A housing association recently lost a court case it brought against owner-occupiers who were refusing to pay a service charge for the upkeep of green areas on estates.
Two Rivers Housing lost an appeal last week against a previous judgement which said that non-tenants of the landlord did not have to pay for the cutting of grass in parts of a number of its estates.
The homes were all previously council run but the landlord bought them, and the land, some years back.
With a number of these homes having been bought under the right to buy scheme, the owners felt that they should no longer have to pay a service charge.
The problem seems to come from a poorly worded clause in the conveyance.
Indeed, Garry King, chief executive of Two Rivers, told Inside Housing that this was the very point the judge made in court.
The decision certainly leaves the housing association in an awkward position – it is still responsible for the land, but will not have the resources to keep it to the same standard.
After conducting a review, it has identified around 115 sites that it would normally maintain through a contractor paid for by a service charge.
Not all these sites are wide open spaces – some are grass verges, others unused patches – but they all add up to create an area where people live.
Two Rivers is now planning to consult with residents to find out what they think it should do.
Options include speaking to the contractor to look for ‘efficiencies’, scale back the maintenance or dispose of the land.
Whatever happens, it is highly likely that any outcome will be met with indignation from some folk.
Yes, they may well own their home and no longer be responsible for the upkeep of the land around it, but those who ‘opted out’ certainly cannot go screaming blue murder if come summertime there is a more unkempt look to grassy areas.
Either that or these areas are taped off with a big ‘Two Rivers tenants only’ sign sticking out of the ground.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
From Can we fix it?
Alex Wellman takes a look at what’s going on in the social housing contracting sector
Readers' comments (5)
F451 | 03/11/2011 3:51 pm
Perhaps the Council will accept these areas back as a goodwill gesture, and then the upkeep will come from the proper source, the general fund subscribed to by everyone - but I doubt it will happen, just as I doubt that tenants will not be left footing the bill for their owner-occupying neighbours.
If nothing else, it highlights how some councils have loaded costs onto tenants for decades and have got away with it because it is only when exceptional instances such as this crop up that the dubplicity is uncovered.
Yet again, tenants are expected to provide the community and social services for their 'richer' neighbours - still, some are more in it together than others, as always.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 03/11/2011 5:44 pm
One of the reasons we transferred .. to get away from the council .. no 'democratic filter' thank f***.
We've been lucky with the calibre of councillor on our board though
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
To whom it may concern | 03/11/2011 7:50 pm
It is heartening to see that Alex reads the articles in IH - perhaps the comments could just be cut and pasted into the surplus repeat.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark Evans | 09/11/2011 9:32 am
Mr. Wellman,
I suggest you get the full facts of the case before posting such a pro - Housing Association piece. Read the Judges' comments on the issue. As for "opting out" of the grass cutting, the private home owners were never in, the vast majority of them having never been tenants of Two Rivers. As for Two Rivers owning the estate, that is incorrect. They own the assets that were transferred to them in the stock transfer, and nothing else. If, as a freeholder, they did not want to pay for the upkeep of THEIR land, then should not have purchased it in the first place. CAVEAT EMPTOR.
At the end of the day I consider that when I bought my property any obligation I had to pay for the upkeep of the estate as a whole was disposed of and reflected in the purchase price. I also pay a council tax which goes towards the upkeep of public areas. If Two Rivers did not negotiate with the council adequate funding to reflect the use of the public areas, and the Judges have defined them as such, by the community as a whole then that is their fault.
Two Rivers demands for service charges were deemed illegal. End of story.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Christine Galey | 09/11/2011 1:17 pm
Housing Association tenants were allowed to vote on whether council housing and the surrounding environs should be transferred to the Housing Association. Freeholders & leaseholders were not afforded such a privelege. Tenants should have been made fully aware of the service charge issue prior to that vote. If they weren't then thats the fault of the Local Authority & Housing Association, not the private owners/occupiers and leaseholders. It's already been mentioned time & again on this case - there's no statutory obligation for the owners/occupiers to pay a service charge; there was apparently no history of owners/occupiers paying service charges prior to the stock transfer in 2002/03; and there's nothing in the owners/occupiers conveyances that state they have to pay a service charge.
If the Housing Association has caught a cold on this issue, then that's their problem. They should have done more investigation into the matter. The report above states that blame can be put down to a poorly worded clause in the conveyance. The truth is that there was no clause in the conveyance allowing for owners/occupiers to be charged for services to Housing Association land. The Housing Association claim to be able to levy these charges was non existent.
That is why there is little to no sympathy locally for the Housing Association involved on this case.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment