Angry leaseholders challenge housing chiefs at Town Hall

MORE than 150 leaseholders used a Town Hall meeting to angrily quiz Islington’s top figures – including leader of the council Lib Dem councillor Terry Stacy – about the poor quality of services.

There was standing room only as Cllr Stacy, chief executive John Foster and chief executive of the borough’s housing agency, Homes for Islington (HfI), Eamon McGoldrick sat in the hot seat in the council chamber.

Claims from the floor included those from people who were paying huge annual fees for what they said was “shoddy” work. 

A builder described how his estate had been charged £2.5million by a contractor for a programme of repairs that he argued could have been done for as little as £400,000 by local firms. 

Another woman said she had been charged £1,300 by contractors just to fit new springs to a window.

Chairing the meeting, leaseholders’ champion Dr Brian Potter revealed that as a result of his questioning of the way contracts were handed out for work in the ­borough, he had been invited to join a HfI procurement panel on the subject.

It was a panel made up of housing officials who would judge each contract on its merits. 

However, Dr Potter had to stand down from the panel because it would have meant signing a confidentiality clause.

Dr Potter, chairman of the Islington Leaseh­olders Association, told the meeting: “What would be the point of me going on a panel if I couldn’t report back to you leaseholders about what went on?”

Another resident complained that Cllr Stacy had suggested that the  average cost to leaseholders of the major works carried out in Islington was just £5,000.

Margaret Davis from the Hornsey Road estate said that estimated costs  were £36.000.

She added: “I have continually asked by telephone for a final itemised invoice but to no avail. 

“I also arranged for a meeting at Isledon Road in January 2009 for more information but basically I was told my only choice was to pay or they would take me to court.” 

Leaseholders in attendance also demanded to know why contracts were being awarded for a 10-year period – which meant contractors couldn’t face the threat of having projects terminated for poor workmanship – and demanded shorter, two-year contracts in­stead.

They also claimed that HfI did not have a satisfactory complaints system to deal with issues like overcharging for repair work, leaseholder fees and poor workmanship.

Mareike Schomerus said that she spent the best part of last year trying to establish how and why HfI had assessed its costs for work on her estate.

She added: “I spent five months chasing the minutes of a January 2009 meeting. By June 2009, HfI finally admitted they had never sent out the minutes.”

She was awarded £50 compensation for her troubles but it took months to receive the information. 

Ms Schomerus said: “I had four people from HfI visit my home as a result of my continued complaints. 

“During the meeting, numerous things were arranged such as a separate inspection of my windows. None of this has materialised seven months later, despite at least a monthly reminder from me.” 

She is currently seeking more information via a Freedom of Information Act request. 

Another resident described how average leaseholder costs on his  estate in St George’s Avenue had more than doubled from £12,000 to £30,000. 

Cllr Stacy said he had taken on board the concerns expressed at the meeting, but added: “I need evidence to back up individual complaints

“As for confidential clauses, they are essential when you are dealing with commercially sensitive information.”

However, he admitted the complaints procedure needed overhauling and there were plans to improve the service for all residents.