former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[fazer71]

peterstorm1985 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn't expect Southwark to be able to 'give'

> away the freeholds because of the potential for

> ongoing liability, and the precedent it sets, but

> why can't they sell them for a nominal amount, eg

> ?1, where there is a clear economic benefit to the

> council to get rid of them for next to nothing. If

> there is a business case, and there are

> leaseholders prepared to purchase, surely there

> must be a means to achieve it.

The problems then would be that the housing officers would al leave the council as they wouldn't be getting the kick backs form the incompetent criminal contractors.

This would mean that the real work the housing officers do for the benefit of the council would not get done.

I?m joking

But not about how the housing officers get kick backs from the contractors!

The fear for the council is that by selling the freeholds where they still have a lease / council tenant is that they would be at the mercy of the management company and possibly they would get ripped off.....

Comical as there is no way they would be getting a worst deal than the one they have right now.!!!

By owning the freeholds themselves the council as I have explained above have their own staff costs (and surveyors responsible for selecting the contractors) who are almost all ripping the council freeholder off... and also ripping off anyone like ME and BUDDUG and all the other leasholders too.

It's just another example of Council Jobs for the boys ....... a criminal situation.....

The madness is that the freeholds have value on the open market there are companies and leaseholders who would pay good money for them and free the council from the cost.... but the system is setup for the employees of the council and the contractors to benefit rather than the leaseholders.

It?ll never change so if you have the Council as the Freeholder then sell and buy elsewhere, and don?t buy in the first place. Southwark as the freeholder is the worst possible freeholder you could ever ever ever have.

There?s no one who can do anything about it because there is nobody who will benefit by changing the system except the leasholders and they have Zero power.

It's not a vote winner for James.... Is it James ?

Utter Madness !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[buddug]

Hi fazer21 and fellow sufferer! I agree with your: The problems then would be that the housing officers would all leave the council as they wouldn't be getting the kickbacks form the incompetent criminal contractors." (only joking, lawyers!). But I can't for the life of me find any other reason for southwark's reluctance to ditch their loss-making freeholds.

And you're also right when you say: "Southwark as the freeholder is the worst possible freeholder you could ever ever ever have." They out-Rachman Rachman. Even one of their own housing officers admitted to me recently during the latest catastrophe, and I quote word for word: "xxxxx [ie their current contractors] are the worst we've ever had." That's worse than Botes, one of their previous contractors, who were so bad they went into administration, despite their kickback, oops sorry, council contract!

[buddug]

But seriously, folks. These cowboy contractors are more likely chosen, not due to kickbacks (I hope!), but because they are the cheapest who bid for the tender. You then get what you pay for. It is pure typical council short-termism as it costs them more in the long-term due to the messes they make. So James, what are you and other councillors who should be extremely concerned about this waste of our taxpayers money, going to do about it. Nothing, probably. The usual mouth and trousers...

[fazer71]

Content removed because it was libellous - The Administrator

[Huguenot]

fazer71:

"The problems then would be that the housing officers would al leave the council as they wouldn't be getting the kick backs form the incompetent criminal contractors."

This is a massive accusation, it's libellous, and you should be aware that current legislation would oblige your ISP to reveal your identity and location if the victims chose to pursue you for justice.

[fazer71]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> fazer71:

>

> "The problems then would be that the housing

> officers would al leave the council as they

> wouldn't be getting the kick backs form the

> incompetent criminal contractors."

>

> This is a massive accusation, it's libellous, and

> you should be aware that current legislation would

> oblige your ISP to reveal your identity and

> location if the victims chose to pursue you for

> justice.

Nothing that a full Police investigation wouldn't find out.

That is an investigation of the workings of the Southwark housing office and it's relationship with the contractors and the experiences of the leasholders.

I can see no other explanition of the level of charges and the ongoing inpact of high costs to Southwark Council and the leasholders.

I have every right to say I believe it may be 100% criminal.

I can see no other explanation for the level charges I have had to pay for minor works.

It there no one who is prepared to investigate this disgusting practice?

[fazer71]

Huguenot

buddug and I can't be the only ones who are perplexed by what we have seen, experienced and paid for.

The only explanation other than wholesale incompetence is that the Southwark housing office management are being somehow influenced by the contractors.

I find it hard to believe that level of incompetence is possible.

So how else could the poor workmanship and astronomical costs be explained.

It doesent take a rocket scientist, to explaing what might be influencing the housing office management. Only Money can have that impact.

[James Barber]

Hi Fazer71,

I understand your anger but if you have evidence of criminality please do go to the Police.

Making such unsubstantiated allegations might make you feel better but wont solve the problem at puts at risk the forum itself.

[pipsky2008]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi pipsky2008,

> Depends what informaiton you want.

> It may already be in the public domain and I could

> sign post it for you or acquire it quickly if I

> request it.

> Failing either of those use the Freedome of

> Information route.

> Feel free to email me and I'll give try giving you

Yes, I see that. I'll contact you again in a couple of days. Thanks

> a more specific steer.

>

> Hi buddug,

> Grove Vale pondiong. Sadly, another non housing

> contractor. I've asked when the mini lakes will be

> resolved and presume this would be undertaken as

> snagging issues.

> Housing. Talking to Southwark accountants if they

> could they'd give freeholds away to tenants as

> technicalyl they show as an asset but in reality

> they're a liability and give poor service to boot.

>

> As a result of your query I investigated the

> leaseholder conundrum at length with council

> officers vs freehold and also delivered and kncked

> on all leaseholders na tenant doors in East

> Dulwich ward with my colleagues.

[fazer71]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Fazer71,

> I understand your anger but if you have evidence

> of criminality please do go to the Police.

> Making such unsubstantiated allegations might make

> you feel better but wont solve the problem at puts

> at risk the forum itself.

The last thing I'd want to do is put the forum at risk.

But I do want people to be aware that being a leasholder under Southwark council is a very very very bad!

I have racked my brain for years about the amounts I have been charged and the reaction I?ve had from the council surveyor?s contractors and workmen regarding the quality of the work and the necessity and my discussions and experiences with them have led me to the conclusion than something untoward is going on.

I can see no other explanation.

Unfortunately I have no proof and no time to investigate. (Too busy working to pay for it all)

I have no confidence in Southwark housing department and it all stinks.

A very difficult thing to prove or investigate.

Just look at the London Underground contracts we all know it?s corrupt just impossible to prove.

That shouldn?t mean we stick our heads in the sand?..

[peterstorm1985]

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I have racked my brain for years about the amounts

> I have been charged and the reaction I?ve had from

> the council surveyor?s contractors and workmen

> regarding the quality of the work and the

> necessity and my discussions and experiences with

> them have led me to the conclusion than something

> untoward is going on.

> I can see no other explanation.

>

'Led me to the conclusion' isn't the same as 'know'. Do you have up to date knowledge of the normal costs of construction/maintenance work and framework contracts?

There may be widespread incompetence within the Southwark Housing department but that's not the same as fraud. I don't know what the churn of employees is in that department but it's probably high; not the first place anyone competent would choose to work (the work must be pretty repetitive) so any experience gained by individual staff is not a lesson learnt as they leave before it can do any good.

You say that you don't have time to investigate, and have no proof, but if anyone can provide the proof it would be you. For there to be any chance of an investigation it needs evidence. I do hope that you have kept a file of all the relevant documents that you have received (and additional supporting documents that I hope you've asked for), with records of dates worked and photographs of incomplete or bad workmanship.

If you haven't done so up until now then do try and start. Without that no one will ever be able to investigate and prove one way or other if there is a criminal matter.

[fazer71]

Life is too short to spend my time trying to prove any corruption, that's a job for rogue traders or our local MP's (but they are too busy chasing the vote) and this is not a vote winner.

I?m in IT so at the time I consulted a friend who is a surveyor and we went through the work the prices etc with a fine tooth comb I asked for and received all the information from the housing department and on paper it all adds up though at very very high rates, not rates anyone with a brain would agree too then there was the quality of the work shoddy would be an understatement!

Some work was impossible to check drainage work which had never been a problem we were charged for relining the drains ?7,000 and never had a problem and I never agreed to the work it was just done, also some roof works but the roof was only a few years old and after that work there was damp coming from the rear around the chimney stack where it had previously been fine it took over a year to get them back to fix the problem and still it leaked. I ended up paying for a roofer to fix it myself because of the damage it was causing to my internal decoration.

All this whilst I was contracting in Paris and too busy to check and argue the problems.

The housing department surveyor has no interest in the quality of the work and he was very chummy with the works manager? they?see leasholders like me every day they know exactly what they are about and it?s a compete carve up.

There is no one to talk to about the problems the council housing office don?t give a damn and they never return calls there is no accountability

My surveyor friend confirmed my views that there?s are a lot of odd things going on at local government where contracts are concerned it?s pretty much a closed shop with the same old names and contractors going round and round from one council to another they know the ropes and they know how to charge and they know who makes the decisions.

I?m in full time work and the last thing I want to do is investigate this.

Southwark housing employs people who either don?t know what they are doing or are working in hand with the contractors to extract the biggest charges they can maybe it?s because they want to get a job with the contractors? maybe because they get taken to nice restaurants maybe because they are married to them.

Who knows it?s like the Banks no one will ever get collared?

I've had enough my flat is on the market I've found a nice one with a share of the freehold.

If I can?t sell then I?ll keep it and rent it out until the mkt Pics up but that?s the last thing I want to do because major works are coming around again year after next and the last bill for the two flats small repairs only was almost ?25,000 my share being ? that! Criminal?

[buddug]

Fazer71. Looks like you've been terrorised by southwark housing in the same way I have. I've suffered work that wasn't needed too - soon after I moved in my neighbour and I were hit by 'major works'. It included repainting externals. There was nothing wrong with how it was, but literally three months after the painting was done it started peeling because the cowboys hadn't done any preparation work, sanding, undercoat etc. The housing department say they came back to repaint. I have no recollection of this, but it's irrelevant because needless to say it started peeling again and ended up looking like a slum from the outside. I finally got them to send other contractors to repaint after wasting my time for three years with the constant internal damage caused by other work, plus a court case, and although they did a better job, it also started peeling in parts. This was finally made good. But to add insult to injury we are now being charged ?500 for the repaint making good the initial bodged job that wasn't needed in the first place!

I told James Barber all this, and told him I can't be the only leaseholder in East Dulwich/Peckham borders (never mind the rest of Southwark) to whom this sort of thing is happening, but he said he could do nothing, adding every now and again: "Why don't you just buy the freehold"!!! Oh yes, James, I just happen to have ?5,000 down the back of the sofa... We're all filthy rich in East Dulwich, don't you know! And let's have paid-for parking bays in a lovely CPZ just like Fulham, oh, and an "aspirational" Waitrose.

[Bobby P]

CPZ COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME TODAY!!!!

The all-important Community Council meeting time reposted.

First meeting is TODAY - the 10th January. Please if you have a strong view against the CPZ, you really need to attend and make this view heard. This meeting (and its sister meeting on 24th) is likely the LAST CHANCE for the Council to hear the opinions of the majority opposed to a CPZ before they make their decision to proceed with it. The signs from my latest correspondence with them over the last 24 hours is that they they are still minded to put in at least a time restricted CPZ....

So...

7pm - 10th January Camberwell Community Council - Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB.

Also, don't forget the other vital meeting to attend....

7pm 24 January Dulwich Community Council - St Barnabas Church 40 Calton Avenue SE21 7DG

[fazer71]

buddug Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I told James Barber all this, and told him I can't

> be the only leaseholder in East Dulwich/Peckham

> borders (never mind the rest of Southwark) to whom

> this sort of thing is happening, but he said he

> could do nothing, adding every now and again: "Why

> don't you just buy the freehold"!!! Oh yes, James,

Talking to the likes of jenny jones ?Green MP? you get nowhere she hasn?t got a clue about housing, she running for mayor (heaven help us if she gets in talk about living in lala land).

If you can buy the freehold from Sothwark it would be ?5,000 well spent even if you bought it on a credit card at 29% interest it and used the Queens builders to carry out the works it would still be way cheaper than letting Southwark housing do it!

But it's highly unlikely you would be able to buy the Freehold if Southwark still have a tenant in the building they will not sell the freehold at any price.

I tried to buy my freehold and was told the computer says NO.

I would also love to buy the loft space so that I could carry out a loft conversion but they won't sell the empty loft space either.

Crazy Southwark has millions of pounds in empty loft spaces which they could sell to raise money yet they insist on holding onto them.

This restricts the market of housing (i.e. my flat would become a 2 bed accommodating at least one but maybe two more inhabitants therefore making better use of the existing housing stock of the borough). This would be a Green solution to the housing shortage in the borough through a more efficient use of the existing housing stock.

The system is causing high property prices and forcing more expensive and environmentally less green development.

[first mate]

fazer71, what a nightmare, your experience suggests something fishy or woeful incompetence. It also suggests that the council is intent on squeezing money out of leaseholders any way they can.

[gsirett]

[sorry, posted in worng place. Removed]

[James Barber]

Hi fazer71,

Please emails me your details and lets explore that freehold purchase. Only has to be 50% private leaseholders to qualify from memory.

I can assure you that the managers in Southwark Housing are very keen to not be accountable for acquire street properties as it costs a lot to deliver the nightmarish experience you've described.

[Carrie]

James - The council are not covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 but if, in selling freeholds, they abide by the spirit of the act then they would require over 50% of leaseholders to agree to the freehold purchase. Therefore, in a street property converted into 2 flats which are both owned privately both lessees would need to agree to purchase the freehold. If converted into 3 flats, all owned privately, then freehold purchase could go ahead with 2 out of 3 agreeing to it. In either scenario, if one flat is still owned by the council then the freehold purchase could not go ahead.

[fazer71]

Carrie is 100% correct.

I own 1 of 2 flats in a period Victorian conversion. Southwark own the other flat and so I don't have more than 50% I have just 50% not enough to force Southwark to sell the freehold.

It's a no go. I'm selling up. It's been a costly nightmare.

It's been great being able to vent my frustration on this forum I just hope it doesn't impact my selling the flat when the buyer discovers Southwark are the freeholder.

Woops maybe I should have kept quite like all the other leaseholders... it could impact the value of my lease!!!!!!!

A conspiracy of silence... well I've just had enough!!

James there's so much more to this Southwark freehold ... leaseholder problem ... it's a can of worms

I can?t help but feel there is a large amount of underhandedness along with all the incompetence, laziness and compliance at the Southwark housing unit responsible for ?looking after? leaseholders ?.

[Amelie]

@fazer71

I think you should write out a detailed account of exactly what has happened regarding maintenance of your flat by Southwark over the years, this will take some time. You should send this to Southwark's CEO, the Head of Legal Services, the District Auditor and the Local Government Ombudsman making clear that you require a no holds barred investigation to be carried out, a full explanation provided along with an unreserved apology and that you be compensated for maladministration.

Venting on the forum is indeed therapeutic but you need to take this up with the relevant authorities.

[buddug]

James Barber is woefully ignorant on this issue of freeholds, as he has just shown, and which is why he can't even begin to help anyone on the matter. I think a lot of the problems for leaseholders are due to incompetence. For instance, the reason the external painting cost my upstairs neighbour and myself only ?500 was because Southwark housing failed to consult properly and a section 20 notice had to apply, reducing the extortionate sum the contractors were trying to get to a limit of ?500. Similarly, when I first moved in 13 years ago and we suffered the 'major works' fiasco, which in our case dragged on for years due to bodged work, we were charged nothing because Southwark failed to follow the correct consultation procedures. Great for us, especially after what we'd been through, not so great for Southwark taxpayers. I managed to corner council leader Peter John tonight at the community council meeting and told him my neighbour and I had cost Southwark taxpayers ?10,000 in lost payments due to the section 20 notices, plus compensation and damages paid us by Southwark due to cowboy contractors over the past 13 years - ?10,000 paid for by taxpayers! I said it would have been cheaper to just have given us the freehold when it became apparent things were going so wrong. He said he'd take the matter up. We shall see.

[fazer71]

Amelie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @fazer71

>

> I think you should write out a detailed account of

> exactly what has happened regarding maintenance of

> your flat by Southwark over the years, this will

> take some time. You should send this to

> Southwark's CEO, the Head of Legal Services, the

> District Auditor and the Local Government

> Ombudsman making clear that you require a no holds

> barred investigation to be carried out, a full

> explanation provided along with an unreserved

> apology and that you be compensated for

> maladministration.

>

> Venting on the forum is indeed therapeutic but you

> need to take this up with the relevant

> authorities.

Thanks for the advice in a perfect world that would be a route, but I?ve spent more than enough time money and effort on this.

Even if I did follow your advice I?m sure I would get nowhere.

Even if I did and I won damages how much would I get?

?200 ?2,000

It would never make up for being overcharged by ?6,000 - ?7,000 +

and the stress it caused what price does one put on that? In the UK 20p.

There are employees of Southwark who are not doing their job correctly / legally and if by venting my anger and experiences on here for others ?James et all? to read then in time that may work to the benefit of others.

Besides I?m selling up now so it?s not going to be my problem soon.

[James Barber]

My understanding is that under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 if 2/3rds of qualifying flats in a property want to buy the freehold you legally can. Various rules about qualifying flats.

I failed to buy freehold with adjoining flat due to the businesses below being more than 25% non residential. I spent some time exploring with neighbouring Company Secretary any wheeze to make it happen and we failed.

I'm not ignorant on this subject.

So if anyone lives in a house sub divided into two flats and both are leaseholders of Southwark council then you can buy the freehold and no longer have Sotuhwark Council Housing ruling you. If 2 flats in house subdivided into 3 flats you can also do it, etc.

[James Barber]

Derwent Grove street lights.

Last night visual check of how many are not working.

Officers amaxzed at how many not working for this lighting scheme installed in 2007. So they double checked all other local lighting schemes installed in 2007 and non have suffered a similar mass failure.

Today lighting engineers will try and fix them. If any are related to the electricity supply then the monopoly provider will have to dig the street and that can take ages to organise (and no its not a dastardly plan related to controlled parking before anyone asks!).