Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Labour have nothing to do with it uncle. The rules on leaseholding are set in law under RTB1 (brought in by the Tories if you had conveniently forgotten that). If you buy a council leasehold, you do so knowing you will be charged for communal works.


And there are leaseholder organisations that do challenge the sums charged and hold them to account, so as usual you are talking out of your a@@.

I'm not getting into this with you Uncle. RTB1 was introduced by a Thatcher government under THEIR terms. Nowhere did the Labour manifesto stop the councils being able to use the money from the sales to build or buy more housing. We are where we are now because of that Tory governments deliberate policy of selling off homes and blocking their replacement, end of.


Just as the rules on RTB1 were set by that same government, end of.

A relative owns a flat in a council block that has central heating with a boiler in the basement and supplies all the flats. The council replaced the system and my relative's share was divided up into instalments payable over several years. Obviously the central heating benefits everyone. Someone else I know lives in a block of social housing and privately owned, and the water bill for the whole block is divided up equally amongst each flat- even though there are singles, childless couples, and people with families at home all day...

The council have got to deal with this

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-owed-millions-in-rent-arrears-every-year/

Generating parking fines won't do it- so they will fleece anyone who is a sitting duck

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In some cases people living in blocks are having

> to pay for Lift servicing and Maintenance ..

> ... even when they have a Ground Flour flat..

>

> DulwichFox



That is very unfair for those living in ground flour flats. Surely they already have enough troubles as it is with rain etc.

An annual service charge is a better way to manage these costs - build a pot for a rainy day - the council presumably didn't do that?


When you buy from an old council block you must wonder how many potential problems have been built up over the years of possible neglect that could hit pretty hard at some point.


Hopefully she has at least had decent capital growth during the period - not that this helps pay - I'd say fight it - say it relates to deterioration that arose mainly prior to her ownership and that she's only responsible for a small proportion of the costs.


Of course if she doesn't pay - I guess the normal council tax payer fits the bill for the balance - so no one wins.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> An annual service charge is a better way to manage

> these costs - build a pot for a rainy day - the

> council presumably didn't do that?

>



A sink fund is advisable :)


Surely an estimate should have been done BEFORE the work - the council might

have chosen their mate to do the work at double cost for all you know. I'd want

to go through what work was done and who did it.

Lots of us have owned flats in old buildings - period apartment blocks or converted Victorian houses. Yes they have problems and sometimes you need to fork out. But why is it that time and time again, we hear that Southwark have billed their leaseholders amounts that are almost unheard of by the rest of us? 16K PER FLAT for new electrics?


There is something really dodgy going on. Are private owners paying for maintenance of the whole block? Do Southwark always use the same contractors, or are large jobs like this put out to tender? Is the process transparent?

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lots of us have owned flats in old buildings -

> period apartment blocks or converted Victorian

> houses. Yes they have problems and sometimes you

> need to fork out.


Don't you think ex council are more likely to have been poorly maintained in the past - hence a potential build up of problems?

Steveo - feel for you and yours..something isn't right... As Landlords/Freeholders Southwark are required to go through a specific process when it comes to announcing/tendering for works. Do you know if this was completed properly?


We (owners of 5 flats in a Victorian building) were presented with frankly criminal costs by the then managing agent.. when we question them about the process (which they neglected) they were forced to pick up some of that cost as a result. We immediately asked for a sinking fund to be instituted, then broke the chains of bondage and obtained Right to Manage (RTM). This has got to be the way to go for smaller developments/buildings. I can appreciate larger estates that would be onerous to manage, but not impossible with the right support.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't you think ex council are more likely to have

> been poorly maintained in the past - hence a

> potential build up of problems?


Well no, not necessarily. And it still wouldn't justify the magnitude of the outrageous bills you see mentioned on here from time to time...

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > Lots of us have owned flats in old buildings -

> > period apartment blocks or converted Victorian

> > houses. Yes they have problems and sometimes you

> > need to fork out.

>

> Don't you think ex council are more likely to have

> been poorly maintained in the past - hence a

> potential build up of problems?


Possibly, but ?16k is way overpriced to even have the whole thing rewired completely.

I seem to remember a similar thread on here a while back - when leaseholders looked into the bills received / asked for a schedule of works, if I remember rightly, it was clear that some of the work that was represented to the council as being carried out had not been carried out at all.


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1216858,1635601#msg-1635601

At least for privately owned flats, the management company / landlord has to serve a section 20 notice. it basically states the intention to tender major works, and then again, once quotes have been received, the landlord would send out the details to say which company will be undertaking the work and at what cost. I am not sure why it would be any different to ex-council flats?


Basically, any major works which would cost the leaseholder ?250 or more in the year - the leaseholder would have to be consulted under section 20. May be worth looking into as to whether your girlfriend was consulted?


Note that you also have the right to request further detail of the spend your girlfriend is being asked to pay.


http://www.lease-advice.org/information/faqs/faq.asp?item=173


I am not a solicitor so may be wrong - but worth looking into the above. It definitely applies to leaseholders of private landlords.

Mrs D Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At least for privately owned flats, the management company / landlord has to serve a section 20 notice.

> it basically states the intention to tender major works, and then again, once quotes have been received,

> the landlord would send out the details to say which company will be undertaking the work and at what

> cost. I am not sure why it would be any different to ex-council flats?


I don't think it is any different. Local authority/public sector landlords have to serve Section 20 notices.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...