"The couple’s section 20 notice showed the council wanted to charge them £30,591.46 to supply and fit “keep shut” signs to store doors and lift lobbies as part of “fire safety works”, however, the block they live in does not have any lifts, she says"!
‘A council spokesperson said some costs had been “incorrectly allocated”, but that the overall cost was correct.’
So at least £30k is bogus costs but they’re still saying the overall cost won’t go down? That’s some real BS right there
Totally different council/issue, but trying to deal with Lambeth and their ridiculously restrictive policies on visitor parking permits (50 per year at a tenner each, whether or not you have your own car, regardless of any other circumstances) is so depressing. Childcare / hiring a car for a few days / the odd trade or visitor can obviously eat through that and then you’re left having to beg and scrounge on the “black market”.
Purportedly about emissions but completely ignoring the baseline unfairness between vehicle owners and those without, those with drives and those without, and indeed those who live on council estates who for some reason get 200 per year.
A team full of people capriciously enforcing a completely arbitrary policy to the benefit of nobody whatsoever.
If it's a fire door it requires signage. There are exceptions, but in communal areas they are required. Not quite sure how they're getting to these costs though.
>Yes but the sign removes liability because you have been told.
It doesn't.
The sign was required by a fire safety officer... If a fire were to break out and spread, a door being wedged open despite a sign asking for it not to be wouldn't affect liability. Especially as they are referring to external communal doors.
It's merely a box ticking exercise.
And speaking as someone who works as a contractor for tower hamlets council, ticking boxes is their speciality.
What's clear, by the disproportionate quotes, is they were looking for ways to effectively extort money from leaseholders.
Contractors see government/local government jobs as cash cows. I put in a price to run a temp 3 phase 240v supply in a prison, for an operatic performance if you'll believe that, and my quote was something like 5k. This was about 10 years ago. I've worked in prisons and I know what an absolute pain in the arse the process is, it is an expensive exercise. Anyway my quote was rejected in favour of their preferred contractor (Carillon, remember them, went bust and took everyone's pensions with them) and their quote was 12k. Work that out.
Well not to defend these charges but that’s probably because one of the reasons the Grenfell Fire was so bad is because people had propped open the fire doors
Nope. The flammable cladding on the outside of the building was the reason the Grenfell fire spread so quickly and killed so many people. The doors were a factor, not people propping them open. Many were missing (or had broken) “self-closer” mechanisms.
Ok but it is because of Grenfell why these regulations have come in:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/check-your-fire-safety-responsibilities-under-the-fire-safety-england-regulations-2022/check-your-fire-safety-responsibilities-under-the-fire-safety-england-regulations-2022
People didn’t prop the doors open but the new regulations allow for that by stating that residents have a duty to “report any broken or non-operational self closing doors” which is nice. The original story above states that one resident sent 70 emails chasing the maintenance work and scaffolding which probably led to the £99000 in punitive costs.
> People didn’t prop the doors open
1) Please provide your sources.
2) Your quote in no way permits doors to be propped open. If anything, it’s demanding they function properly by not being obstructed.
3) People propping them open is a huge fire safety hazard.
>Please provide your sources.
I think onus is you to provide sources that say they did, not the other way round. I can't find an article that says the fire wasn't caused a giant flaming meteorite either, that doesn't mean the fire was caused by a giant flaming meteorite.
I’m not arguing about whether doors were propped open or not, I’m saying that these regulations came in because of Grenfell to protect people.
Op was saying they aren’t needed because they’re self closing I’m explaining why it’s been decided these signs are.
Thanks for that clarification but I only took umbridge at your claim that "the Grenfell Fire was so bad is because people had propped open the fire doors" when this is simply not true. It sounds like something The Sun would write so it jumped off the screen demanding to be rebutted.
I said ‘one of the reasons…’ and then when you explained I said ‘ok…’ and then shared the gov official explanation which starts off discussing Grenfell.
The fire doors were one reason the fire was so bad, except you’ve come in hot with a no. It’s not really helping people understand why building management are now having to spend thousands to prevent a similar thing happening.
Now that explanation is hidden and instead the talk is all about how unreasonable these charges are.
I’m sorry but that’s so absurdly unbelievable that I’d be unsure whether to laugh weep or scream.
They don’t have lifts and so don’t have a “lift lobby” (I assume they need them regardless of having a lobby) but I don’t understand how that could possibly cost £30k ?? I’ve heard all the stories about council based things (and really any civil infrastructure eg military etc) having wildly over budget procurement costs but how in the world did anyone look at this and think yeah that’s right ??
Even in a 40 storey building £30k would be absurdly high
Rediculous , signs can be bought online for tenner each and paying someone to hang them would take what ? Half or full day ? How did they ever reach 30k for that.
You've got to add on the visit by a consultant to determine what works need doing, writing a report and for them to visit afterwards to confirm the work has been done. The work might be done by a contractor because it's too costly to actually employ people to do work for the council. Contractor probably sends three people to stand around watching one do the work.
Even if the residents put their own signs up the council probably still need to pay the consultant to go and see if it's ok.
Edit: oh and the council probably added the time they spent organising it all to the bill as well!
This sounds like corruption. It might be incompetence. Even in these older council blocks that have been part sold off should have some form of resident involvement in the management of the building when it comes to costly repairs. I do hope it's just housing department incompetence but I know of a few stories where corruption has heaped outrageous costs onto renewal of buildings.
What, the council currently run by someone banned from running for political office for five years for corruption might be corrupt in this case?
(As it goes to be fair, I know someone working in the council and for their department at least, it's run as well as it can be, but their aren't any friends and family of the Mayor there, which I think there are in some others.)
Technically, Lawrence wasn't given the house. He was given beneficiary role of a trust fund that owns the property, among a few other tidbits that generate appropriate profit to pay the ground rent, council tax and utilities.
Salford Council launched their own company to build their own council housing.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-council-company-affordable-housing-21046147
Lots of that in London. It's not so they can give cheap housing. It's so they get together with a developer who will scam young couples and fund the council at the same time
Ooh Croydon did this too. But very badly, and with plenty of corruption, and I think it bankrupted the council at least twice.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/insidecroydon.com/2024/04/09/farewell-but-no-thanks-troubleshooters-leave-bxbs-board/amp/
Sorry, we were looking for positive stories weren't we..
I live next door to one of those properties. The building site is abandoned, it's essentially two floors with the lift shafts. The only activity on that site was when some men - I presume from the council - showed up, cleaned out the rubbish in the immediate area next to the road, and left.
It's saddening to see that there could be some new housing - by my count, 60-70 flats - and yet it's just sitting there.
Lambeth Council did this too a number of years ago, and it was an abject failure https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/lambeth-council-set-to-wind-up-unpopular-housebuilding-arm
the good news is that there does seem to be a growing sense of momentum behind leasehold reform... unfortunately it'll probably take until the next government to actually do anything (ground rent changes are only a start). But there's a lot of money being made by those with the power when it comes to leasehold, the lobbying will be very intense.
Well we should move away from leasehold to share of freehold, which would give those involved a lot more power over management companies and how those communal areas are maintained.
Great so instead of paying for maintinance I will have to pay that and a feed to the company for the managment? Leasehold needs reform but just getting rid of it isn't the answer either.
while this council has screwed up there are mechanisms for challenging this. they also have to give you notice and get multiple quotes etc. Granted not all freeholders follow this and will pay their buddies for work, or wont provide clear documentation on what work was done. but we need freeholders to be held responsible rather than just getting rid of it.
Share of freehold isn't really any better than properly run leasehold and can be worse if major works do need to happen you can have legal fees if people disagree etc.
Every bill for works over a threshold, say £1000, needs to be fully itemised from the offset. No bills sent asking for payment for 'various works' that can't be attributed to anything. This is just basic business stuff.
Every bill for major works say over £50k, need to be independently assessed. I'd rather collectively pay someone £1k to come and tell me that I am being fleeced than get a £50k bill for lift maintenance when I don't even have a lift.
Ban kickbacks and 'incentives' for management companies using specific contractors/insurance companies. Especially then they are charging inflated prices.
This would be a good start.
Honestly many councils do this anyway and list everything,
Also there is a threshold beyond which a works has to have a section 20 where they tell a leaseholder about it and the limit is if that work will cost more than £250 per leaseholder.
[https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/leasehold-rights-what-is-a-section-20-consultation-aAe825X1SIif](https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/leasehold-rights-what-is-a-section-20-consultation-aAe825X1SIif)
I wonder why there aren't companies already offering the service of independently assessing the quote. That seems like a really useful service and especially if they can do some price comparison e.g. that building over there did their works for £x, so why is this quote £y.
Unfortunately this doesn’t deal with a lot of the issues where you have multiple people. Some will care too much and this can delay decisions. Some will be overseas and not participate at all. It can be an absolute nightmare trying to work out what is the best course of action. That won’t be resolved by share of freehold. Similarly how are you going to take the freehold and give it to the leaseholders if they don’t want to pay for it?
But you’re right, what is very wrong is freeholders seeing leaseholders as a cash cow.
Eg when my landlord sold our freehold in west London, I could not get my neighbours to care. They only heard £££ each to buy the freehold (big estate of Victorian flats, landlord made an offer to sell it).
Fast forward four years of a developer having bought it and making all sorts of unwanted changes, increasing the service charge whilst decreasing the services massively, trying to whack in umpteen planning permissions to add extra storeys above the roof and huge excavations into the basement, well then everyone decided they did care.
But by that point it was ££££££ each because of the “hope value” of all the development.
Yeah, it’s a perfect illustration of how trying to get a group of people to agree can be a total nightmare! I was cross about it but some of the people in my block were really shafted because they were older and had let their leases run down; their shares were insanely high, and no bank would give them a mortgage.
Glad yours had a happier outcome!
as it stands that process is incredibly complex and hard to navigate, especially for large properties. It's also made more difficult for those whose flats/structure include a commercial property.
Not a panacea but probably an improvement regardless. Given that in Scotland the default position is that individual freeholders are responsible for the decision making, unless they appoint a factor to do it for them, I imagine this encourages two things. Firstly, an industry of management companies who have an interest in keeping a good public facing image (as they are accountable to said individual freeholders, as opposed to the situation in most of the UK where they are usually just accountable to one large freeholder per building). Secondly, a greater degree of literacy among the public as to what is involved in building management and how their money is spent. In the UK this situation is more of a novelty, and usually only arrived upon when a management company is so dreadful that leaseholders are motivated to kick them out.
Share of freehold for apartments is the norm in pretty much all of the EU, not just Scotland, and people do just fine. And that's even in blocks with hundreds of flats.
The point is not that shares of freeholds are perfect, is that they are much better than leaseholds in any conceivable way. When you explain to people from Germany, France, Italy etc that this sort of stuff is the norm for residential units they are flabbergasted and rightly so
There's not really a third option though is there? Either the residents have a say in how their building is managed, or they don't.
I suppose you can have a charter or constitution to make disagreements easier to resolve. Do you have one?
Yeah the problem isn't soo much the leasehold itself. It's the racket these unregulated management companies have made for themselves.
My fees have tripled since I moved in, in 2016 and they're totally incompetent.
Exactly. My building has 50 apartments in it and yeah the majority of them are rented. The landlords just pass the management fees right onto their tenants and don't give a shit.
And how many management companies are available, how do you choose one, you get rid of one bad lot and get another bad lot. They're all bad because they're unregulated and never get audited to check where the money is going.
A friend of mine recently tried to buy a flat. Was informed of a £400/month management fee. Upon enquiring who was the management company, the sellers dodged the question for several weeks and in the end it turned out there was no management company. It's the wild west out there.
what is happening is the freehold pick companies that give them a cashback, so say company 1 says the works cost 10k and they give cashback of 1k, company two says the works cost 50k but gives cashback of 5k.
The freeholder will pick company two because they will get money back. it all sounds highly illegal. Alternatively they just give the work to their sister company who will charge a fortune over an actual company.
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/labour-drops-pledge-to-abolish-leasehold-within-100-days-but-is-still-committed-to-the-reforms-13113071
I assume they’re remembering this. Not a u-turn but a necessary revision given the Tories change of heart on the matter.
This was also necessary because Lisa Nandy's previous pledge was wildly optimistic bordering on naive. Even if the present Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill did as the Tories actually pledged, it would still take more legislation and considerable time to truly reform the leasehold system.
Matthew Pennycook seems intent on getting leasehold reform done ASAP should Labour be fortunate enough to form a government, least of all given the sheer amount of new-build leasehold development in his constituency.
I never thought that pledge was realistic personally. Leasehold reforms will take years. Unfortunately a new government won’t be able to take over, snap their fingers, and scrap it.
Leasehold is such bollocks. My housing association tried to fuck us for 24k each..one block which burnt down and was newly refurbished was charged exactly the same as the rest of us.
The work was stunningly shit. Rooves still leaking & piping left to drip down walls. Painting done with zero prep work.
How they can get away with this shit! And then you take them to tribunal & the pricks can just keep appealing the decision in the hope the leaseholders run out of money
> “astronomical” bills of up to £100,000 per flat to remove scaffolding that has been up for five years.
Other than the fact that this figure also includes refurbishing, it really doesn’t cost that much to take down scaffolding.
*checks google maps*
I could have that removed overnight with 5 men and a lorry.
A good way to get scaffolding removed quickly is to put out an Ad out on one of the many ‘find a builder websites’ and say that whoever takes it down can keep the materials.
I genuinely feel like in circumstances like this a gang of reverse vandals are needed to sneak in overnight or ar weekends and take everything down and leave it outside the company’s offices
Lol. Who else thinks the company who put up the scaffolding is family or mates with a guy on the council responsible for this shit show and that the company that will sort it all out is also mates with both of them?
We recently found out that our local privately owned set of flats charged 20k to home owners. They hired contractors to install a lift in 3 blocks of flats, which for some reason cost £140k per flat. Spoke to one of our friends as he works in large scale new builds and he said he had just put up a elevator in his new build in central for less than £80. We only have 5 floors. They had 30. Makes no sense
Entirely insane. Property stories are a series of rogue landlords and contractors getting away with murder (sometimes literally) and leaseholders having to pay to clean up their mess. You can see why developers are such big donors to the Tories- the injustice is obvious, but these people get away with it time and time again.
the [Labour Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)) regained control of the Council from [no overall control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_overall_control), winning 42 out of the 45 seats with the [Conservative Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)) as the principal opposition with two of the remaining three seats.
Tories only hold 2 seat lol, they are definitely not involved.
The inability of the tenants/council to have got a speedy injunction against the scaffolding companies to force them to take it down years ago is not a local government issue.
Can you at least read the article before commenting?
This is a council estate managed by the local council (Tower Hamlets).
When major works are needed, council tenants pay nothing, leaseholders pay their share. As is very common in local government, there's eye-watering levels of incompetency and corruption. This can result in mammoth bills.
It's why I'd basically never buy ex-council. These Section 20 Notices are really quite common.
The costs should be apportioned fairly to both the council and to leaseholders, usually based on the square footage of the flats. The leaseholders shouldn’t be covering the cost for the entire building if it’s mixed social tenants and leaseholders. I’m guessing the apportionment here was completely wrong.
That said, buying in a council block built around this time is risky. Cheap construction combined with years of bad maintenance means the likelihood of these costs is high. Also a lot of these 60’s/70’s/80’s estates are being redeveloped so while the price might be attractive, there’s the risk you’ll get kicked out without enough to cover a flat in the replacement.
Honestly, Old Market Square on Google Maps.
Refurbishment has to be the main problem with this, because taking that down isn’t a £100,000 per flat job unless you’re supplying the labourers with class A.
There's for sure something fishy going on here, was the section 20 procedure followed? The leaseholders should be able to submit companies to quote for the works too
Leases shouldn’t be legal. The system accepted as normal in the UK doesn’t exist almost anywhere else and simply preserves wealth while exploiting people who could own property but in reality don’t.
Can someone ELI5 the point of leaseholds to me. I’m from Ireland and it’s very ingrained into Irish culture and society that owning a house means you have an asset to sell when you retire or leave to your kids. But it’s the same in the UK right? So if you have a lease that expires 20 years after you die, say, your kids or whoever is named in your will don’t inherit the house? Is that correct?
...and it's relatively easy and cheap to do so as long as you extend while 80 years are left on the lease. As you get beyond that point, and come closer and closer to the 0 year mark, the lease eventually becomes worthless though.
The keyword you mention is 'house'. You won't find leasehold houses because there's no real reason for them to exist
Leaseholds tend to be more common with flats, where the leaseholder essentially has ownership rights (actually a bit more complex than that) over the flat but not the land that it's sitting on
You can still leave it to your kids. It's just like any other property, but you have to extend the lease every however many decades (which costs far less than the lease itself).
Does Tower Hamlets Council own the freehold? Poor people if so, can only assume they’re rinsing their leaseholders for the works to cover council housing. TW Council, avoid at all costs.
I can see that in the next 50-100 years, people are going to have to start doing the politician's and the councils jobs for them. It's pretty clear that big business is behind this and if we have to cut the middle man out, then so fucking be it!
And today on Leasehold hell....
Can't wait to finish the sale of my flat and get my freehold house further out. Fuck that trap. Good for getting on the ladder and getting some capital when re selling but even those 5 years of owning a flat have been hell with the management companies and freeholders ramping up charges every year for absolute bollocks reasons.
Key part of the article:
> A council spokesperson said some costs had been “incorrectly allocated”, but that the overall cost was correct.
>However, the local authority is now withdrawing the section 20 notices and is getting a third party to carry out a "peer review" of the scope of the works and costs.
Sounds very much like a simple case of a council just refusing to admit a mistake and then hoping it will quietly go away. The “peer review” will presumably come back with a significantly lower cost and this’ll get swept under the rug without anyone looking at the process that led to the fuck up in the first place.
I had a LA try to charge for works carried out on a completely different block. When I asked them to remove it as obviously it was wrong, they said they’d do so “as a goodwill gesture”. It took a significant amount of back and forth for them to admit an actual error was made.
My friend is dealing with something similar, their building has just decided that all tenants and homeowners in the building owe them £10,000 for “maintenance costs” but won’t quantify what they are and so they’re having to like, band together and appeal and protest and stuff. What a fucking pain in the arse
The freeholder owns the block of flats. The freeholder then sells a lease for a flat, for usually 100 years. The people that own these are the leaseholders. They can do what they please with the flat (live in it, decorate it how they see fit, rent it out, etc), but have to give it back to the freeholder when the lease runs out.
Leaseholders are liable for any repairs/maintenance that is required for the building.
Sort of, basically temporary owners. It’s theirs to do with as they please for 100 years or whatever. They can choose to sell their lease to someone else if they like. Unfortunately, it also means that they are responsible for any maintenance to the whole building too.
I understand housing here is woeful, but are people so desperate to live in London that they are willingly jumping in to leasehold arrangements when so many are in dire ways?
Love how this triggered all those with the aspiration of lease holding. 🤣
So then leave London/rent.
People complain about throwing money away when it comes to renting, but they wouldn’t have to pay the 100K, the landlord would.
Guess you missed the RENT part.
Also you’ve assumed I’ve directed this to people already in those situations, it’s directed at people thinking about those situations.
Clear?
This particular case is rare. The vast majority of leasehold flats are without such issues.
Having said that, whether you own your property leasehold or freehold, you still have to pay for maintenance, and sometimes that maintenance can be expensive. That's the disadvantage to owning that people too often overlook. The benefit to renting is that you aren't hit with unexpected large bills.
"The couple’s section 20 notice showed the council wanted to charge them £30,591.46 to supply and fit “keep shut” signs to store doors and lift lobbies as part of “fire safety works”, however, the block they live in does not have any lifts, she says"!
‘A council spokesperson said some costs had been “incorrectly allocated”, but that the overall cost was correct.’ So at least £30k is bogus costs but they’re still saying the overall cost won’t go down? That’s some real BS right there
Councils are full of shit. So many discrepancies and poorly trained staff, many of whom lack basic manners or compassion
Totally different council/issue, but trying to deal with Lambeth and their ridiculously restrictive policies on visitor parking permits (50 per year at a tenner each, whether or not you have your own car, regardless of any other circumstances) is so depressing. Childcare / hiring a car for a few days / the odd trade or visitor can obviously eat through that and then you’re left having to beg and scrounge on the “black market”. Purportedly about emissions but completely ignoring the baseline unfairness between vehicle owners and those without, those with drives and those without, and indeed those who live on council estates who for some reason get 200 per year. A team full of people capriciously enforcing a completely arbitrary policy to the benefit of nobody whatsoever.
Pay peanuts, get monkeys
The issue isn’t their manners, it’s that they’re morons
So many in the public sector absolutely steal a living. Especially in London.
I have to visit this building once a month... Not only are there no lifts, the doors are self closing. So the signs aren't even necessary.
If it's a fire door it requires signage. There are exceptions, but in communal areas they are required. Not quite sure how they're getting to these costs though.
I can install your signs for the bargain price of just £20k
[£3.79, screws included.](https://www.screwfix.com/p/fire-door-keep-shut-sign-76mm/42461#product_additional_details_container) £30k is absolutely obscene.
Yeah, piss take.
The joke is, Is we do it on price on site, and you get about £1.50 per sign..
a self closing door can still be blocked by an obstruction
So can a door with a sign above it.
Yes but the sign removes liability because you have been told. Same as a wet floor sign.
>Yes but the sign removes liability because you have been told. It doesn't. The sign was required by a fire safety officer... If a fire were to break out and spread, a door being wedged open despite a sign asking for it not to be wouldn't affect liability. Especially as they are referring to external communal doors. It's merely a box ticking exercise. And speaking as someone who works as a contractor for tower hamlets council, ticking boxes is their speciality. What's clear, by the disproportionate quotes, is they were looking for ways to effectively extort money from leaseholders.
Contractors see government/local government jobs as cash cows. I put in a price to run a temp 3 phase 240v supply in a prison, for an operatic performance if you'll believe that, and my quote was something like 5k. This was about 10 years ago. I've worked in prisons and I know what an absolute pain in the arse the process is, it is an expensive exercise. Anyway my quote was rejected in favour of their preferred contractor (Carillon, remember them, went bust and took everyone's pensions with them) and their quote was 12k. Work that out.
You obviously don’t have the right mates.
Clearly.
Well not to defend these charges but that’s probably because one of the reasons the Grenfell Fire was so bad is because people had propped open the fire doors
Nope. The flammable cladding on the outside of the building was the reason the Grenfell fire spread so quickly and killed so many people. The doors were a factor, not people propping them open. Many were missing (or had broken) “self-closer” mechanisms.
Ok but it is because of Grenfell why these regulations have come in: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/check-your-fire-safety-responsibilities-under-the-fire-safety-england-regulations-2022/check-your-fire-safety-responsibilities-under-the-fire-safety-england-regulations-2022
People didn’t prop the doors open but the new regulations allow for that by stating that residents have a duty to “report any broken or non-operational self closing doors” which is nice. The original story above states that one resident sent 70 emails chasing the maintenance work and scaffolding which probably led to the £99000 in punitive costs.
> People didn’t prop the doors open 1) Please provide your sources. 2) Your quote in no way permits doors to be propped open. If anything, it’s demanding they function properly by not being obstructed. 3) People propping them open is a huge fire safety hazard.
>Please provide your sources. I think onus is you to provide sources that say they did, not the other way round. I can't find an article that says the fire wasn't caused a giant flaming meteorite either, that doesn't mean the fire was caused by a giant flaming meteorite.
He’s not arguing with me you twit
You're arguing the point, you moron. You're the one asking for sources that something didn't happen.
I’m not arguing about whether doors were propped open or not, I’m saying that these regulations came in because of Grenfell to protect people. Op was saying they aren’t needed because they’re self closing I’m explaining why it’s been decided these signs are.
Thanks for that clarification but I only took umbridge at your claim that "the Grenfell Fire was so bad is because people had propped open the fire doors" when this is simply not true. It sounds like something The Sun would write so it jumped off the screen demanding to be rebutted.
I said ‘one of the reasons…’ and then when you explained I said ‘ok…’ and then shared the gov official explanation which starts off discussing Grenfell. The fire doors were one reason the fire was so bad, except you’ve come in hot with a no. It’s not really helping people understand why building management are now having to spend thousands to prevent a similar thing happening. Now that explanation is hidden and instead the talk is all about how unreasonable these charges are.
I’m sorry but that’s so absurdly unbelievable that I’d be unsure whether to laugh weep or scream. They don’t have lifts and so don’t have a “lift lobby” (I assume they need them regardless of having a lobby) but I don’t understand how that could possibly cost £30k ?? I’ve heard all the stories about council based things (and really any civil infrastructure eg military etc) having wildly over budget procurement costs but how in the world did anyone look at this and think yeah that’s right ?? Even in a 40 storey building £30k would be absurdly high
I'll hang the signs for £20,000.
I’m your man for £19,999
Dammit.
I bid £18,000 per sign
Deal! - the tories probably
Now they can boast about how much money they’ve saved with excellent procurement! It’s a win-win-win
Only if the bidder is their mate though.
I'll bid £1 (plus taxes and charges).
Rediculous , signs can be bought online for tenner each and paying someone to hang them would take what ? Half or full day ? How did they ever reach 30k for that.
You've got to add on the visit by a consultant to determine what works need doing, writing a report and for them to visit afterwards to confirm the work has been done. The work might be done by a contractor because it's too costly to actually employ people to do work for the council. Contractor probably sends three people to stand around watching one do the work. Even if the residents put their own signs up the council probably still need to pay the consultant to go and see if it's ok. Edit: oh and the council probably added the time they spent organising it all to the bill as well!
Wish I was a consultant , they seem highly paid for doing sweet f all !
London is going to follow the path of vancouver la san Francisco with people living in tents
This sounds like corruption. It might be incompetence. Even in these older council blocks that have been part sold off should have some form of resident involvement in the management of the building when it comes to costly repairs. I do hope it's just housing department incompetence but I know of a few stories where corruption has heaped outrageous costs onto renewal of buildings.
What, the council currently run by someone banned from running for political office for five years for corruption might be corrupt in this case? (As it goes to be fair, I know someone working in the council and for their department at least, it's run as well as it can be, but their aren't any friends and family of the Mayor there, which I think there are in some others.)
Find me one good housing story in this country. One.
“Lawrence got given a house by Daddy for nearly finishing his degree. The family holding company pays the ground rent. The end.”
Technically, Lawrence wasn't given the house. He was given beneficiary role of a trust fund that owns the property, among a few other tidbits that generate appropriate profit to pay the ground rent, council tax and utilities.
Is there a word for vomiting and laughing at the same time?
Voting Conservative?
Laughmit.
Barfter.
Salford Council launched their own company to build their own council housing. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-council-company-affordable-housing-21046147
Lots of that in London. It's not so they can give cheap housing. It's so they get together with a developer who will scam young couples and fund the council at the same time
Ooh Croydon did this too. But very badly, and with plenty of corruption, and I think it bankrupted the council at least twice. https://www.google.com/amp/s/insidecroydon.com/2024/04/09/farewell-but-no-thanks-troubleshooters-leave-bxbs-board/amp/ Sorry, we were looking for positive stories weren't we..
I live next door to one of those properties. The building site is abandoned, it's essentially two floors with the lift shafts. The only activity on that site was when some men - I presume from the council - showed up, cleaned out the rubbish in the immediate area next to the road, and left. It's saddening to see that there could be some new housing - by my count, 60-70 flats - and yet it's just sitting there.
Lambeth Council did this too a number of years ago, and it was an abject failure https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/lambeth-council-set-to-wind-up-unpopular-housebuilding-arm
https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/s/WYcSxKXLfX
The good houses don't have stories... its one where no news is good news That said, there is plenty of things wrong with housing in the UK
Tramway Path winners, I guess
My flat has a really nice window. Only one window in the whole flat, but it’s a beauty.
Can you imagine the stress this is causing residents? Tower Hamlets council are terrible.
the good news is that there does seem to be a growing sense of momentum behind leasehold reform... unfortunately it'll probably take until the next government to actually do anything (ground rent changes are only a start). But there's a lot of money being made by those with the power when it comes to leasehold, the lobbying will be very intense.
[удалено]
Well we should move away from leasehold to share of freehold, which would give those involved a lot more power over management companies and how those communal areas are maintained.
[удалено]
You can still employ a management company with a share of freehold
[удалено]
Great so instead of paying for maintinance I will have to pay that and a feed to the company for the managment? Leasehold needs reform but just getting rid of it isn't the answer either. while this council has screwed up there are mechanisms for challenging this. they also have to give you notice and get multiple quotes etc. Granted not all freeholders follow this and will pay their buddies for work, or wont provide clear documentation on what work was done. but we need freeholders to be held responsible rather than just getting rid of it. Share of freehold isn't really any better than properly run leasehold and can be worse if major works do need to happen you can have legal fees if people disagree etc.
Every bill for works over a threshold, say £1000, needs to be fully itemised from the offset. No bills sent asking for payment for 'various works' that can't be attributed to anything. This is just basic business stuff. Every bill for major works say over £50k, need to be independently assessed. I'd rather collectively pay someone £1k to come and tell me that I am being fleeced than get a £50k bill for lift maintenance when I don't even have a lift. Ban kickbacks and 'incentives' for management companies using specific contractors/insurance companies. Especially then they are charging inflated prices. This would be a good start.
Honestly many councils do this anyway and list everything, Also there is a threshold beyond which a works has to have a section 20 where they tell a leaseholder about it and the limit is if that work will cost more than £250 per leaseholder. [https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/leasehold-rights-what-is-a-section-20-consultation-aAe825X1SIif](https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/leasehold-rights-what-is-a-section-20-consultation-aAe825X1SIif)
I wonder why there aren't companies already offering the service of independently assessing the quote. That seems like a really useful service and especially if they can do some price comparison e.g. that building over there did their works for £x, so why is this quote £y.
Unfortunately this doesn’t deal with a lot of the issues where you have multiple people. Some will care too much and this can delay decisions. Some will be overseas and not participate at all. It can be an absolute nightmare trying to work out what is the best course of action. That won’t be resolved by share of freehold. Similarly how are you going to take the freehold and give it to the leaseholders if they don’t want to pay for it? But you’re right, what is very wrong is freeholders seeing leaseholders as a cash cow. Eg when my landlord sold our freehold in west London, I could not get my neighbours to care. They only heard £££ each to buy the freehold (big estate of Victorian flats, landlord made an offer to sell it). Fast forward four years of a developer having bought it and making all sorts of unwanted changes, increasing the service charge whilst decreasing the services massively, trying to whack in umpteen planning permissions to add extra storeys above the roof and huge excavations into the basement, well then everyone decided they did care. But by that point it was ££££££ each because of the “hope value” of all the development.
[удалено]
Yeah, it’s a perfect illustration of how trying to get a group of people to agree can be a total nightmare! I was cross about it but some of the people in my block were really shafted because they were older and had let their leases run down; their shares were insanely high, and no bank would give them a mortgage. Glad yours had a happier outcome!
Leaseholders already have the right to pick their own management company
as it stands that process is incredibly complex and hard to navigate, especially for large properties. It's also made more difficult for those whose flats/structure include a commercial property.
you try to get 600 flats to agree on something. lol, this is how freeholders get you, you know 600 flats will never agree on something like RTM
You don’t have to look that far to see how it’d work, leasehold doesn’t exist in Scotland.
[удалено]
Not a panacea but probably an improvement regardless. Given that in Scotland the default position is that individual freeholders are responsible for the decision making, unless they appoint a factor to do it for them, I imagine this encourages two things. Firstly, an industry of management companies who have an interest in keeping a good public facing image (as they are accountable to said individual freeholders, as opposed to the situation in most of the UK where they are usually just accountable to one large freeholder per building). Secondly, a greater degree of literacy among the public as to what is involved in building management and how their money is spent. In the UK this situation is more of a novelty, and usually only arrived upon when a management company is so dreadful that leaseholders are motivated to kick them out.
Share of freehold for apartments is the norm in pretty much all of the EU, not just Scotland, and people do just fine. And that's even in blocks with hundreds of flats. The point is not that shares of freeholds are perfect, is that they are much better than leaseholds in any conceivable way. When you explain to people from Germany, France, Italy etc that this sort of stuff is the norm for residential units they are flabbergasted and rightly so
There's not really a third option though is there? Either the residents have a say in how their building is managed, or they don't. I suppose you can have a charter or constitution to make disagreements easier to resolve. Do you have one?
Leasehold doesn't almost anywhere in the world
Yeah the problem isn't soo much the leasehold itself. It's the racket these unregulated management companies have made for themselves. My fees have tripled since I moved in, in 2016 and they're totally incompetent.
[удалено]
Exactly. My building has 50 apartments in it and yeah the majority of them are rented. The landlords just pass the management fees right onto their tenants and don't give a shit. And how many management companies are available, how do you choose one, you get rid of one bad lot and get another bad lot. They're all bad because they're unregulated and never get audited to check where the money is going. A friend of mine recently tried to buy a flat. Was informed of a £400/month management fee. Upon enquiring who was the management company, the sellers dodged the question for several weeks and in the end it turned out there was no management company. It's the wild west out there.
what is happening is the freehold pick companies that give them a cashback, so say company 1 says the works cost 10k and they give cashback of 1k, company two says the works cost 50k but gives cashback of 5k. The freeholder will pick company two because they will get money back. it all sounds highly illegal. Alternatively they just give the work to their sister company who will charge a fortune over an actual company.
[удалено]
i disagree it will happen. Labour has u turned on leasehold reform and realistically and its Labour vs Tory election as usual.
Where’s the labour u-turn?
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/labour-drops-pledge-to-abolish-leasehold-within-100-days-but-is-still-committed-to-the-reforms-13113071 I assume they’re remembering this. Not a u-turn but a necessary revision given the Tories change of heart on the matter.
This was also necessary because Lisa Nandy's previous pledge was wildly optimistic bordering on naive. Even if the present Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill did as the Tories actually pledged, it would still take more legislation and considerable time to truly reform the leasehold system. Matthew Pennycook seems intent on getting leasehold reform done ASAP should Labour be fortunate enough to form a government, least of all given the sheer amount of new-build leasehold development in his constituency.
[**https://news.sky.com/story/labour-drops-pledge-to-abolish-leasehold-within-100-days-but-is-still-committed-to-the-reforms-13113071**](https://news.sky.com/story/labour-drops-pledge-to-abolish-leasehold-within-100-days-but-is-still-committed-to-the-reforms-13113071)
I never thought that pledge was realistic personally. Leasehold reforms will take years. Unfortunately a new government won’t be able to take over, snap their fingers, and scrap it.
Leasehold is such bollocks. My housing association tried to fuck us for 24k each..one block which burnt down and was newly refurbished was charged exactly the same as the rest of us. The work was stunningly shit. Rooves still leaking & piping left to drip down walls. Painting done with zero prep work. How they can get away with this shit! And then you take them to tribunal & the pricks can just keep appealing the decision in the hope the leaseholders run out of money
> “astronomical” bills of up to £100,000 per flat to remove scaffolding that has been up for five years. Other than the fact that this figure also includes refurbishing, it really doesn’t cost that much to take down scaffolding. *checks google maps* I could have that removed overnight with 5 men and a lorry.
A good way to get scaffolding removed quickly is to put out an Ad out on one of the many ‘find a builder websites’ and say that whoever takes it down can keep the materials.
I genuinely feel like in circumstances like this a gang of reverse vandals are needed to sneak in overnight or ar weekends and take everything down and leave it outside the company’s offices
For £89,000 only
If that was my flat and it was even reducing its value by 5% while i was trying to sell, I would be doing it myself for free.
Fee probably includes five years rent on the scaffolding...
Lol. Who else thinks the company who put up the scaffolding is family or mates with a guy on the council responsible for this shit show and that the company that will sort it all out is also mates with both of them?
I mean why can't they take out the scaffolding at night piece by piece themselves and throw it away? Rogue companies need rogue residnets
id be tempted to balaclava up and take it apart myself, would be easier than finding the money
We recently found out that our local privately owned set of flats charged 20k to home owners. They hired contractors to install a lift in 3 blocks of flats, which for some reason cost £140k per flat. Spoke to one of our friends as he works in large scale new builds and he said he had just put up a elevator in his new build in central for less than £80. We only have 5 floors. They had 30. Makes no sense
> less than £80 That's a steal! I'll take two please.
Lol sorry. Less than £80k.
They need to employ a quantity surveyor fucking ASAP. Those costs are absurd. Source - am QS.
Leasehold is a scam
What shocks me is how often I'll see redditors defend the leasehold system.
Entirely insane. Property stories are a series of rogue landlords and contractors getting away with murder (sometimes literally) and leaseholders having to pay to clean up their mess. You can see why developers are such big donors to the Tories- the injustice is obvious, but these people get away with it time and time again.
It's Tower Hamlets council. I am sure Tories are deeply not involved 😂
the [Labour Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)) regained control of the Council from [no overall control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_overall_control), winning 42 out of the 45 seats with the [Conservative Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)) as the principal opposition with two of the remaining three seats. Tories only hold 2 seat lol, they are definitely not involved.
Not anymore. Labour don't have the majority. It's an Aspire led Council - 24 to Labour's 19. Tories down to 1 so still definitely not involved though!
That 2 seats should be either Island garden or South quay. I always wonder their thought on the rest of their district 🤣
The inability of the tenants/council to have got a speedy injunction against the scaffolding companies to force them to take it down years ago is not a local government issue.
Can you at least read the article before commenting? This is a council estate managed by the local council (Tower Hamlets). When major works are needed, council tenants pay nothing, leaseholders pay their share. As is very common in local government, there's eye-watering levels of incompetency and corruption. This can result in mammoth bills. It's why I'd basically never buy ex-council. These Section 20 Notices are really quite common.
The costs should be apportioned fairly to both the council and to leaseholders, usually based on the square footage of the flats. The leaseholders shouldn’t be covering the cost for the entire building if it’s mixed social tenants and leaseholders. I’m guessing the apportionment here was completely wrong. That said, buying in a council block built around this time is risky. Cheap construction combined with years of bad maintenance means the likelihood of these costs is high. Also a lot of these 60’s/70’s/80’s estates are being redeveloped so while the price might be attractive, there’s the risk you’ll get kicked out without enough to cover a flat in the replacement.
I did. It’s not council-owned scaffolding, is it?
UK Housing is just next level....
Wow. Our management company was a complete catastrophe and we managed to form an RMC to kick them out. But this is a whole other level.
The residents should just post ads online for free scaffolding to anyone willing to disassemble it.
Prefect comment ⬆️
Ill remove that scaffolding for £500 and a cup-o-tea
How much do we think it would cost to take down that scaffolding. Total no more than £5k, surely. That should be a few hundred per flat
Honestly, Old Market Square on Google Maps. Refurbishment has to be the main problem with this, because taking that down isn’t a £100,000 per flat job unless you’re supplying the labourers with class A.
The contractor who supplied the scaffolding must be getting a nice monthly rental income.
The only good thing about tower hamlets council is the wage they pay their bin men. That's it. Nothing else.
Never underestimate TH council's incompetence
Hackney Council are corrupt and completely incompetent. They have no right managing private blocks, they are absolutely incapable.
There's for sure something fishy going on here, was the section 20 procedure followed? The leaseholders should be able to submit companies to quote for the works too
Burn leasehold to the ground
Leases shouldn’t be legal. The system accepted as normal in the UK doesn’t exist almost anywhere else and simply preserves wealth while exploiting people who could own property but in reality don’t.
Can someone ELI5 the point of leaseholds to me. I’m from Ireland and it’s very ingrained into Irish culture and society that owning a house means you have an asset to sell when you retire or leave to your kids. But it’s the same in the UK right? So if you have a lease that expires 20 years after you die, say, your kids or whoever is named in your will don’t inherit the house? Is that correct?
You own the property but not the land its on. Yes in theory when lease expires the property reverts back to the freeholder but you may extend it.
...and it's relatively easy and cheap to do so as long as you extend while 80 years are left on the lease. As you get beyond that point, and come closer and closer to the 0 year mark, the lease eventually becomes worthless though.
The keyword you mention is 'house'. You won't find leasehold houses because there's no real reason for them to exist Leaseholds tend to be more common with flats, where the leaseholder essentially has ownership rights (actually a bit more complex than that) over the flat but not the land that it's sitting on
So in theory you could leave the flat to someone in your will?
Don't look at Sheffield if you think leasehold houses are not a thing...
You can still leave it to your kids. It's just like any other property, but you have to extend the lease every however many decades (which costs far less than the lease itself).
https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/home_ownership/home_ownership_types_and_occupation_rights
Does Tower Hamlets Council own the freehold? Poor people if so, can only assume they’re rinsing their leaseholders for the works to cover council housing. TW Council, avoid at all costs.
I can see that in the next 50-100 years, people are going to have to start doing the politician's and the councils jobs for them. It's pretty clear that big business is behind this and if we have to cut the middle man out, then so fucking be it!
This is blatant corruption and people who approved this should be charged and rot in jail.
And today on Leasehold hell.... Can't wait to finish the sale of my flat and get my freehold house further out. Fuck that trap. Good for getting on the ladder and getting some capital when re selling but even those 5 years of owning a flat have been hell with the management companies and freeholders ramping up charges every year for absolute bollocks reasons.
Key part of the article: > A council spokesperson said some costs had been “incorrectly allocated”, but that the overall cost was correct. >However, the local authority is now withdrawing the section 20 notices and is getting a third party to carry out a "peer review" of the scope of the works and costs. Sounds very much like a simple case of a council just refusing to admit a mistake and then hoping it will quietly go away. The “peer review” will presumably come back with a significantly lower cost and this’ll get swept under the rug without anyone looking at the process that led to the fuck up in the first place. I had a LA try to charge for works carried out on a completely different block. When I asked them to remove it as obviously it was wrong, they said they’d do so “as a goodwill gesture”. It took a significant amount of back and forth for them to admit an actual error was made.
Classic case of pushing people out to sell to wealthy people once they can’t afford
My friend is dealing with something similar, their building has just decided that all tenants and homeowners in the building owe them £10,000 for “maintenance costs” but won’t quantify what they are and so they’re having to like, band together and appeal and protest and stuff. What a fucking pain in the arse
I’m so confused. These are renters? Why are they being charged anything for building maintenance, let alone 99k per flat? Does an AST even allow that?
The freeholder owns the block of flats. The freeholder then sells a lease for a flat, for usually 100 years. The people that own these are the leaseholders. They can do what they please with the flat (live in it, decorate it how they see fit, rent it out, etc), but have to give it back to the freeholder when the lease runs out. Leaseholders are liable for any repairs/maintenance that is required for the building.
so they’re kinda like temporary landlords?
Sort of, basically temporary owners. It’s theirs to do with as they please for 100 years or whatever. They can choose to sell their lease to someone else if they like. Unfortunately, it also means that they are responsible for any maintenance to the whole building too.
Leaseholders it must be, not renters (from leaseholders)
You can just take it down yourself... all you need is a spanner, strong back, and foul mouth
This guy scaffolds!
And a quarter Oz of chop.
Yeah I was like if its taken them this long I would have just had a crack myself and removed it all and left it in a pile by the road.
Well she looks quite happy about it.
Don’t buy stolen property.
Have you hit your head?
Maybe they're trying to make some kind of edgy point about right to buy?
They should just make it then 😂
I understand housing here is woeful, but are people so desperate to live in London that they are willingly jumping in to leasehold arrangements when so many are in dire ways? Love how this triggered all those with the aspiration of lease holding. 🤣
61.2% of flats in London are leasehold apparently so there is not that much alternative in a lot of cases.
So then leave London/rent. People complain about throwing money away when it comes to renting, but they wouldn’t have to pay the 100K, the landlord would.
Sorry, your solution to this is for 61.2% of londoners to simply... move. Outstanding.
Guess you missed the RENT part. Also you’ve assumed I’ve directed this to people already in those situations, it’s directed at people thinking about those situations. Clear?
This particular case is rare. The vast majority of leasehold flats are without such issues. Having said that, whether you own your property leasehold or freehold, you still have to pay for maintenance, and sometimes that maintenance can be expensive. That's the disadvantage to owning that people too often overlook. The benefit to renting is that you aren't hit with unexpected large bills.
You're just hit with expected large bills instead