---

Leaseholders' Rights Bill

That clearly should not happen. The social sector leaseholders working party was reconstituted by the Government in 2005 and reported two years ago. It recommended the introduction of separate legislation for social sector leaseholders because of the increasing complexity of social sector leasehold management as a result of the various rules and regulations relating to the arrangements. The statutory consultation process under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 did not really suit the arrangements often found in respect of social landlords, particularly the way that ALMOs, local authorities or housing association have to go through particular arrangements laid down by the Government. I wish to refer to a couple of cases from my constituency in order to illustrate the problem. One of them concerns Woodburn close, whose tenants wrote to me in April saying that for several months they had heard nothing from their ALMO, Barnet homes, but that then in a short space of time they received letters informing them of a planning application that was being submitted. Those letters did not, however, detail the estimates and so forth for the work. The Woodburn close tenants go on to say:""Despite previous requests none of the lessees have received quotes as to the cost of the works…It appears as if Barnet Homes have made a decision and are steam rolling it through, without due consideration to the lessees who have to pay."" Then there was a public meeting. The letter continues:""the initial letters were in respect of the windows, and it was not until the public meeting that Barnet Homes declared their intention to replace the aerial system at this time, and clean out the gutters"." The tenants make the point that digital switchover was not for another three years, and that estimates of the cost of the work had not been received. The letter continues:""we have to question the necessity of doing"" this work""as there is a Sky system which does not require scaffolding."" That system could have been installed at a cost of between £150 to £200 per home. The tenants complain that""Barnet Homes have carried out this exercise without due consideration of the lessees issues"." Barnet Homes wrote back to me saying that the""design and details of the scheme have now been finalised"," and it anticipated consulting tenants within the next two to three weeks by letter, with a breakdown of the proposed costs. That was on 11 May. It has not happened yet, so far as I can see. Again, Barnet Homes completely ignored the leaseholders' alternative suggestion regarding the TV aerial. It simply bulldozed through, saying, "This is what we're going to do." I received a letter from the tenants expressing continuing concern, "as it appears they"—Barnet Homes—""are likely to provide the lessees with a range of quotes and that everything has already been decided. This includes the comment in respect of the digital switchover, which does not acknowledge there may be cheaper alternative systems that provide the same service."" The windows replacement is being done under the decent homes initiative. The letter continues:""It appears that they are wedded to single suppliers and are not giving the lessees full opportunity to comment as part of this consultation."" Barnet Homes wrote back to me saying that the scheme is part of the decent homes initiative,""which is being carried out under a five year Partnering Agreement with Balfour Beatty…The framework is not a traditional tender contract"" and Balfour Beatty had obtained different quotes, but as far as the leaseholders are concerned, that does not make a great deal of difference. The ALMO says it is not""wedded to a single supplier"," but in effect, it is. We should also consider the quality of work—a point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham. There seems to be a general feeling among contractors—big and small—that anyone who lives on a council estate is entitled to second-class service and second-class quality of work. The contractors think they can get away with blue murder, charging top-dollar prices for substandard work. Time and again, I receive complaints about that. Such work might be treated as "snagging", but a lot of it is not. Some of it is quite serious, and whether snagging or serious, this issue is a major irritation to leaseholders—and, indeed, tenants—who have paid through the nose for work that has not been done properly. A case was brought to me last year concerning major works in Frith court. The lessees told me:""The rewiring was supposed to be being done, and the trunking has been installed but has not been wired. It is…not clear how it can be wired up and the trunking looks extremely ugly, too."" I saw that for myself. The lessees said that apparently, the windows are being replaced, but that that was not necessary for the flat in question because they had already been replaced before they bought the property. They have been charged £4,500 for renewing the guttering, which has not been done to a decent standard in several of the blocks. The soffit boards have been replaced, as have the common parts windows. The front and rear doors have been painted, but to very poor workmanship, as I again saw for myself. They are expecting a further charge of another £2,000 for rewiring. Barnet Homes wrote to me saying that it gave section 20 notices the year before, giving a "brief description" of and reasons for the works, with estimated block costs and contributions. If it is admitting to a brief description, that is probably bad enough. It also said that the electricity trunking had been painted to blend in with the wall. Well, it did not look that way to me. It looked appalling, with great chunks of steel-work inside the common parts. I certainly would not put up with that, and I do not see why the tenants should have to. Barnet Homes also said that remedial work had been done to the gutters and snagging items that it had been agreed were to be rectified. It gives the costs involved for the work, which are astronomical. It could be done more cheaply. The hon. Member for Beckenham has made a really important point about the social sector. Contractors tend to think that they can milk the council and do not realise that it is not the council or the ALMO that pays. They think, "It is public money—we can load up the contract." They do not realise that the money actually comes from the leaseholders and tenants. That is part of the problem. I have given two examples that have recently come to my attention, but time and again tenants and lessees have raised with me their concerns about some of the charges being imposed. Sometimes, the people involved are in the building trade themselves and they say that they could contract for the work far more cheaply, but they are not allowed to do so. The hon. Lady has hit on an important issue. As she says, the Bill is not perfect and requires considerable amendment, but I am certainly minded to vote for it on Second Reading in the hope that changes can be made in Committee.