---

Leaseholders' Rights Bill

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I suspect that when the legislation was written, there was no conspiracy, but this was simply one of its unintended consequences. I could wax large about the problem, and indeed would be happy to introduce another Bill in an attempt to deal with it, but I thought that if I kept it short and sweet, we might be able to get somewhere with this particular issue. If we can give public sector leaseholders the right to consultation, we shall be able to dig down into what the charges are and how they relate to their properties. One of the groups that contacted me is the Islington Leaseholders Association. I received 40-odd letters from its members. Vicki Leonard, who lives in N1, wrote:""Leaseholders do not have to be consulted on any works…That was annoying enough in itself but more annoying is the astronomical cost of everything they do"." That basically constitutes inefficiency. I received a long and detailed letter from a gentleman called Douglas Cape, who wrote:""At the first public meeting…the Project Officer…said he was only there to talk about the new window design. When it was pointed out to him that his own invite to the meeting…said 'You will have the opportunity of asking any questions regarding the contract' he refused to acknowledge his own letter and said he still could not answer any questions."" It is disingenuous, to say the least, of RSLs to say that they are consulting in such circumstances. What was said in those letters was echoed in many others from, for instance, members of the Association of Camden Council Leaseholders and the Churchill Gardens lessees association. I am hugely grateful for the time that they spent briefing me on their problems. Another member of the Islington association raised the issue of the sums that are charged, and the fact that it is not possible to obtain alternative quotes. Geoff Shirley wrote:""I and other leaseholders…have been informed by HFI that to replace our windows, 2 bedroom units will be charged £8K-£9K.""Considering the fact that only one main contractor has tendered for this work is outrageous. How does HFI justify that sole price when they have no other comparison price."" Public sector leaseholders should not be faced with such sums when they are unable to wield any influence. The position is made worse by the current agreements between RSLs and single suppliers of maintenance. The Government have been pushing that arrangement for understandable reasons: it is often more efficient for a contract to be let over the long term and for a single contractor to do maintenance work on an estate. However, in the event of a large replacement programme, the contracts with the sole suppliers do not allow competitive tendering. It is not beyond the wit of man, or the lawyers, to write a contract making it clear that it relates entirely to routine maintenance, and to specify that when there are larger contracts to be let, competitive tenders will be required. That would allow public sector leaseholders to bring their own contractors in. Another problem is that large public sector organisations often have a list of preferred suppliers. While that reassures such organisations that the standards on which they insist will be met, it also constitutes a closed shop, and does not allow public sector leaseholders to bring in new contractors who might do the job as well as, if not better than, those on the public sector list. I want public sector leaseholders to have that option. I do not want to become involved in a great political debate about whether it is a good idea—