 |
Rutland Gate - Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
|
|
Page Links
LVT An Update 060707
|
Jim Parsons, Bernard & Bjorg Clackett have been working to bring the application to court on 'Leaseholders behalf and attended court to present the application. Orbit Bexley Housing Association (OBHA) attended and were represented by their Solicitors. The subject matters that form the LVT application in which we are in dispute are; Grounds Maintenance Replacement Paths Communal Aerial (IRS) Communal Lighting Scaffolding Buildings Insurance Estate Services Section 21 accountants certificate The first hearing at the LVT court was held on Tuesday 13th March 2007 in which the case was explained by the ‘Chair of the LVT, the process to our application and what could happen if the case goes the distance without both parties being able to agree to resolving some if not all of the complaints in the application. The ‘Chair of the LVT then outlined a timetable for the case which is; The Applicants (Rutland Gate ‘Leaseholders) to prepare a detailed statement of the issues in the LVT application by the 10th April (28 days). The Respondents (Orbit Housing Association) will have 28 days to respond to our statement. In which time both sides have the opportunity to talk and hopefully work out these issues without having to go the distance to a full hearing. The calendar has been set by the LVT and that means we can go to independent 'Mediation' should we be unable to resolve matters ourselves, should Mediation not work the a Court hearing has been booked for the 9th September. Our Case Statement and bundle was presented to the Tribunal and a copy was delivered to OBHA solicitors on the due date. Notwithstanding the hearing and to date OBHA have conceded on the ‘Scaffolding’ issue, 'Leaseholders have all received a letter from them to the effect that they will be repaying those who have paid or will re-credit the accounts of those who have not paid. The amounts vary from £910.00 to £1,150.00 we think not a bad start to events! Subsequent to the LVT hearing Bernard and I have met with Mr Steve Kent from OBHA on Tuesday 20th March to start talks at aiming to settle the other outstanding complaints we have. It is evident that OBHA do not want the LVT to progress to the final, court stage as the final outcome will be somewhat embarrassing to them. The meeting started well in that Mr Kent declared that OBHA are willing to re-credit charges for the ‘Communal Aerial (IRS)’ for the last three years. We noted that the aerial hasn’t worked for a couple of decades at least, but we felt giving way on this and accepting three years instead of going for 9 or 10 years was a gesture on our part, not because the amounts are small but there are other, bigger issues to resolve. So, we can expect a repayment/re-credit of up to £30 for the aerial. Bernard and I presented a strong case on other outstanding issues and state that we have a robust argument on the ‘Grounds Maintenance’ contract (5 cuts vis-à-vis 17 paid for) and Mr Kent found it difficult not to agree with our argument, though he will take this back to OBHA for their final say. ‘Replacement Paths’ is an interesting point in that Bernard and I produced photos to show the state of paths after two years with deep cracks and weeds growing, whereas the life expectancy is at least 25 years. A tentative offer was made to repair the damaged areas if we agreed to pay for the original work, which we declined as there is no point repairing sub standard work. What we have asked for is a ‘Surveyor’s report to bear out that the works are indeed compliant to the original specification. It is our contention that whoever, by this we mean sub-contractors, laid the paths did so in a shoddy way and paid little attention to the specification. Tarmacam used whilst may be of sufficient quality was left for some considerable time in a heal on the side before laying, whereas a 'hot-box' should have been used to stop the material from deteriorating. Bernard pointed out the poor finish of paths and facings. Jim complained that the works were never properly supervised and called into question OBHA’s in-house surveyor who should have picked up on this when ‘snagging’ the job. ‘Communal Lighting’ is probably our strongest case as we were able to produce evidence that the lighting/replacement wiring was just 9 years old when replaced by OBHA. Mr Kent was unaware of our evidence and offered little in the way of comment to justify this on OBHA’s behalf. He must take our evidence back to OBHA before any decision or comment can be made. ‘Buildings Insurance’ seems to be a problem in that OBHA cannot get their heads around this, our position is simple that it falls within our leases as a ‘Buildings Service’ and therefore we should be charged at 5% of premium pertaining to our block charges instead of all of us paying vastly differing amounts for essentially the same property, Bernard and Jim Parsons live in identical properties yet Bernard pays double insurance premium than that of Jim. Mr Kent has had to take this back to OBHA insurance ‘experts’ for an understanding. ‘Estate Services’ is a difficult situation as we all agreed the service provided is not of sufficient standard, Bernard and I argued the point of slap-dash work by the cleaners, the lack of standards applied by OBHA in their overseeing of the estates, the dismal communications with our housing manager and estate services manager. The estate services problem is currently being tackled by OBHA who have enlisted the services of residents from a number of their estates to see how the service can be improved. Jim currently sits on this committee and we have had one meeting to date with the second scheduled. The only report we can give here is ‘Watch this space’. ‘Section 21 accountants certificate’ is probably the most intriguing of the outstanding issues, Bernard and I agree that if our annual statement of accounts are not accompanied by an accountants certificate then we can justifiably argue that we do not have to pay the service charge, or simply that the service charge is capped at £250 for the period/year in dispute. Mr Kent must take this back to OBHA as the ramifications of this are quite serious for them if Bernard and Jim are correct, essentially this means that all ‘Leaseholders are so affected and not just us at Rutland Gate. During the meeting Mr Kent stated that he wanted to resolve all outstanding issues without the need for continued action by the ‘Leaseholders of Rutland Gate, Erith Road and Brook Street and offered to pay us back the fees incurred by us in bringing this action to the LVT, an extremely magnanimous gesture. Bernard and Jim agreed that it was indeed a generous gesture but this was at least what we would have been asking for from OBHA considering the situation we find ourselves in after years of non-resolution. The very fact that we find ourselves in this position is of OBHA making; not ours! We fully believe Mr Kent’s intentions are honourable in that he wants to resolve outstanding issues but he has an uphill struggle to get his association to change. Mr Kent’s resolve is unquestionable and we sincerely hope that all outstanding issues can be resolved with us or we see them in court in September. But as we pointed out at our meeting, we will fight to the very end should we not have resolution of all outstanding issues. Bernard and I will keep you informed as to any developments but due the heavy workload Mr Kent has in trying to resolve the above issues we do not expect any reply for at least until Mid-May. |