|
|
 |
| |
£19,000 bill for work I can have done at half this price
• IF as an Islington leaseholder you sign up to a plan to pay off your charges for major works, you forego the right to dispute any of the charges. If you don’t sign up to a plan you have to pay within 14 days and then dispute them, which can take a year, with no guarantees at the end of the process.
I have been presented with a pre-bill estimate of £19,000, which I will challenge as I have obtained quotes for half that amount and it is clear, following meetings with Homes for Islington (HfI) and the consultancy firm managing the project (and pocketing an 11 per cent fee of the total charge), that HfI and leaseholders are being stitched up.
When asked why the cost of replacing windows was double the quotes I had obtained, considering it was bulk work and the cost should be reduced, I was told by the consultants it was because of the cost of scaffolding and site set-up costs. When I pointed out that leaseholders were being billed £46,000 and £25,000 respectively for these items so it couldn’t be this driving up the windows’ cost, they had nothing to say. They clearly don’t expect to be challenged by leaseholders.
I have already put in my objections, which no doubt will be ignored and I will have to find £19,000. Councillors, MPs and HfI wonder where savings could be made in these difficult times? How about not accepting unreasonable, inflated charges for public works.
Safiye Connor
Shelley Court, N4
• I REALLY must applaud your article on HfI’s disgraceful payment plan (Home owners fight to keep right to contest ‘huge bills’, September 11), and all leaseholders who have replied in response to Kay Newsom’s recent letter on the subject.
Islington’s leaseholders are already finding it extremely difficult to survive as they struggle to pay not just mortgage repayments but also council tax, overpriced service charges and utility bills as well as grossly overpriced and outrageously high major works charges.
If HfI is in fact suggesting that Islington’s leaseholders sign its restrictive payment plan or pay up within 14 days, surely this must constitute nothing less then harassment, and a gross infringement of their human rights to challenge unfair major works charges at the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.
I would suggest that this could constitute the basis of a class action challenge, which should be raised as a matter of urgency on behalf of Islington’s leaseholders.
Mrs Morris
Hemingford Road, N1
• WHAT a relief hearing at last Wednesday’s packed Islington Leaseholders’ Association meeting that it is considering raising a legal challenge to the council’s repayment options on the grounds of “unfair contract”. These crippling repayment options block the right to legally question the colossal bills eventually issued (usually many times the original estimated figure indicated when the options are taken out).
Many are desperately worried, some having received several estimates for differing works. Why has the council taken such extraordinary steps to remove the opportunity of legal challenge at the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal?
There is another fact to ponder: £50,957 in fees was paid by Islington Council/HfI to Chas CL to give restricted advice (often resulting in repayment options) to Islington’s financially stressed last financial year.
Doesn’t look like being the “independent” advice Islington tells everyone it is; more like paying to be painfully stitched up.
Mrs Newsom
Member, Islington Leaseholders’ Association
N7
• YESTERDAY, I received an upsetting letter from HfI demanding that I pay “debts” of £17,302 within two weeks or sign away my rights by agreeing to one of the payment period plans. This is nothing short of extortion.
As the work is not finished, I have no way of knowing whether it will be completed to a good standard and whether it will be value for money. Past experience suggests it will be overpriced and of a breathtakingly low standard.
Previous attempts by me to reach a more realistic agreement on repayment were rebuffed by HfI with the suggestion that I get a bank loan (HfI seems to be unaware we are in the midst of the worst credit crunch since the 1920s) or debt counselling.
However, unlike Islington Council, I don’t have debts, just a crazily overinflated bill.
The way that HfI is conducting itself with regard to these lunatic major works bills is an utter scandal. It is causing very real distress to the large number of people who cannot afford these bills. Leaseholders of council properties tend, by definition, not to be millionaires who have a spare £17,000 handy. HfI’s actions must not go unchallenged. In my view, there should be a public inquiry.
Fiona Rintoul
Highbury New Park, N5
• MY estimated bill being over £17,000, I have just got my papers ready for the five-year payment plan but am now worried that if I don’t send them interest charges will be added to the bill.
For the past three months we have been boarded in like a prison waiting for underpinning works and now have been told that they will do all other work (windows, roof, painting) before the underpinning.
As a “consumer” we should have rights to get the best value and standards for our money, without being harassed for payment.
Also, Islington Council has been given a grant for cavity wall insulation. Should this not be deducted from our bill?
Teresa Urbanowska
Highbury New Park, N5
• THE waiving of the right to contest large sums when selecting long payment plans is simply another example of HfI’s monopoly being exerted on leaseholders with complete disregard to any potential impact.
It is about time the government stamped down on HfI’s unfair activity.
Dominic Brasher
Via email
• I WOULD like to add my name to the large number of Islington leaseholders who are not convinced that the council is giving good value for money for cyclical repairs and major works, over which leaseholders have very little control.
Prof Charles Burnett FBA
Warburg Institute, WC1
• MAY I point out to HfI and its cohorts on Islington Council that there’s a word for telling people they can only have time to pay a bill if they do not challenge the validity of said bill and that word is “coercion”.
Not a word that one would want associated with a local government body, is it?
TERRY COMER
Canonbury Park North, N1
|
 |
|
|
|
Your comments:
It should be the responsibility of the "London Borough of Islington" (LBI) the (freeholder) and Liberal Democrat Council Leader Mr Terry Stacy, who should be replying. Regarding these outrageous payment plans.
Louise Mcdonnell |
| |
| |
|
|
|
