|
|
 |
| |
Leaseholders
forced to pay for repairs
HOMEOWNERS in Primrose Hill have been told to cough up hundreds
of thousands of pounds for repair work on their council-managed
housing estate.
A leasehold valuation tribunal ruling on Tuesday found that
leaseholders from the Kingsland Estate who challenged a bill
from Camden Council for £576,000 were still liable.
The 21 applicants won a partial victory when the chairman of
the two-day leaseholders valuation tribunal Andrew Dutton approved
reductions of up to £100,000 from the cost of the repairs.
Building contractors covered the estate in scaffolding for eight
months from August last year to fix paving stones, roofing,
walkways and balconies around the three two-storey housing blocks.
Leaseholders told the tribunal at Alfred Place in Bloomsbury
that much of the work had been carried out unnecessarily. They
argued repair work carried out in 1993 had been done poorly
leading to the same work being repeated last year – at
their expense.
Resident Andrew Dow, an insurance broker told the New Journal
they are considering appealing against aspects of the ruling,
which also found the residents liable for 10 percent of Camden’s
costs, amounting to some £50,000.
The tribunal said the charges were “would not be unreasonable”.
Concessions by the Town Hall led to a decision to drop costs
against four of the 21 residents, who were already living in
their flats when the original work on their balconies was carried
out in 1993.
Mr Dow said letting some residents off set “a dangerous
legal precedent”.
He added they were considering appealing against the decision
to bill them for damaged paving stones. “Despite no leaseholder
being able to allow access to the communal courtyards, which
access is only in Camden’s gift, the LVT has ruled that
all repairs to courtyard paving stones not logged as being damaged
by the builders during the work can be charged to leaseholders.
Again, we are considering appealing this.”
The Tribunal did find that repairs to the roofs should be met
by Camden as they were under guarantee. This led to the reduction
in the bill.
A council press official said they were “very satisfied”
with the ruling.
She said: “The tribunal concluded that we have acted reasonably
and commented favourably on the standard of workmanship and
costs incurred. We believe that this ruling, and several other
recent rulings by the Tribunal, demonstrate the overall fairness
of the Council’s leaseholder service charges.” |
| |
|
|
|
