southwark council service charge

[fabfor]

Buddug wrote:However, I have to say I am absolutely - and I mean absolutely - gobsmacked that Southwark contacted your mortgage lender after you queried the extortionate charge.

Thanks for sympathising Buddug. The effect of their action is very damaging, actually, which is why I use the word malicious. I'm nearing retirement and they've destroyed my prepared means of financing long planned improvements. But I'm still fighting...

[spider69]

fabfor Wrote:

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

> Buddug wrote:However, I have to say I am

> absolutely - and I mean absolutely - gobsmacked

> that Southwark contacted your mortgage lender

> after you queried the extortionate charge.

>

> Thanks for sympathising Buddug. The effect of

> their action is very damaging, actually, which is

> why I use the word malicious. I'm nearing

> retirement and they've destroyed my prepared means

> of financing long planned improvements. But I'm

> still fighting...

What has to be remembered is that writing to mortgage companies after demands have been sent is to elicit the response that they will not pay if in dispute or if they have not been instructed to do so by the house owner.

This response will then provide the means to take the matter to court to get judgement in their favor for outstanding charges and then the mortgage company will immediately pay the full amount once this has been sent to them.

[fabfor]

Thanks for the clarification, spider69. Writing to a mortgage lender before responding to a leaseholder's query is .. what - the punitive response of a bully?

[fredbear]

has anybody heard from southwark regarding the reimbersment?

[buddug]

Yes. Southwark service charge department are awaiting the cost of work that was actually carried out from, I think, the engineers at Southwark. But I suggest you all keep ringing Nigel Rice and Martin Green, who's in charge of this mess, for answers, as I'm doing. What's shocking is they only realised their 'mistake' after so many of us queried the extortionate overcharging - and probably in part thanks to this thread - and now they're dragging their feet to reimburse us. And yes, as Peckham Rose said, charge for the interest they're sitting on. I'm going to ask them on Monday how much they overcharged in total - but they won't want to disclose that, so it'll probably mean putting in a Freedom of Information request.

Time and time again, Southwark Council has proved itself unfit to hold our freeholds, whether it's the standard of work carried out, the damage to our properties or the overcharging. They should just hand them over to us. Continuing to keep hold of them is costing Southwark a fortune, and for what. So they can lord it over us.

[buddug]

By the way, Councillor Peter John (the Leader, as his loyal PA refers to him, bless) visited my flat while doing his all-too-rare rounds today. Although good for him that he did it in such dreadful weather, I say. I invited him in and had a good chat with him about this recent overcharging debacle, and told him it was not yet resolved. He took notes and said he would look into it. I believe he will.

I also earbashed him (poor man) about all the problems I'd had with Southwark's cowboy builders in the past - Eugena, Boates, Morrisons - who caused damage not only to the exterior of our property (a Victorian terrace split into 2 flats) on a constant basis but also my interior on several occasions, and that I'd received a total of ?13,000 in compensation to make good the damage or botched work over the 13 years I've lived here - not a great deal for Southwark taxpayers!

I also - fabfor, this is for you - brought up the issue of Southwark's Lizzie Bean, with the blessing of her boss Martin Green, snaffling ?750 from my mortgage company, with no warning to me, to pay off the service charges I'd been withholding until all botched work was made good. A bit rich, considering they are now withholding money from us regarding the overcharging for lighting.

I asked him why Southwark insisted on hanging on to these freeholds - an antiquated system worthy only of the robber barons of mediaeval times - when they made them no money whatsoever, and in my case, actually lost them money. Not good in these times of 'austerity' (although no austerity for the super rich like our Parliamentary politicians, of course).

I was very impressed with him actually, having clashed with him in the past. My little dog Daisy was equally impressed, as he kept throwing the ball for her (I think she's in love!). He told me he'd spoken to several beleaguered leaseholders of Southwark in East Dulwich alone and had heard their tales of woe. He said the leaseholder issue did seem to be a big problem. I do think he's genuinely concerned about this, so credit where it's due. He also seems impressed by the head of housing Gerri Scott. I tend to agree - she has been fair to me on one occasion in the past - but I don't think she's actually quite grasped the nettle of all this yet. Here's hoping, eh?

[fabfor]

All I can say is well done, Buddug. It's so encouraging to know that others, like you, are standing up to the bullying. It's also nice to see that you're happy to give credit where Credit's due; they're not all bad, after all.

It still irks me, though, that I'm having to give up my free time to deal with their mistakes and, in so doing, I'm helping to keep them employed!!

[buddug]

Thanks fabfor. They're not all bad, as you say, but sadly, and frustratingly, those people are having to work with (or against) a system or framework that is bad, or rather, rotten to the core. Funnily enough I told Peter exactly what you said - that I've been working as an unpaid administrator for Southwark housing for the past 13 years! It's been so time-consuming, never mind all the upset, mess and inconvenience, not to mention my blood pressure and general mental health!

[PeckhamRose]

buddug you hero(ine)!

I just can't believe Peter John gets down and dirty* with the actual people who live here and go in their houses!

If he came in to my flat I'd have video'd the meeting too!

Well done. If LAS2000 had a website (they don't have the money) I'd post a link to your post.

But as I said (and Peter John - did he refer to this:) LAS and Home Ownership Unit are going to be sharing offices in due course so we have one place to go.

* not suggesting your gaff is dirty, or indeed down...

[buddug]

Gee, Peckham Rose. Thanks. And it would be 'heroine', though that's not what I am. I'm simply persistent. I was surprised Peter honoured my humble abode (no offence taken at 'down and dirty', I know what you meant) with his Leadership presence, but I think it was the sight of Daisy the dog and her winning smile that lured him in. He didn't mention the shared office. Sounds very useful.

[verds]

Hey fellow leaseholders,

I emailed just about everyone at Southwark about this refund and the man who replied - both by email and phone call - and was very helpful was Chris Flynn. Apparently it's on its way, so keep chasing...

[fredbear]

we have been dealing with chris flynn and he always replyed to our emails although it was difficult to get out of him what had acctually been done.we eventually got the info.

[buddug]

Thanks for Chris Flynn lead. I've left a message for him to ring me. Have just spoken to Lizzy Bean, who approached my mortgage company for ?750 I was withholding in service charges until all works were done properly. Her boss Martin Green, who seems to have gone into hiding, backed her decision to do that when he spoke to me at the time.

She told me she hadn't heard from the accounts department about recalculated bills yet. When I asked her re interest she said we would not be getting any interest on the over-payments and that we would have to go to the LVT if we wished to pursue it. She also said Martin Green does not take calls from leaseholders. Far too grand, obviously.

Ms Bean then modified her statement, when I asked should I tell people on the forum that there will be no interest paid, to 'As far as I am aware, there will be no interest paid.' There was no apology, no understanding, no concern. Bleurgh! When I suggested she look at this thread, she said she was far too busy dealing with the day-to-day concerns of the thousands of Southwark leaseholders, as was Martin Green, which is why he no longer takes calls from his leaseholder scum I suppose. Obviously extortionate overcharging is not one of those concerns. Unbelievable arrogance. She also chided me for all the phone calls I'd made to various people in the housing department about this, as though leaseholders have no right to ring up and demand answers.

Chris Flynn is going to ring me today according to his office. I'll let you know what he says.

[PeckhamRose]

This is interesting. Our contact at Home Ownership and whose name appears on the invoice is the beautifully named Summer Field. However, when we challenged our ?2,121 overcharge she just went to the back room and asked someone and came back and admitted we'd been overcharged ?900 odd. It seems the name on the invoice is the face of the charge, but the backroom people are the accountants who make the figures up. She genuinely seemed to have no knowledge herself about how the figures are made up....

[spider69]

Perhaps they are fully aware the figures are wrong and will only amend if you challenge them directly and not amend every one at once

In this case seeking permission to admit and amend.

[buddug]

Peckham Rose, they do indeed seem to simply pluck figures from the air. But always challenge them. Good for you that you did. Summer Field, ha! I'm dealing with Lizzy Bean, god help me. She talks to me like I'm something the dog brought in. Trouble is her boss Chris Flynn, who emailed me today, is keen to defend her. However, to all of you out there, he assures me - in the most beautiful Jane Austen English - that he will furnish me with the outcome of this shambles by the end of the week. However, I hasten to add, he is most definitely not on our side, but I feel he will be forced to abide by what his masters tell him to do.

[spider69]

buddug Wrote:

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

> Peckham Rose, they do indeed seem to simply pluck

> figures from the air. But always challenge them.

> Good for you that you did. Summer Field, ha! I'm

> dealing with Lizzy Bean, god help me. She talks to

> me like I'm something the dog brought in. Trouble

> is her boss Chris Flynn, who emailed me today, is

> keen to defend her. However, to all of you out

> there, he assures me - in the most beautiful Jane

> Austen English - that he will furnish me with the

> outcome of this shambles by the end of the week.

> However, I hasten to add, he is most definitely

> not on our side, but I feel he will be forced to

> abide by what his masters tell him to do.

In my experience of dealing with local authorities each manager has a manager. Above Chris Flynn is his manager and this manager answers to Martin Green. Martin Green I suspect passes all problems down to this Person to solve.

This is the person you should be dealing with and then Gerri Scott. Pressure will always flows down to Martin Green from Scott.

Ask who this is and contact. Why have mangers who cannot take independent action? Hence the delay in answering

[buddug]

Yeah, talk to me about Martin Green! But he's gone into hiding. I expected more from the lovely Chris Flynn. Never mind, eh? And where is Gerri Scott in all this? Why hasn't she addressed our concerns here? I've sent her the link to this thread. But no reply.

And, by the way, a real big-up to admin here, allowing us to discuss this problem that we're having with Southwark Council. No, it's not a specifically East Dulwich issue, yet it is affecting many of us in East Dulwich/Peckham borders. So big thank you, admin!

[PeckhamRose]

After getting mine down from ?2,121 to ?323 (extra charge for major building works), I cited the 18 month rule as previously mentioned at the beginning of this now four-page thread, but never had any apology or explanation as to why 'someone' made a mistake. They've lost a lot of money because of us educating and informing ourselves.

[buddug]

My goodness Peckham Rose! ?2,121 to ?323! Good for you. But they are behaving like crooks, or the Italian Mafia! And typical of their arrogance - no apology. Quelle surprise. But you're right, they take us for idiots, but we're not. This is what I got from the lovely Chris Flynn at Southwark last night (the poor guy works quite late!):

"I can confirm that the review of the Block Lighting and Electricity element for 2012/13 has now been carried out. I can also confirm that we will be adjusting your accout to reflect the elements of work that was agreed not to be charged in relation to the Electrical Works. We will also be confirming the adjustment in writing next week."

However, I signed my reply to him off by writing: "Yours, in fear and trepidation" because I do not trust them to price a ten-minute job changing the earthing wire at a reasonable price. We shall see. But I shall post the result here. At the moment my neighbour upstairs and I have been charged an extortionate ?425 for this paltry job.

[spider69]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> After getting mine down from ?2,121 to ?323 (extra

> charge for major building works), I cited the 18

> month rule as previously mentioned at the

> beginning of this now four-page thread, but never

> had any apology or explanation as to why 'someone'

> made a mistake. They've lost a lot of money

> because of us educating and informing ourselves.

Have they credited all other leaseholders?

Or is it a case of if you don't fight and ask you don't get. See the previous post regarding Summer Field and accountants

How many leaseholders are senior citizens who just pay when a bill comes in as they have never been in debt? And don't wont to be. Who are still owed the money because they have no one to fight their cause.

Has Peter John responded?

I suspect they have not lost money as many people have not fought their corner to get a refund and this outweighs any payments out.

[fredbear]

the trouble with the 18 month rule is that they send out an estimated bill first this means it does not apply.I have tried it with a large bill we have had for major works.we have paid the estimate but they have not settled with the contractors ,work was completed in 2009.It appears on our service charge every quarter this would make it difficult to sell the flat if we wanted to.We are still fighting them over this.

[PeckhamRose]

You have to know the details of the 18 month rule. See previous posts.

[gimmies]

Hi everyone, my name is ?gimmies?, inspired by the illusive greed that seems to lurk around Southwark council?s attitude towards leaseholders. I?m not much into forums but this case is special, and it urged me to finally look into taking some sort of action. I sympathize with everyone?s input here in these forums and particularly this thread.

I am a resident and leaseholder at the 4 squares situated along Southwark Park Road and my goodness do I feel ripped off!!? I bought a (pretty cozy on the inside now..) one bed flat in 2006. A couple of years past and I was endorsed with approx. ?20k worth of major security works which were completed in 2009.

But this didn?t stop the youngsters from burning the cctv cameras in the lifts, vandalizing everything inside the lifts, burning and removing all the health and safety signs on the walls and often urinating in the communal stairs or in the lifts... And all this, after the security works were complete.

Where I live, is a medium to large size block with close to 200 flats along 6 floors, I find it insane that the contractors convinced the council that they had to install 42 very tough looking metal gates (7 in each floor), with pretty expensive looking magnetic lock systems (with fob) in each door, in addition to 24 large glass doors outside each lift access, plus 4 main entrance double glazing doors.

And all I ever asked for was to have some decent doors at each main entrance to the building.. It?s hard to believe that a building with an average of 200 flats needed to have fitted a total of 70 doors for ?security reasons??Who on earth would agree with such works to go ahead, surely not the ones paying for it. It?s almost a ratio of 1 door per 2 flats!

And after the security works, I can now only access 2 of the 4 main doors which makes me feel that I or my neighbors are not trustworthy to access ?the other side? of the block (so much for integration..).

So in short my ?20k share went into buying a few now broken cctv cameras, half of a ?security? door, a new main door into my flat and a couple of fobs for the jail looking gates.

I fear sounding a little unfair towards Southwark council with this note, but that is genuinely where I feel that all my money has gone!

Naively like some of us here, I also did not pay a couple of smaller bills amounting to about ?3k but eventually Southwark Council took the plunge and nicked my money through my mortgage lender. To top it all up I ?acquired? 2 CCJ?s. The first in 2007 and another in 2009. This has completely burnt all my bridges in regards to having any half decent credit rating for the past few years and at least until 2015.. A total of 8 years of bad credit thanks to a couple of late payments on major works related bills, they sure run on cold blood.

This is not to mention how wonderful it was, when I realized that our new main entrances to the building would be positioned next to the rather large door to the dump container which does not only smells funky more often than not, it?s most times piled with broken furniture and bin bags lurking by the container dump doors, it doesn?t make it appealing as a main entrance to a building, far from it. It makes me cringe when I think of those old bills that I am still struggling to pay for... But that?s not all I?m afraid.

All the above is not the reason why I?m actually writing today, there is more.. I?m here to find out if anyone has received letters for recent major external works at the 4 squares and if so how much is the total bill? Mine is just under ?28k now.. fresh from the farm?. I?m curious to find out if the leaseholders are in fact all charged at the same rate. And what may be the best approach to dispute this incredibly enormous bill together.

I wish the press could look into helping to generate more attention into these matters. It?s almost as if they are not allowed to mention these more serious issues that leaseholders encounter on a consistent and persistence basis. No press can say that there is a lack of interest in this subject and if it seems like it, it?s because the press it self is not doing anything about it.

What dis-heartens me is that I genuinely enjoy where I live but I can?t see these major works ever stop. We haven?t even got to the double glazing windows yet.. what?s that gonna be, another 25k??? :o0

Blessings

[fabfor]

OMG! What a nightmare, gimmies! I totally sympathise and I know it's easier said than done but I'd consider moving on to a southwark-free place in your position.

Best wishes.