| |
Landmark win in costs battle to put all our houses in order
A tribunal has ruled that the Town Hall must consult leaseholders before appointing contractors – a decision that could mean large savings, argues Dr Peter Wright
LEASEHOLDERS across Camden should be celebrating a landmark ruling which stops the council from commissioning expensive works without consulting them.
After a David and Goliath battle led by one leaseholder, a Lands Tribunal – the highest court for land disputes in England and Wales – has rejected the council’s attempt to ditch their requirement to tender out contracts for external works.
Arguing that a building boom around the Olympics will send costs sky-high, the council tried to win the right to push leaseholders out of the equation when it comes to agreeing tenders and works, and instead pick from a selected list of “partners” at its own discretion.
Last March, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal said the Town Hall could appoint new contractors without consulting leaseholders across the borough.
But David Auger and the Association of Camden Council Leaseholders appealed to the Lands Tribunal against this decision in February. On March 14, the tribunal ruled that the council should consult its leaseholders on the nomination of the contractors because the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal decision was, in the words of the tribunal judge “legally flawed and, with respect, plainly wrong”.
Experts see his stance as “a victory for leaseholders everywhere” which reminds councils that “they don’t have carte blanche: local authorities have to tread very carefully” and “need to explain to leaseholders why the works are necessary and give them the opportunity to make observations”.
The council spends about £55 million a year on capital works. The Camden housing department explained that it wanted to pick partners to carry out some projects, such as external refurbishment and some other works, without even understanding how much it would cost and whether the residents approved.
Many of the borough’s citizens are well aware of external refurbishment works, when, for example, scaffolding can be put up over some holiday and kept unattended for weeks, while tenants are paying for this from their pockets in taxes and service charges.
Desmond Kilcoyne acted on behalf of the Association of Camden Council Leaseholders at the tribunal in opposing Camden Council. `
Mr Kilcoyne told the judge: “Camden was seeking to obtain a rubber-stamp dispensation.’’ It wanted to name contractors who may charge fees which “will be difficult if not impossible for the tenants to argue that the costs are not reasonably incurred”.
His Honour Judge Huskinson, quashing the previous dispensation, stated that the framework agreements meant the council would become “contractually bound’’ to a partner and may block bids for works from other companies which can offer cheaper services. At the same time, lack of competition will make it difficult for the borough’s tenants to challenge the costs as “unreasonably high’’.
We at the Camden Leaseholders Forum have been vigorously fighting any arrangement which would allow the council to charge fees which would be impossible to challenge. It is a shame that it took so much of their time and money before reason finally won.
The chairmen of the district management committees have joined us in urging Camden to devise new approaches to consulting about capital works and managing them so that all the income from service charges and taxes is spent in the most efficient way for the benefit of the residents of Camden Council.
|
 |
|
| |
