Memorandum by Mr Paul Palley
I am writing to you with general observations
about Leaseholders, who have Local Authority Landlords that are
responsible for the maintenance and repair of individual properties
and the Estates on which Leasehold property is situated. Please
provide copies of this letter to your Committee members.
PUBLIC HOUSING
AUTHORITIES
The obligations and role of public Housing Authorities
are far more extensive than the obligations between Landlord Tenant
under a private commercial contract. Major works that are beneficial
to the general public are often carried out and charged to the
Leaseholder. For example Estate and Block security works which
are intended to assist police, save police time and to deal with
anti-social behaviour have been charged to lessees. Environmental
improvements that are part of large-scale plans for public regeneration
are likewise charged to lessees. On large estates Local Authorities
maintain public roads, spaces and gardens. The decent Homes policy
is an example of Major works, which were planned and funded on
the instruction of central government and where there was no real
consultation with leaseholders. In fact many Local Authorities
are currently applying for dispensation from the entire Section
20 consultation.
In regard to annual services, there are many
items provided such as translation of documents into foreign languages
and numerous questionnaires on ethnicity, equality and household
details which may be considered of public benefit. Although these
services could legitimately be funded by the Tax Payer as part
of public Housing policy, they would not normally be considered
part of normal services between Landlord and Tenant. Yet Leaseholders
are required to pay for them.
EFFICIENCY
There are approximately 400 Local Authorities
in England and Wales, which administer Housing stock. Although
lessees are generally obliged under their leases to contribute
to these administrative costs, the bulk of cost is ultimately
borne by the Taxpayer. The larger central London landlords are
spending £25-30 million each on administration before any
actual services are provided. Nationally this will be equivalent
to a cost in the order of £10 billion merely to administer
public housing. There are more public sector employees working
in housing administration than work for Lloyds Bank and Barclays
Bank and RBS combined. Leaseholders, who take these matters to
the LVT are assisting the Government and the Taxpayer in helping
to reduce public waste. This fact gets scant recognition. They
face an arduous task and great resistance from their Landlords,
who wish to protect the jobs of Local Council employees. Your
Committee could set objective standards of administrative efficiency
in terms of man-hours per dwelling etc.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Many of the government building programmes are
totally ineffective. Play grounds are renovated at great expense
and instantly destroyed. Security works fail to deal effectively
with anti-social behaviour. A serious policy of eviction would
be considered socially unacceptable and I do not advocate such
a policy. The sad truth is that many problems on estates are insoluble.
However, once a programme of public expenditure
is budgeted for, expense takes place on a "Use it or Lose
it" basis. Any reduction in expense would lead to a reduction
in the power of the administrators who spend Tax Payers' money.
The bureaucrats in Local government who make a living from administering
these things are directly threatened by any assertion that these
items are not effective of not cost-effective. They have every
personal motive to exaggerate the importance and benefit of what
they do, whereas Leaseholders who pay the cost of these things
wish to see cost-effective and worthwhile expenditure. Leaseholders
need to be defended against the excessive amount of public funds
currently being expended on Local Authority Housing. The burden
of proof at LVT is heavily weighed against the Leaseholder and
it is a huge inconvenience and expense for lessees to take these
matters to the Tribunals. The Tribunals, which are low level courts,
are also reluctant to meddle in political matters. It is therefore
necessary for parliament and politicians to put in place a protection
for leaseholders.
PROMOTING SOCIAL
DIVERSITY
The government claims that it wants to promote
socially diverse occupation on Estates and that it wants "middle
class" homes built on Local Authority land. However, at the
present time they are driving many right-to-buy owner-occupiers
to the verge of forfeiture with their current expenditure policies.
These people have simply tried to put aside a little bit of capital
by investing in their own homes. They take pride in their estates,
which are often challenging social environments. Frankly they
may be described as "the salt of the earth".
If the government wants to transform estates,
it is essential to start by protecting property values from politically
inspired expenditure programmes. All that is being achieved at
the moment is a severe undermining of re-sale values. In these
circumstances, Local Authority Estates cannot be transformed;
they will remain ghettos that are shunned by any ordinary property
owner except high risk taking buy-to-let Landlords. The fact that
Local Authority property generally fails to sell easily in the
open market is testimony to the persistent failure of government
renewal policies.
Mr Paul Palley
8 March 2007
| 
