| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
“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”,
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.
12.15 pm
Willie Rennie (Dunfermline and West Fife) (LD): My hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was keen to participate in this debate, but he has had to leave to attend an important constituency engagement. He was a sponsor of the Bill, and was pleased to be here this morning when the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) introduced the Bill. He is a keen supporter of the Bill mainly because it would shift the balance between overbearing councils or housing associations and leaseholders, who are often left out of the process. It would empower them to have more of a say, and that cannot be a bad thing.
The Bill is not a threat or a challenge: it would just give leaseholders the right to be involved and put forward alternatives. For example, it would give them the right to prepare an alternative proposal, which is innocuous enough. In fact, it could be advantageous by allowing the council to see other options. The Bill would also give leaseholders the right to a ballot on the decision. The right to transparency on the details would not be threatening either, and councils and housing associations should be prepared to be challenged about past work so that they can be sure that they have got value for money. The Bill also proposes a budget to ensure that the bill for works in any one year is not unaffordable.
When we set out national programmes, we often fail to consider leaseholders—the many thousands of people who have bought a house and who should be consulted. It is not threatening to have to engage them in deciding on best practice. Indeed, it could be very constructive. The Bill also includes a low-cost arbitration process.
The pressure from tenants to improve and upgrade houses is immense. I have people coming to my surgeries every week to demand more and more for their houses—rightly, because some of the houses are in poor condition. But that pressure is different for leaseholders, who want to weigh the balance between the effect of spending that money and the cost of it to their own purse. In the narrow sense, tenants do not have that consideration—although of course in the global sense they do. That is why leaseholders need to be fully engaged in the process.
The councils and housing associations are under great pressure to deliver. We politicians hold them to account for what they do on a day-to-day basis, and if they fail to live up to the mark, they can be kicked out in the elections. That pressure to perform often means that leaseholders are overridden—seen as a minor irritant in the way of progress. That is why we need this sensible and reasonable Bill. As I have said, it includes provisions on ballots; transparency; budget limits for one year; low-cost arbitration; and the right to be consulted. It may not deal with every point, but it is not a threat to the Government, councils or housing associations. Rather, they should welcome this contribution and engagement with the process. They should see leaseholders as valued partners, not as threats or irritants. That is why the Liberal Democrats support the Bill.
12.19 pm
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) for promoting the Bill, and I congratulate her on doing so. It has enabled us to refer to the work of our local registered social landlord, Broomleigh Housing, and issues that are common to Members with constituencies across the country.
I was also grateful that my hon. Friend accepted at the outset that the Bill, if it progresses, will need changing in Committee. On the basis that the intention is to limit its application to public sector leaseholders—
Robert Neill: I see that my hon. Friend nods to confirm that, and so I think we can give it our “in principle” support, in the expectation that in Committee improvements and refinements can be made to ensure that we address precisely the issues that are at hand.
My hon. Friend struck a very important note about basic justice, which is something that I have come across with my constituents. There is an imbalance of treatment between leaseholders in the private sector and leaseholders in the public sector. I hope that that will weigh compellingly with the Government as they decide their stance on the Bill, given the concessions made by my hon. Friend about amendment in Committee. I cannot believe that the Government, any more than the Opposition, would wish to see leaseholders who happen to be in the public sector being disadvantaged in comparison with those in the private sector. Ironically, they are sometimes disadvantaged in comparison with tenants in the private sector, depending on the attitude of the council and the RSL.
There has been a long history of monopolies sometimes being unresponsive to their tenants, either deliberately or because of a culture that seeps into an organisation. I can remember that attitude from when I was a London borough councillor, back as long ago as when the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) recalled his experiences in Westminster. When I was a parliamentary candidate in Dagenham, the local authority was monolithic in dealing with its tenants. Since then, things have improved there, as they have in many local authorities, but an underlying problem remains. Under the current legislation, the local authority leaseholder, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend, is at a disadvantage in comparison with others. I think it right that that disadvantage should be addressed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon about the risk posed by contractors sometimes taking advantage of that monopolistic position. That is made worse when the leaseholders are unable to apply the same basic leverage as other tenants would. I hope that for that reason, if for nothing else, the Bill will commend itself to the Government.
I was interested, too, to note the lacuna that seems to exist in relation to the Tenant Services Authority, which I was very interested to find out about. I am not seeking to be unduly party political, but it seems strange that the Government, having created two quangos in place of one to deal with housing, have reached a situation where there seems to be a gap in the available protection. Some people—the public sector leaseholders—fall through
the system and are covered by neither quango. I hope that, although that does not come within the scope of this Bill, we could sensibly address that failing. I have great respect for the Tenant Services Authority, its excellent chairman, Anthony Mayer, who I have known for a number of years, and its team. Clearly, somebody needs to act as a champion for public sector leaseholders and I hope that the Government will look beyond the scope of the Bill and redress that imbalance as a matter of justice.
Let us consider the question of contracts, repairs and so on, and the inevitable pressures, to which my hon. Friend rightly referred, on RSLs, in particular, to seek larger contracts and to bundle them together to seek efficiencies. It is important to try to strike a balance between that and the risk of unfair treatment from a largely monopolistic supplier. Again, that seems to me to be a compelling reason for bringing forward this Bill.
It is surprising that the Government have not so far been willing to move on this matter. I hope the when the Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination responds, she will take that on board. I was a little disappointed last year to receive an answer to a written question to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), which stated that
“it will not always be appropriate or helpful to make identical provisions for social sector and private sector leaseholders in order to provide them with similar rights and protections.”—[ Official Report, 13 May 2008; Vol. 473, c. 586W.]
I was surprised to hear that, and even more surprised to hear it at a time when the right hon. Member for Salford was Secretary of State. I would be surprised to hear it from anyone of her party. The wording may have been unfortunate. It is not language that I would like to adopt on behalf of my party, because where we can do so in a proportionate and sensible manner, we ought to try to ensure as level a playing field as we can.
As I say, I hope that we can move to a situation in which one group does not fall through the gaps in the system, particularly given that all parties seem to desire to encourage mixed communities; that is certainly the Government’s stance. They want people of different tenure to live side by side. I would not disagree with that. That makes it all the more unfair if, probably not through a deliberate policy, but just as one of those perverse consequences that arise from an omission somewhere in the drafting of legislation, one group of occupiers is in a less advantaged situation than the others. I hope that that, too, is a compelling reason why the Government should at least let the Bill make progress, with a view to seeing what refinements can be made in Committee.
The other points were compellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, so I do not intend to keep the debate going at any great length. When she responds, I am sure that she will make it clear that the provision on the £12,000 payment is intended to relate to the public-sector leaseholder. In the private sector, there is more negotiating power—power that those in the public sector do not have. With those observations, and the assurance from the promoter of the Bill that she would amend it in Committee, I hope that the House feels that the Bill raises important issues. It is not perfect in its current form, but its proposer does not pretend that it is. It raises issues that need to be addressed,
and if it did go forward to Committee, hopefully we could come up with a solution that deals with issues that, on the face of it, potentially lead to injustice and unfairness in the treatment of people. It ought to be possible, with good will, to find a sensible and proportionate means of addressing that.
12.27 pm
Barry Gardiner (Brent, North) (Lab): In many senses, the Bill is a result of the failure of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. That was flawed in many ways, and I say that as someone who campaigned for five years to get it on the statute book. It was a great day when that was achieved. It was only the third leasehold reform Act since 1887, and it was substantially flawed. That was partly because civil servants had done their usual thing of giving their Minister a “Blue Peter” Bill—one that they had prepared earlier. It had substantially been prepared for the Conservative Government and had not taken account of all the work done in subsequent years by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) on the subject.
Of course, civil servants were fearful that the 2002 Act would not get through the Lords. In those days, the landed interests of those there were still substantial; civil servants were very fearful that they would fight the Bill for a long period and delay the Government’s legislative programme accordingly. For that reason, key elements of the 2002 Act did not work properly. However, it introduced consultation, which was not obligatory before. Critically, it introduced an obligation on landlords to hold moneys in trust. Extraordinarily, that had not previously been a requirement. Of course, it also supposedly made commonhold and enfranchisement easier.
I remember that in my speech on Second Reading of that Bill, I said that even if 5 per cent. of new properties were designated commonhold, I would consider it a tremendous success if that were achieved within 10 years. Sadly, I have been proven right. Nowhere near 5 per cent. of new build is commonhold. I gave a target of 10 per cent. for enfranchisement, and that target, too, has not been met. That shows the fundamental inadequacies of the 2002 Act. I concluded my speech by saying that we would have to revisit the issue in seven or eight years, but what is seven or eight years when leaseholders have been waiting 130?
It is essential that the inadequacies of the original Bill are widely addressed, which would encompass some of the points made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I always advise people not to buy leasehold unless they also have a share of freehold. It is only with a share of freehold that people get control. The issue of control is precisely what she raised in the Chamber today. People buy their house, thinking that they have finally become homeowners. They therefore think that they have control over their property. The tragedy of leasehold is that they do not. Their landlord has control over the property, all the more so, as she pointed out, in the public sector or with registered social landlords.
I believe the Minister will refer the hon. Lady to section 151 of the 2002 Act, which amended section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and will say, “You don’t understand. Provision for consultation is already made there.” If I were the hon. Lady, I would make this response: “To have a right but no means of enforcing that right is to have no right at all.”
That goes to the heart of the issues that the hon. Lady raised, which all of us across the Chamber recognise from our casework experience. The rights may exist, but either the RSL does not know that it has those obligations, or the leaseholders do not know that they have those rights. Where they do know and try to enforce their rights, they find that there is no mechanism for them to do so.
To have a right but no means of enforcement is to have no right at all. That is why the matter needs to be addressed. My own view is that it probably cannot be addressed by the mechanism of the Bill. The hon. Lady is sufficiently experienced in the House, and I know from her indications to me that she understands that, but today she has provided a very valuable service not only to the House and to the Government, but to leaseholders across the country. The issues must be revisited and addressed. Those rights and the remedies for breaches of those rights must be put firmly back into the hands of leaseholders.
12.33 pm
The Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination (Ms Rosie Winterton): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on her success in bringing the Bill before the House. It is obviously an important subject. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), and the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for their contributions.
I understand why hon. Members on both sides of House think that the subject is important. We all want to ensure that people live in decent homes, where they can have input into issues that affect them and their communities, particularly when they are asked to contribute directly by paying service charges, as in the case of leaseholders.
I assure the hon. Lady and everyone else who has contributed to the debate that I will look carefully at the points made and discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing. I know that hon. Members feel strongly about this and I hope that I will be able to give them some reassurances. The hon. Lady made it clear that she understood that parts of her Bill were defective.
The Bill’s underlying principle is to help leaseholders who are being asked to pay high service charges. In some of my remarks there will obviously be a crossover between private sector and public sector leaseholders although, as I acknowledged, I know that in this Bill the hon. Lady feels most strongly about public sector leaseholders. The Bill seeks to give secure tenants more input with their landlords where national consultations are concerned. As I have said, those are all worthy aims, and I will deal with some of the specifics in more detail later.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |