27th July 2015 at 07:33 #1441
Waxham has 180 properties and Ludham has 96, this totals 276 properties for works costing £3,801,331.02. How Camden Council have come to the estimated personal figure presented to me (£20,544.79) is not clear. That’s before going into how Ludham is a completely detached building, across a grassed area from my building yet the work to be done there seems to factor into my bill. What are other people’s thoughts on this? Any pointers or advice would be much appreciated.27th July 2015 at 16:44 #1453
My understanding is this: Camden separates out work as both “estates” (work affecting the entire area) and “blocks” (works just affecting your building). Pavement or central boiler works are therefore estate costs as they benefit everyone, whereas the concrete repair works that we have recently had carried out here will be charged on a “per block” basis. For another example, lifts are always charged to a whole block regardless of whether the ground floor uses it or not (and this methodology is often specified in the lease).
At a guess you need to ask Camden how they define your estate and whether they have done this so consistently over the years? It could be that at some points your building has been subsidised by the other building, and at other times vice versa. Often Camden, I suspect, would claim that treating both buildings together makes for more efficient management (and therefore costs).
To further understand the methodology behind the breakdown do contact Leaseholder Services and they should actually get back to you with an answer.
(Leaseholders’ Forum member)27th July 2015 at 19:17 #1461
Thanks for the response Paul. However the Waxham / Ludham split is a rather secondary point when compared to the prospect of having a demand for £20,000 served to leaseholders.29th July 2015 at 09:07 #1500
We’ve got a guide about major works here: https://www.leaseholdersforum.org.uk/guides/heating-options
Really it depends on what they are doing – it may be value for money, or it may not. I can’t claim that recent consultation exercises that I have heard about have impressed me much to be honest, but that just means that leaseholders have to fight harder for the their rights to be respected.
There is a Ludham & Waxham Leaseholders Association – do you want me to pass your details on to them. That particular association isn’t currently showing up on the Camden’s website, so I’ll flag that up to the Chair of the association as I know him.
Kind regards, Paul30th July 2015 at 16:37 #1515
Thank you again Paul for your response. How can I contact the group you are talking about, is there a contact e-mail?30th July 2015 at 20:27 #1517
Just to confirm that I’ll send you his details 🙂31st July 2015 at 14:45 #1522
Following the Consultations with Camden on 18Jun and 10Jul 2015 where many issues of concern were raised by the attendee Leaseholders.. The Observations from individuals were to be submitted by 15Jul2015.
Mine are listed below:
Major Works(MW) .Ludham and Waxham. 2015. Observations
1) I am for Improvements to our blocks in view of the expected reprieve from demolition by at least 10 -15 years as mentioned by John Rutter.
2) Coupled with the Decent Homes program for kitchen and bathroom undertaken at present for the all Tenants in the blocks, the buildings will be in a good state of repair for 20-30 years at least.
3) As the MW costs are high and not affordable by most LHs, Camden must think creatively to extend the repayment to at least the life of the refurbished blocks i.e. over 15 years.
4) Camden may recall that for the Combined Heating and Hotwater installation costs utilizing the Free surplus heat from the Royal Free Hospital was around 5k to be recovered over a 13 year period. That was an affordable plan. The same planners can find a good solution for the MW project repayments also. including the implentation of Florries Law to this refurbishment and Capping the total costs for LHs at 15k.
5) Once the above big points are agreed by all, we can focus on the actual detailed works that Camden is proposing. Main objective must be to bring the standard of the blocks to to that of the Decent Homes level for the following areas that come to mind…ie roofing, kitchen, bathroom and toilet plumbing, common area lobbies and staircases, radiators, windows, building facade and electrics.
6) this could encourage LHs to undertake their own replacement of kitchens, bathrooms and toilets after the necessary plumbing has been replaced which has outlived its usefulness many years ago.
7) once the above MW are completed, LHs shld not expect any further works and our blocks shld be a pride of place to live in.
8) many LHs have their own views and shld be considered seriously and satisfactory answers given by Camden.
9) wherever Rules of repayment are quoted (example 3 yr repayment etc) such Rules must be revised and Camden shld suggest to LHs how this can be achieved. if it means having to approach the Cabinet for it we LHs are quite prepared to go to that level or any other level until we achieve an affordable and sensible overall solution.
Hoping for a positive outcome
Chair Ludham & Waxham Leaseholders
email@example.com July 2015 at 14:52 #1523
Those who have attended the Consultations hv made their Observations.
John Rutter says that when the work is done and Billing sent out, individuals may be able to discuss their circumstances for making their settlements.
I am not optimistic abt reduced costs except thru Florries capping at 15k. This applies to resident LHs I believe.
Let us see if our Observations that Camden had called for results in some positive changes.
Shafeeq31st July 2015 at 15:01 #1524
Email sent to Councillors: 11jul2015
Hi Maeve and Theo
I am forwarding the email sent to John Rutter regarding the Major Works for Ludham and Waxham and the Draconian costs to be met by Leaseholders in this age of Austerity…!!
Us Leaseholders have gone thru a roller coaster ride recently with very little peace of mind::
Regeneration..threat of Demolition… no alternate dwellings.. Shared Equity.. Co Ownership .. no prospects of mortgages due retirees..now huge Major works anticipated bills…AND YET no sweat for the Tenants ..ONLY Leaseholders!!
do you honestly consider this JUST!!
would be interested if the Councillors can speak on Leaseholders BEHALF.
Chair Ludham & Waxham Leaseholders (15% of total Residents)
Email from John Rutter to John Kitching LH in Waxham and leading our discussion with Camden.
It was a pleasure to meet you and Shafeeq last night. Actually Pat O’Neill arrange the meeting to present the project to residents. I came along to take specific Leaseholder questions. The Lease defines the block e.g. Waxham in which your flat is located. This means that you all share the costs of maintenance of the block.
1. Thank you for your advance notice of your FOI request.
My reading of Gavin Haynes response which I incorporated in my earlier reply to you is that it is unlikely that your blocks would be demolished.
You can of course challenge the costs or works on grounds of reasonableness at the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) formerly the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT). It would be advisable to take this course of action only after receiving the Final Account. I say this because there is little point in challenging the costs until you know what the actual costs are. It does not prejudice your case to challenge costs after receiving the Final Account.
IF the costs are capped at £15,000 in the Final Account which is a possibility then you may not need to take a challenge.
Just to be clear – for the lowest estimate which is about £20,000 – the FTT would have to order a reduction of more than 25% before you would see any reduction below a £15,000 cap.
2. The sooner that you send me further observations the better as I can only instruct the works to start once all observations have been replied to.
4. You can seek advice free from LEASE at http://www.lease-advice.org/
Consultation & Final Account Officer
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.