---

Leaseholders' Rights Bill

One of the problems of discussing leasehold is that we become involved in hugely complex and technical detail. My understanding, however, is that the Government have their own problems with the 2002 Act. Implementing it has not been as easy as writing it. I am merely trying to encourage the Government to do what they wanted to do in that Act. It must be plain that I am in consensual rather than opposition mode today. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) and I are in agreement: we both want to improve the position of public sector leaseholders. Another problem that causes many people grief is the inefficiency of the contracts when they are let. I referred earlier to a very sweet and sad letter that I had received. Jean Harwood wrote:""My big immediate problem is time. Originally HFI… told us all work had to be completed by 2008. I cut my holiday short as a result but nothing happened. Then January 2009 was given to start erecting scaffolding. Still nothing. However, they did start on the first block on March 2nd. It took 5 weeks to completely erect that. Incidentally, we were told they would erect two blocks at a time. The second block was started April 27th and the third block May 5th. I'm also informed that when this block is finished the fourth block will be done (that is where I live). To date NO windows have been replaced. I was assured by HFI that they would start work as soon as the scaffolding went up and would be down within 2 weeks on completion."" That is not an unusual tale for such contracts. Martin Kneidinger wrote to me about""Very expensive charges compared to the work delivered and the time it took to finish. (More than a year!) Finished work is very poor quality and would not be acceptable on any private site in London I have been working on as an architect""We chose the 2 year interest free payment plan and to do that we had to start paying our bills before work was finished. Nowhere near finished to be more specific."" Those issues come up time and again. Here is a quick example from Karen Neale, who writes about""these grossly inflated…piecemeal and inaccurate estimates"." I could go on endlessly, but hon. Members will be grateful that I shall not. Something else that has emerged—this has happened more recently—is that management costs on such contracts have escalated dramatically. Again, however, leaseholders have no control over them. I am grateful to Dr. Peter Wright of Camden for a couple of examples. For one contract for lighting maintenance, he has worked out that""40.24 per cent. of the costs are due to management costs; leaseholders will pay 10 per cent. administration…on top"." Therefore, 50 per cent. of the costs of that contract went on administration and management. It is beyond belief. Nobody in the private sector would dream of charging that. In response to another contract, the Churchill Gardens lessees association wrote:""We do not consider the costs of the bids to be excessive. However, we do have concerns about add-ons of 40 per cent. totalling £460,000 on the contract price."" The association continued:""What is the 3.8 per cent. contractor's overhead contingency for? If the tender preparation is outsourced, where is the corresponding saving in fees? Why is the contractor not responsible for his own safety audit? Where is the £24,700 fee for plans—" £24,700 for plans?—""going? Why is a separate asbestos survey needed? The Estate has been so surveyed many times previously."" I could go on. Some of the costs being dumped on public sector leaseholders are outrageous. Then there are the experiences of the leaseholders of Orbit South, who have recently been transferred from Bexley. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who used to be the member of the Greater London authority for Bexley and Bromley, will be well aware of the problems of the leaseholders of Orbit South. They have been in touch with me because Orbit South has taken exactly the same approach to them. Those leaseholders are challenging their monthly management costs, which increased from £75 a month in 2003-04 to £116 a month this financial year, and will potentially be £140 a month next year. Even in the private sector, the management charges in my block—it is a rather pleasant block, as everybody will have seen recently in The Daily Telegraph—are not that size. It is unbelievable that management costs should be so much and that the leaseholders should have no redress or ability to negotiate.