Thieving Southwark Council scum

[steveo]

My girl lives in a mixed private/council block and has just unaccountably been asked how she intends to pay the sixteen grand that she out-of-the-blue owes them for new electrics.

Her flat's electrics are fine. WTF?

Who holds these dogs to account?

[Blah Blah]

I'm guessing she's a leaseholder? Is the electrical work interior or communal exterior? Leaseholders are liable for work done to the buildings. There are leaseholder organisations though so she should contact one of those for advice, or the CAB.

[uncleglen]

Unfortunately NOBODY holds them to account- and it has always been so because of local democracy- you vote Labour you take your chances

[Blah Blah]

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@@.

[Grok]

If you're a leaseholder you accept the lease conditions when you sign on the dotted line. No point complaning after. Pay up.

[Northern Star]

You would never pay an electrician 16k if you instructed one yourself. The point here is around the actual amount, isn't it? If I was your girlfriend I would ask for proof of what work has been undertaken.

[uncleglen]

The Right to Buy was firstly in the Labour manifesto of 1959 fyi Blah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy

[Blah Blah]

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.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Uncle and blah

Stop bickering and get back on post about how Steveo and his girlfriend can fight these amazingly imaginative charges !

[DulwichFox]

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

[uncleglen]

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

[Champ]

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.

[cella]

In any leasehold building everybody is required to contribute to the maintenance costs of the whole building so it's not relevant where you live in the building.

[Loz]

As someone else said, the real issue is the price. ?16k per flat is an extraordinary amount - what is being done for that sort of money??

[Mick Mac]

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.

[JohnL]

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.

[Jeremy]

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?

[womanofdulwich]

This happens in private blocks too.Some leases do not have sinking funds and it is hard to get repairs done. There have been blocks in Streatham that have been blighted by this. Some landlords are particularly bad.

[Mick Mac]

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?

[OD]

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.

[Jeremy]

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...

[Loz]

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.

[KrackersMaracas]

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

[Northern Star]

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.

[dc]

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.