Half of Lambeth leaseholder bills could be wrong

Readers' comments (4)

• Peter | 17/09/2009 11:14 am

  How did Lambeth Living become an ALMO? First, there was serious shortfall in the operating budget, (somehow they managed to weasle out of that), then the massive rent increases and now this! Clearly this useless bunch can't manage finance and no doubt they will blame someone else!!!

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• 

  | 18/09/2009 11:21 pm

  Well tell Lambeth leaseholders something they didn't already know. RTB leaseholders across all the current and former Looney Labour Inner London boroughs get a raw deal as IH has amply illustrated in articles passim eg
  
  http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6504635
  
  (Note Lambeth did not supply details to Keith on this story so they did not figure in the stats...)
  
  How on earth this laughing stock of a borough has the gaul to set up an ALMO and expect the taxpayer to fork out millions for them to send out further massive bills for botched DHS work, God only knows. Hopefully a future Tory Government will send in PC Plod and start jailing the thieves and incompetents who pass for council officers at this national disgrace of a local authority. Privatise the entire housing operation. It's the only solution.
  
  BTW the borough is now advertising to fill the hardest job in PR in the entire country. Yes, the London Borough of Loony Lambeth is now advertising for a "Head of Media Relations". Check out the ad at:
  
  http://jobs.paidcontent.co.uk/job/4e1804499612079a9476f5626b2065f7/?d=1&source=site_recent
  
  Note that the role requires a Criminal Records Bureau check. I guess they figure that, as thieves, liars and crooks are already "over-represented" (dontcha just lobe that lefty expression?) amongst their officers, they dont need to add anymore to the payrole!
  
  FF

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 24/09/2009 2:33 pm

  I owna leasehold flat with Lambeth council as my freeholder, and I too have suffered from the grotesque increases in service charge estimates.
  
  However, my solution to dealing with the problem is that I have made a "s.21 request" under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which requires Lambeth to provide me with a summary of the accounts (which must be certified by an accountant) for the last service charge year (08/09). Lambeth must provide this within one month or be in breach of the Act.
  
  Of course, it can't comply, as all leaseholders have been informed that the final accounts will be delayed well beyond this.
  
  Fine - if Lambeth now tries to enforce my payment of the estimated charges, Lambeth's failure to comply with the LTA 1985 will act as a decent defence.
  
  Do you, also, want to put Lambeth in breach of of the LTA 1985 to your benefit? If so, here's a sample letter you may wish to base your request on:
  
  "Dear Sirs
  
  Request for summary of accounts under s.21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the "Act")
  
  I refer to the Service Charge Account Reference [x] relating to [x] (the "Property"), for which I am the leasehold owner, and Lambeth Council is the landlord ("Lambeth").
  
  This is a request under s.21 of the Act to supply me with a written summary of the costs incurred in relation to the Property and each other Relevant Dwelling (as defined in paragraph (b) below), for the twelve month period from April 2008 to March 2009 (the "Period"), and which are costs incurred by Lambeth, as landlord, in relation to the service charges payable or demanded as payable in that or any other period (the "Costs").
  
  Note that, in accordance with ss.21(4) to (6) of that Act:
  
  (a) Lambeth, as landlord, is required by law to comply with the request within one month of the request or within six months of the end of the Period, whichever is the later.
  
  (b) The summary must state whether any of the Costs relate to works in respect of which a grant has been or is to be paid under section 523 of the Housing Act 1985 (assistance for provision of separate service pipe for water supply) or any provision of Part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (grants, etc. for renewal of private sector housing) or any corresponding earlier enactment and set out the Costs in a way showing how they have been or will be reflected in demands for service charges and, in addition, shall summarise each of the following items, namely:
  
  (i) any of the Costs in respect of which no demand for payment was received by Lambeth, as landlord, within the Period,
  
  (ii) any of the Costs in respect of which:
  (A) a demand for payment was so received, but
  (B) no payment was made by Lambeth, as landlord, within the Period, and
  
  (iii) any of the Costs in respect of which:
  (A) a demand for payment was so received, and
  (B) payment was made by Lambeth, as landlord, within the Period,
  
  and specify the aggregate of any amounts received by Lambeth down to the end of the Period on account of service charges in respect of Relevant Dwellings and still standing to the credit of the lessees of those dwellings at the end of the Period.
  
  Relevant Dwellings means (i) the Property, and (ii) each other dwelling whose lessee is a person whose obligations under the terms of his lease as regards contributing to the costs relate to the same costs as the corresponding obligations of the lessee of the Property.
  
  (c) The summary must state whether any of the Costs relate to works which are included in the external works specified in a group repair scheme, within the meaning of Chapter II of Part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 or any corresponding earlier enactment, in which Lambeth, as landlord, participated or is participating as an assisted participant.
  
  (d) As the Costs are payable by the lessees of more than four dwellings, the summary must be certified by a qualified accountant as:
  
  (i) in his opinion a fair summary complying with the requirements of paragraph (b) above, and
  
  (ii) being sufficiently supported by accounts, receipts and other documents which have been produced to him.
  
  Note that I have received a s.20B notice which purports to entitle Lambeth to collect the service charge for the Period by allowing it to make a demand beyond the usual 18 month time limit imposed under that section. Whether or not Lambeth is so entitled following service of such notice, the notice does not relieve Lambeth of its liability to comply with this request under s.21 of the Act.
  
  I look forward to receiving a certified summary on or before 20 October 2009, which is the deadline imposed on Lambeth by law under s.21(4) of the Act.
  If Lambeth fails to comply with this request, it may, amongst other things, adversely affect any claim by Lambeth, as landlord, to recover any service charges (estimated or incurred) due in respect of the Period or any other twelve month period subsequent, in any leasehold valuation tribunal or otherwise.
  
  Yours faithfully,
  
  
  
  [x]
  Leaseholder"

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Riddly | 03/11/2009 1:02 pm

  I have received a letter -forwarded by my MP- Lambeth haven't replied yet of course- that reduces my service charge liability for 2007-8 / 2008-09 by £1490, I wonder if my neighbours will benefit from this admission of errors?
  This challenge has been subject to several 'changes of mind' by Lambeth Living management, which makes me wonder if my original legal challenge should be pursued. No answer from Lambeth's Moderating Officer to any of the letters sent, their legal department seems to think it is untouchable.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment