in is any less fustrating, damo, or that no fault lies with the council.


----------



## co-op (Mar 18, 2014)

damo said:


> To clarify: I don't want the information directly. I want them to acknowledge they've received the questions and are capable of answering them. 3 months of not answering questions suggests otherwise.



I haven't had to deal with Lambeth Living for a couple of years now, thank fuck, but although it is true that solicitors are also lazy wankers (especially conveyancers), LL are, ime, in a league of their own for laziness, stupidity, incompetence and mahoosive backlogs of work. Trying to get anything out of them was a nightmare

ETA - and I was a Lambeth council tenant in the bad old days so I know how it can be, LL are worse.


----------



## co-op (Mar 18, 2014)

petlessfred said:


> Thank you so much! That's a great help. It seems very risky to me.. I'm slowly being put off!



It's a tricky one to call. A lot of ex-council flats in Lambeth are lovely properties, often much better as living spaces than the massively more expensive alternative wham-bam conversions elsewhere which often look nice but have terrible noise-proofing, bad or no insulation, and are generally exactly the kind of quickbuck rubbish you'd expect from the kind of dodgy chancers who were "developing" property in the last 30 years - and you'll still have the whole leasehold issue but you'll be dealing with the random strangers who are your new neighbours.

By contrast, Lambeth houses and flats were nearly always built by people who knew what they were doing, believed in what they were doing and were building for the long term, so they are often much, much better structures. And they're cheaper, and ime the wanker count among the neighbours is lower. 

But the lease-holder position is a bit vulnerable. Others have mentioned things that really can cost a bomb like windows & security doors etc - I'd chuck lifts in there too, they can be well pricey. So check out what has been done recently - ask the RA. A good RA is worth its weight in gold, they can parcel up the work so you can do fine toothcomb on the lease bills. When I had bought, we found that Lambeth were billing us for the streetlights on the estate (ie the electricity and bulbs) - but these were public roads, we had already paid for them in the council tax, stuff like that. A decent estate will have a good RA and it means you're rarely fighting a battle alone. Hundreds of thousands of people are living in ex-council leasehold flats in London and mostly are enjoying their lives.


----------



## Onket (Mar 18, 2014)

When the Tories massively increased the RTB discount, councils were swamped with enquiries from greedy tenants out to cash in. I'm not surprised there is a delay in issuing the info to potential buyers tbh, it's not like councils can just emply more people to deal with an increase in enquiries, especially in the middle of the cuts we have been seeing for the past few years.

The situation is not going to get better without some fundamental changes to the provision of social housing in this country.


----------



## Manter (Mar 18, 2014)

damo said:


> To clarify: I don't want the information directly. I want them to acknowledge they've received the questions and are capable of answering them. 3 months of not answering questions suggests otherwise.


Don't hold your breath. I asked them for information (about the condition of a flat they were planning to let to someone vulnerable) and one of the questions was what floor the flat was on. They said we needed to 'rely on our own observations'


----------



## Rushy (Mar 19, 2014)

trashpony said:


> I'm casting my mind back but I don't think I ever had direct contact with the freeholder when I bought leasehold. It's up to the vendor to supply the information and the freeholder has no responsibility to supply you with anything at all AFAIK damo





Onket said:


> This is exactly it.^
> 
> Also, solicitors ALWAYS blame the Council for any delays. Easy way to shift blame to an easy target.
> 
> That's not to say the position you find yourself in is any less fustrating, damo, or that no fault lies with the council.



It's not _exactly _it, though. The buyer will send enquiries to the vendor's solicitor who will send them on to the freeholder. The freeholder _does _have an obligation to the leaseholder to respond (they can usually charge a fee of between £50-200). IME freeholders often don't respond and forcing them to do so is impractical. This is true of lots of freeholders - many of which own a couple of freeholds and don't really understand what they are doing or the importance of their role or are not contactable. The council owns hundreds and should understand their role and be set up to deal with such requests without any problems. It is possible but pretty unlikely that the solicitors just did not pass on the enquiries. 

The council does seem to have a significant proportion of very inefficient and often officious and obstructive administrators who spend a lot of time telling you why you are wrong or why it is not their job to help you in a particular circumstance. And yet, if you try again and get a different person with suitable knowledge and a little bit of nouse, your enquiry can be sorted in 5 minutes.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2014)

Rushy said:


> It's not _exactly _it, though. The buyer will send enquiries to the vendor's solicitor who will send them on to the freeholder. The freeholder _does _have an obligation to the leaseholder to respond (they can usually charge a fee of between £50-200). IME freeholders often don't respond and forcing them to do so is impractical. This is true of lots of freeholders - many of which own a couple of freeholds and don't really understand what they are doing or the importance of their role or are not contactable. The council owns hundreds and should understand their role and be set up to deal with such requests without any problems. It is possible but pretty unlikely that the solicitors just did not pass on the enquiries.
> 
> The council does seem to have a significant proportion of very inefficient and often officious and obstructive administrators who spend a lot of time telling you why you are wrong or why it is not their job to help you in a particular circumstance. And yet, if you try again and get a different person with suitable knowledge and a little bit of nouse, your enquiry can be sorted in 5 minutes.


Yes absolutely. But the point is there's nothing that damo can do about it, save hassle his solicitors. It doesn't exactly make them very appealing to new buyers because presumably you're going to have exactly the same issue when you try and sell.


----------



## Onket (Mar 19, 2014)

trashpony has said what I was going to say, Rushy.

Presumably damo is trying to chase the council himself as his solicitor has indicated they have had no luck themselves. This is despite his solicitors no doubt 'earning' way more than the £50-£200 you quote that the council/freeholder charges for the required info.


----------



## Onket (Mar 19, 2014)

Rushy said:


> The council does seem to have a significant proportion of very inefficient and often officious and obstructive administrators who spend a lot of time telling you why you are wrong or why it is not their job to help you in a particular circumstance.


If you are contacting them as a third party then it is quite right that they tell you to fuck off, tbf.


----------



## damo (Mar 19, 2014)

Onket said:


> trashpony has said what I was going to say, Rushy.
> 
> Presumably damo is trying to chase the council himself as his solicitor has indicated they have had no luck themselves. This is despite his solicitors no doubt 'earning' way more than the £50-£200 you quote that the council/freeholder charges for the required info.



Er no. But good jumping to conclusions there. Have you thought about patenting it as a decision mat?

My solicitor has been chasing the vendor's solicitor. Who hasn't been responding. The owners, one of those original "greedy fuckers" according to some on here, someone who was lucky and able to take advantage of buying the property and now wants to release their funds in my eyes, have employed a total fuckwit. Who acts more like the solicitor you describe. Someone who hasn't asked questions, hasn't forwarded the questions we're asking, and who generally thinks they're doing their job ok.

I've spoken to 3 people in LL capable of dealing with this. 2 were helpful. One was completely obstructive.
I work in data protection. I don't want information about the house, I want to know they've received our enquiries and are capable of answering them and could they maybe provide a timeline.



Rushy said:


> It's not _exactly _it, though. The buyer will send enquiries to the vendor's solicitor who will send them on to the freeholder. The freeholder _does _have an obligation to the leaseholder to respond (they can usually charge a fee of between £50-200). IME freeholders often don't respond and forcing them to do so is impractical. This is true of lots of freeholders - many of which own a couple of freeholds and don't really understand what they are doing or the importance of their role or are not contactable. The council owns hundreds and should understand their role and be set up to deal with such requests without any problems. It is possible but pretty unlikely that the solicitors just did not pass on the enquiries.
> 
> The council does seem to have a significant proportion of very inefficient and often officious and obstructive administrators who spend a lot of time telling you why you are wrong or why it is not their job to help you in a particular circumstance. And yet, if you try again and get a different person with suitable knowledge and a little bit of nouse, your enquiry can be sorted in 5 minutes.



In short: that.


----------



## Onket (Mar 19, 2014)

damo said:
			
		

> Er no. But good jumping to conclusions there. Have you thought about patenting it as a decision mat?
> 
> My solicitor has been chasing the vendor's solicitor. Who hasn't been responding. The owners, one of those original "greedy fuckers" according to some on here, someone who was lucky and able to take advantage of buying the property and now wants to release their funds in my eyes, have employed a total fuckwit. Who acts more like the solicitor you describe. Someone who hasn't asked questions, hasn't forwarded the questions we're asking, and who generally thinks they're doing their job ok.
> 
> ...


So your solicitor Is blaming the other solicitor. Basically the same thing, as you are still having to do the job yourself, despite having paid them, and understandably you are getting a bit worked up about it.

Get your solicitor to do the chasing or withold the money you have paid them.


----------



## damo (Mar 19, 2014)

Not worked up. My solicitor has been chasing. For 3 months. I'm trying to find other ways through.
Let's not have an online slanging match. It appears my questions about LL are being answered, thanks for that.


----------



## Onket (Mar 19, 2014)

damo said:


> Not worked up. My solicitor has been chasing. For 3 months. I'm trying to find other ways through.
> Let's not have an online slanging match. It appears my questions about LL are being answered, thanks for that.


Apoligies for trying to help.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 19, 2014)

Rushy said:


> The council does seem to have a significant proportion of very inefficient and often officious and obstructive administrators who spend a lot of time telling you why you are wrong or why it is not their job to help you in a particular circumstance. And yet, if you try again and get a different person with suitable knowledge and a little bit of nouse, your enquiry can be sorted in 5 minutes.





Onket said:


> If you are contacting them as a third party then it is quite right that they tell you to fuck off, tbf.



I was being general - not just in relation to freehold matters. A lot of Lambeth's reps seem deliberately obstructive or unhelpful. I recently had this exchange with building control regarding historic information.
Me on phone "Can you provide a history of building control applications for this property dating back to 1998."
BC admin on phone "Yes we can."
Me: Great, can you tell me what you hold on file.
BC admin: "Yes - you need to request it by email"
Me: Thanks
Me by email "Please could you provide details of any building control applications and approvals associated with xxx dating back to 1998. *In particular I am looking for registration of works associated with xxx around 99-00.*"
BC a week later: "In response to your request  we cannot deal with your inquiry at present, as we have not received the £50.00 administration fee. As soon as we have received this payment we can conduct a search and release this information."
Me: They did not mention any fees on the phone. Can you please confirm what records you hold (if any) before I apply for copies. This does not normally incur fees.
[No reply by email]
Me on phone: Hi. I have been told I need to pay a fee but this is not normally the case.
BC admin: That's strange - let me ask the BC team [pause] Right - I have spoken to them and the period you have requested does incur fees.
Me: What period incurs fees?
BC admin: I don't know. I can ask them if you like.
Me: Thank you. That would be helpful. [long pause]
BC admin: Right - I have spoken with them and any searches before 1999 are charged for. Your search request went back as far as 98. Searches up to and including 1999 are easily accessible on our desktop database and can be provided quickly for free - prior to that requires a physical search of the paper archives and incurs fees.
Me: As mentioned in the request, the application I am looking for is most likely 99-00. Would they be able to perform a desktop database search to 1999 for free and let me know if it exists.
BC admin: I'll ask them [long pause] Yes, we can do that.
Me: Great. So are any records showing up?
BC admin: Let me ask them for you sir [long pause] I'm sorry sir. You need to submit this request in writing.
Me: Oh for goodness sake.
Me (by email): I request yadda yadda.
BC a week later by email: There is only record of one application dated 2005 during the requested period. The work was never completed or inspected.
Me on phone: Are you sure? I have since been given a copy of the application I was looking for, with ref number XXX dated 99. And I have a copy of the completion certificate for the 2005 works you referred to.
BC: Yes tose are on our database.​

As a not very enthusiastic freeholder myself, in response to damo's enquiry I would confirm whether or not I had received their enquiries from the vendor and provide a timeline for handling them, if they had not been answered already. It is just being cooperative. That said, if the vendor's solicitor is not responding too, it's not really going to help much. Stressful situation.


----------



## damo (Mar 19, 2014)

Onket said:


> Apoligies for trying to help.


No. I'm having the last word.
Word.


----------



## petlessfred (Jun 18, 2014)

co-op said:


> It's a tricky one to call. A lot of ex-council flats in Lambeth are lovely properties, often much better as living spaces than the massively more expensive alternative wham-bam conversions elsewhere which often look nice but have terrible noise-proofing, bad or no insulation, and are generally exactly the kind of quickbuck rubbish you'd expect from the kind of dodgy chancers who were "developing" property in the last 30 years - and you'll still have the whole leasehold issue but you'll be dealing with the random strangers who are your new neighbours.
> 
> By contrast, Lambeth houses and flats were nearly always built by people who knew what they were doing, believed in what they were doing and were building for the long term, so they are often much, much better structures. And they're cheaper, and ime the wanker count among the neighbours is lower.
> 
> But the lease-holder position is a bit vulnerable. Others have mentioned things that really can cost a bomb like windows & security doors etc - I'd chuck lifts in there too, they can be well pricey. So check out what has been done recently - ask the RA. A good RA is worth its weight in gold, they can parcel up the work so you can do fine toothcomb on the lease bills. When I had bought, we found that Lambeth were billing us for the streetlights on the estate (ie the electricity and bulbs) - but these were public roads, we had already paid for them in the council tax, stuff like that. A decent estate will have a good RA and it means you're rarely fighting a battle alone. Hundreds of thousands of people are living in ex-council leasehold flats in London and mostly are enjoying their lives.



co-op - thank you so much for taking the time to write this. As it happens others may be interested to hear that I'm _still _awaiting Lambeth's replies to the sellers' requests for information. This is after four or so months. Oh well! I'm still hoping it all happens. But i remain terrified of sudden costs and major work... again not much i can do but hope it doesn't come for a couple of years at least. My RA appears to be good. 

Anyway - thank you again for your response, this is the first time i've been here for a few months - and your post is timely. I was wondering if it all was a wise move but i think on balance it's worth the risk!


----------



## petlessfred (Jun 18, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> You could always MEW it if you didn't have the readies. New roof/windows will increase the value anyway so it would probably end up being cost neutral.


Thank you for the advice, forgive me though, what does MEW stand for and what does it mean? I can guess it's some form of short term loan but was just wondering how I would apply if I needed it etc.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 18, 2014)

Onket said:


> When the Tories massively increased the RTB discount, councils were swamped with enquiries from greedy tenants out to cash in. I'm not surprised there is a delay in issuing the info to potential buyers tbh, it's not like councils can just emply more people to deal with an increase in enquiries, especially in the middle of the cuts we have been seeing for the past few years.
> 
> The situation is not going to get better without some fundamental changes to the provision of social housing in this country.


 I have noticed more RTB applications, but given the house prices in London, and central London in particular, even with a £100k discount, it is difficult for most tenants to get a mortgage on the rest - so even though the tories want more council tenants to buy their homes, because of rampant house price inflation , many can't. Of course this might mean that if the Tories are re-elected they might increase the discounts even more.


----------



## Onket (Jun 18, 2014)

Yes, as I understand it, applications are going up because of the discount, but people are being refused mortgages because of the stricter checks being carried out by lenders . Tenants then just put in another RTB application, and are refused a mortgage again. The process repeats and repeats causing delays and anguish all round.

The knock-on effect is delays for people buying ex-council properties on the open market, of course.


----------



## co-op (Jun 19, 2014)

petlessfred said:


> Thank you for the advice, forgive me though, what does MEW stand for and what does it mean? I can guess it's some form of short term loan but was just wondering how I would apply if I needed it etc.



MEW = mortgage equity withdrawal, it's basically taking a loan against the value of your house but using the increase in value since you bought.


----------



## Spyfly (Sep 21, 2014)

Hey All

Not been on hear for ages however I have an amazing amount of info on Council leasehold charges.
I recon I could get every single person who has been billed for major works in Lambeth off of paying.n
United Residents Housing did a load of work on the Loughborough Estate 3 years ago but they billed incorrectly. Not only did they significantly under charge leaseholders by the a total of £800k what they did bill for should not have been chargeable.

It's ok the time has passed they can not ammend the bills nows but you could still challenge the reduced bills and have them quashed.

Many will think what a waste of tax payers money! That loses of lost income should have gone back into the coffers to Pay for further improvements. 

To add fuel Roupell park leaseholders were never billed at all for their refurbishment works. This cost the Council a further £300k, the guy who managed the works was dismissed for whistle blowing to the Council that URH were not collecting monies from Leaseholders and had cocked the leasehold bills up.

Lambeth Council and then Lambeth living swept a £1.1m loss under the carpet. I wounder what the Councilors would make of this?

So next time a tenant can't get a roof fixed or new windows, think on! 

Rich leaseholders got them for nothing in Roupell park and cheap in Loughborough Estate and a good officer lost his job trying to stop it.

If you ever want to challenge a recharge bill you know where I am.


Ps 

If I ever had an issue with Lambeth Living not getting info over fast enough I'd email Derick Aderson ( CEO) and  Keith Hill ( LL chairman) no point emailing LL CEO as Neil is leaving early next year ( word is LL going back in house before next election) 
Spyfly


----------



## Spyfly (Dec 10, 2014)

Hi All

I'm have to confess that I was in a position for many years where i did the major works and had to recharge leaseholders for the works.
1st thing to say is I did my very very best to keep cost a low as possible but still getting quality.
This said and I speak from my heart.
The charges are a scandal. it all stems from the procurement  on a scheme. most contractors get excluded because they will need to adhere the a thing call a PQQ ( pre qualification questionnaire) this is normally so onerous thst smaller contractors simply give up at the first hurdle.  Also £10 m pf public liability insurance is far too high  for most smaller firms to carry. This further excludes them.
The contractors left in the mix are the usual suspects (Big firms) who inflate their prices significantly and then employ the local firm who had been excluded and add on 50%.
they over kill the site works with welfare and scaffolding and administration which artificially inflates  prelims charges all passed on to the Council and leaseholders.

They charge for works that are often not required and because these are normally extra to the original specification the costs are not checked and the prices grossly inflated.
When charges are levied to leaseholders they are very often levied wrong and leaseholders are charged for things which are not allowed to charged for. There is little or no breakdown of the charge per flat. the primarily costs are normally  charge as a % of the overall works and not what works were charged to individual flats. You should not pay VAT on these works as the Council are zero rated and much of the works because they are energy savings are reduced is this being passed on?

have you been served with the correct notices? bill in the right time frame? are the works rechargeable as part of your lease agreement?

Did you know that the Council has 18 months from the date they get their first invoice to raise your bills? Not from practical incomplete as is often the case.

If you ever feel that the bills are excessive collectively go to a LVT leaseholder valuation Tribunal. if your unsure ask the question and I will more than happy to help.


PS any leaseholder billed by United Residents Housing in the last 5 years are in a super position not to pay as the payments system they used to record payments was unsecured and not right under FSA.
If you say you paid in full they can not prove you did or did not and if you ask them for proof of payment they wont be able to supply this. 


Pass this around


----------



## Sir Brixalot (May 15, 2015)

Fully agreed on the sound proofing, my lambeth leasehold flat has one layer of hardboard between my family and a crazy, massive barking dog owning, crazy neighbour who doesn't seem to need sleep. Lambeth won't do anything about the noise. Until reading this I had never thought about fire proofing, is there any requirement for the freehold to make the ceiling fire resistant?.


----------



## sparkybird (May 15, 2015)

Yes, under building regs separate habitable units have to be able to contain a fire for (IIRC) a minimum of 30 mins. However, many type of plasterboard ceiling have a this property....


----------



## Rushy (May 15, 2015)

sparkybird said:


> Yes, under building regs separate habitable units have to be able to contain a fire for (IIRC) a minimum of 30 mins. However, many type of plasterboard ceiling have a this property....


Building regs only apply to new conversions/builds and major alterations though. There is not a general duty to being old buildings in line with modern reg standards - although there may be a duty of care to improve things in certain tenant/landlord scenarios.


----------



## sparkybird (May 15, 2015)

Hmm interesting Rushy. 

The BS 7671 (The Wiring Regulations) prescribed forms used when carrying out a Electrical Installation Condition Report have a specific section which asks the electrician to confirm that lights (and in particular recessed lights) are sized or sealed to restrict the spread of fire. Since EICR's are generally carried out on existing electrical installations not new builds, this seems to be at odds with the Building Regs. I guess you would have to prove that the Building Regs were not in force when the property was built or converted.

I'd always recommend replacing those horrible open backed ones, which fill up with dead wasps, with fire rated anyway.


----------



## Rushy (May 15, 2015)

sparkybird said:


> Hmm interesting Rushy.
> 
> The BS 7671 (The Wiring Regulations) prescribed forms used when carrying out a Electrical Installation Condition Report have a specific section which asks the electrician to confirm that lights (and in particular recessed lights) are sized or sealed to restrict the spread of fire. Since EICR's are generally carried out on existing electrical installations not new builds, this seems to be at odds with the Building Regs. I guess you would have to prove that the Building Regs were not in force when the property was built or converted.
> 
> I'd always recommend replacing those horrible open backed ones, which fill up with dead wasps, with fire rated anyway.



Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Building regs are standards which have to be met at the time of construction. There is no general obligation to ensure that the property is improved to meet more stringent later regs. But if new works are carried out to the property, those works will need to meet the new regs.

Most flats in the UK don't meet current thermal or sound insulation requirements, for example, and there is no general obligation for them to be updated. But if you were replacing a ceiling which had collapsed, or pouring in new sash windows, they would usually have to be done to current spec. Installing new lights in the ceiling would fall under that, I'm sure.

In the example you describe, if you were just checking an existing installation, I presume you could refuse to carry out further work on it without upgrading, but do you have the power to force the owner of the installation to improve it if they don't want to?


----------



## brixtonpete (Feb 11, 2017)

Lambeth has finally sent out the actual (i.e. non-estimated) annual service charges for the year ending April 2016. This year our flat has a charge (£12.44) for Communal Water Quality, explained as being for ‘maintenance and inspection of communal tanks and water services'. This could only apply to a Cold Water Storage Cistern (CWSC) in a loft space at the top of a BLOCK OF FLATS that served more than one flat, as mains water quality is the responsibility of Thames Water and nothing to do with Lambeth Council. It is sensible to check a COMMUNAL CWSC for water quality as the cistern might have no lid and be collecting dust, or be ancient and made of steel risking a major flood, or worse still, in a large old loft with holes in the roof, harbour a dead pigeon. Our street property house was converted in 1979 into three flats as part of the Housing Action Area and each flat had its own CWSC, with no communal CWSC, therefore leaseholders’ own responsibility to maintain, or as is the case in very many flats such as ours, completely remove when a combination boiler is installed and the whole flat is converted to mains water without any tanks/cisterns. It is likely that other council owned flats in the same 1979 Housing Action Area were converted in the same way

If you have been charged this fee and think the house your flat is in has no COMMUNAL water cistern you can and should dispute the charge. The service charge dispute form is at:

Service Charges Dispute Form - Housing Management

If you have been charged a high sum for ‘communal electrical maintenance’ or ‘communal electricity’ I would suggest investigating further, but let me warn you that when I asked about how a communal electricity bill was calculated, expecting the answer ‘a meter reading' the result was an explanation so obscure and complicated it made me want to bang my head against a brick wall!


----------



## Winot (Feb 11, 2017)

Did they charge you for damage to the wall too?


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 11, 2017)

It's also worth checking that you do have a communal electric supply. Often I see converted properties with none, the communal lights are simply wired from one or more of the flats. There should be 1 more meter than there are flats


----------

