Leasehold Panel
Minutes of the meeting,
Wednesday the 9 December 2015
1. Attendance:
Leaseholders: Mrs Anne Goodhew (Chair of the Leasehold Panel), Mrs
Azemina Miftaroska, Mr R Towerzey, Ms Anne Gibson, Ms Sue Brown
(Vice-Chair Leasehold Panel), Ms Mary Rawitzer, Ms Pam Furse, Mrs
Shirley Perlman, Ms Maureen Clement, Ms Iris Wenda Ramsamy, Mr
John Nolan, Mr Lloyd Grandson, Mr Peter Gilbert, Mr Martin Harley, Mr
S Sengupta, Mr S Harris, Ms J Gardner, Ms Odette Lewis, Ms Eileen
Marshall, Ms Bridget Lane, Mr Nick Martin-Clark, Ms Lucille Parris, Miss
Mercy Boahene (23)
Apologies: Mrs M Shaw, Mrs Rita Batzias
Chair: Mrs Anne Goodhew
Officers: Mrs Chinyere Ugwu, Community Development Director, Ms
Sue Witherspoon, Housing Strategy and Projects Officer, Haringey
Council, Mr Nesan Thevanesan, Head of Income & Home Ownership,
Mr Peter Mair, Recovery & Litigation Manager and Mr Bruce Nicholas,
Policy Officer who took the minutes.
At the start of the meeting Ms Brown abruptly interrupted the Chair in
order to raise the question of the status of the Resident Involvement
Agreement. In complete opposition to the Chair she demanded that it
should be discussed as one of the main items on the agenda even
though the Chair said she would be happy for it to be discussed under
any other business since there was a full agenda.
However Mr Martin-Clark disregarded the Chair’s request and continued
with the discussion in order to support Ms Brown’s proposal. Since it was
taking a considerable time at the start of the meeting, the Chair put the
matter to the Panel for a vote as to whether the topic should be
included in the main agenda. The Panel rejected the proposal by 13
Page 1 of 8
votes to 8, deciding that the matter should be discussed under any other
business.
2. Leaseholder Engagement and Communication: Leaseholder Survey
2015 – the findings – Chinyere Ugwu, Community Development
Mrs Ugwu began her talk by noting that she had first talked to the
Panel on this subject in June. She wanted to thank all those who had
responded to the survey questionnaire which had been sent to every
leaseholder of Haringey Council (4,684 in total) by email and by post.
Just under 500 leaseholders had responded to the survey. She advised
the Panel that a full summary of the results had been published and
was available to download from Homes for Haringey’s website.
In relation to those who responded, 52% were the original leaseholders
under the Right to Buy and 75% were residing in their properties. They
were broadly representative of the different types of property owned
by the Council in the borough. About 79% had had no previous direct
involvement in shaping services; 38% said they did not have the time or
that the meetings were inconvenient to attend. The preferred methods
of engagement were given as follows:
 On-line surveys – 32%
 Postal surveys – 26%
 Leasehold Panel – 13%
 Attending one off focus groups with specific topic of
interest – 12%
Mrs Ugwu explained that Homes for Haringey had ascertained from
conversations with leaseholders and wider feedback that there were
four main issues for them:
 Ease of service access and reliable advice
 They felt the service experience was disjointed
 The communication was sometimes not clear on responsibilities,
options and service standards
 The charging of service charges and major works invoices did
not seem transparent enough.
As a result of this feedback, the following objectives had been
established:
To improve leaseholders’ general perception of the service and
To build a more effective relationship with leaseholders
Going forward, Homes for Haringey’s strategy would therefore be:
through better engagement to achieve a more reliable and
effective service.
Page 2 of 8
Mrs Ugwu said that Homes for Haringey wanted to set up a more
inclusive system for engaging leaseholders, placing greater priority on
obtaining a broad section of residents’ views via:




Surveys (online, phone, email and by post)
One-off focus groups
Four leaseholder groups
Resident Board Members will continue to have an important role
regarding oversight and accountability
This strategy would enable more leaseholders to be involved since the
majority had said they did not have time to attend meetings. It would
reach more leaseholders without incurring additional costs. The main
underlying principles were as follows.
 Improved / wider communication using preferred channels
including e-newsletters to obtain a wider feedback. More was
now available online and there was increasing use of email
 Multi-faceted approach – sharing feedback on engagement
preferences and results of service assessments to obtain views on
options
 Regular planned activity to seek feedback on specific topics
with updates on actions taken in response to issues raised and
residents’ feedback on their effectiveness.
Mrs Ugwu informed the Panel that the next steps in line with and to
supplement this strategy were planned as follows
 Share feedback results and seek wider engagement through
leaseholders’ preferred channels – email, post and website
 Use of quick mini surveys with more specific focus groups where
appropriate to review aspects of the service.
 Review the service in its entirety in greater detail to ensure the
service experience is consistently reliable, transparent and to
standard
 Develop plans for service improvement and full communication
on review topics / engagement issues and share widely.
 Test and launch the proposed new ‘My Haringey App’ – a new
channel of communication
 Revisit whether improvements work with leaseholders.
Ms Brown claimed that there was nothing new in the proposals which
would address leaseholders’ dissatisfaction. Mrs Ugwu replied that the
strategy would be reinforced by the work of a well known external
consultancy, the Housing Quality Network (HQN). It was currently
undertaking a survey of leasehold services and all leaseholders would
be consulted about their recommendations through the channels she
had outlined.
Page 3 of 8
Mr Thevanesan added that in response to the Council’s requirements
HQN were undertaking a general review of all aspects of leasehold
services. HQN’s recommendations would be incorporated in an action
plan which would be benchmarked with the best practice of other
leading housing providers. It would then be shared with leaseholders
including the Panel.
Mr Gilbert asked whether the rate of response was comparable to
other surveys of this nature. Mrs Ugwu confirmed that it was a good
rate of response. Mr Martin-Clark raised a question about the four
leaseholder groups, since he said it was unclear what they referred to.
Mr Thevanesan said that various types of groups could look at service
related issues such as in relation to high rise, medium rise and street
properties.
Mr Martin-Clark complained that the strategy would abolish any role for
the group he was involved in, that is the Haringey Leaseholders’
Association. A member of the Panel asked whether leaseholders
whose first language was not English for example, might be
disadvantaged by the new strategy. Mr Thevanesan replied that it
would be picked up in the action plan since it was clearly very
important to ensure that the elderly and vulnerable were not
disadvantaged.
Mrs Goodhew thanked Mrs Ugwu for her interesting presentation.
3. Estate Renewal Re-housing and Payments Policy consultation – Sue
Witherspoon, Housing Strategy and Projects Officer, Haringey Council
Ms Witherspoon started her talk by noting that since the consultation
had recently started, leaseholders had until the 17/01/2016 to return
their questionnaires (subsequently extended to the 14/02/2016). They
could complete it online or by email (scanned copy) or through the
post. She explained that the consultation was part of the Council’s
standard approach to such matters. The Cabinet had received a
report detailing the policy proposals for payments and it had therefore
requested feedback from residents.
She said that the proposals related to estates where substantial
changes were proposed requiring residents to move out, such as major
refurbishment, extensive reconstruction or demolition. Full details of the
proposals were available on the Council’s website. They would
establish consistent standards across the borough which would be
published for everyone to refer to. The new policy would apply to
leaseholders and secure tenants.
Page 4 of 8
Ms Witherspoon said it was accepted that some regeneration
proposals were controversial and residents would always be consulted
about them and feedback provided to Councillors before they were
finalised. Referring to the ‘Consultation summary’, she pointed out that
the policies for resettlement would vary according to local
circumstances, such as the number and type of new dwellings. Hence
the Council could not always commit to guaranteeing residents the
right of return to their estates.
Where leaseholders’ properties had to be demolished there would be
individual negotiations. Leaseholders would be entitled by law to
compensation at the market value plus 10% Home Loss and this was
the standard the Council proposed to adopt. If the Council paid more
than this it would reduce the potential return from a redevelopment
scheme since its funding came purely from rents and service charges.
Where people’s circumstances were such that this level of
compensation would cause them particular problems, the Council
would be prepared to consider alternatives if possible. Ms Witherspoon
said that it was open to respondents to the questionnaire to draw
attention to any possible problems of this approach.
Home Loss compensation payments would be payable to leaseholders
and freeholders who had to move. Payments would only be made if
the resident leaseholder or freeholder had been resident for at least a
year as their only or main residence. Payments would be subject to
deductions for any costs or charges owed to the Council.
Leaseholders and freeholders would also be entitled to disturbance
payments, covering things such as surveyors’ fees, legal fees, Land
Registry fees and other costs of the move. Leaseholders and
freeholders would have to make a detailed claim for expenses and
provide receipts. The Council was considering whether to make either
one-off or phased payments.
Once a regeneration scheme had been decided the Council could
issue compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) if necessary. Leaseholder
could challenge issues in respect of property valuation through the
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Certain matters other than
valuations could be challenged through the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government.
A leaseholder raised the question as to how the Council would
determine the market values of properties. Ms Witherspoon replied
that the Council had a well established policy for obtaining property
valuations and that all valuations would be undertaken through the
District Valuer.
Page 5 of 8
Ms Brown cited cases where the amounts leaseholders had received in
compensation had not been sufficient to buy one of the new
properties on their estate. If they had wanted to remain they had had
to agree to a scheme whereby the Council owned a share of the
equity in their property. She said that this sort of issue was not referred
to in the report. Ms Witherspoon replied that her question related to
the situation where particular issues arose from personal circumstances.
An example would be where a leaseholder was too old to obtain a
further mortgage or already had an extended mortgage. Such matters
would have to be discussed on a case by case basis.
In response to another question she explained that leaseholders who
were subletting their properties would be entitled to compensation at
market value. Mr Martin-Clark said that he felt it was clear that there
was no guarantee that a leaseholder would be able to return to the
estate where their property had been situated after it had been
redeveloped. Ms Witherspoon agreed that this was the case and that
observations on such issues could legitimately be included in
questionnaire responses. However she noted that the Council would
endeavour to accommodate people as far as possible, subject to the
resources it had available.
Mrs Goodhew thanked Ms Witherspoon for her interesting talk
4. Report on recovery policy 2015/16 including actuals for the last
financial year, 2014/15 – Peter Mair, Recovery & Litigation Manager
Mr Mair said he would provide a short update on the recovery policy.
The Home Ownership Team was sending more reminders by text and
email, which enabled savings on postage. By such means they sought
to ensure that leaseholders had sufficient notice before legal action
was taken in respect of arrears of payment. Going forward, additional
options would be explored using the social media. Reminders would
continue to be sent by post, especially where people did not have
access to alternative methods.
He explained that where leaseholders had financial problems they
were signposted to the appropriate agencies to obtain independent
debt advice. Prompt recovery action was always required to prevent
the accumulation of arrears. However this should always be balanced
by a sensitive approach where possible. Feedback from leaseholders
concerning recovery methods would always be carefully considered
5. Report from Strategic Core Group – Anne Goodhew
Page 6 of 8
TBA
Mrs Goodhew informed the Panel that the next meeting was to be
held on the 4 March and there would be a pre-meeting on the 19
February. If leaseholders had any issues regarding the Decent Homes
Programme or major works she would be grateful if they could let her
know by email: [email protected] or by phone:
020 8489 3487.
Ms Rawitzer asked how long it should take after the completion of a
major work for the final account to be issued. Mr Thevanesan said it
should be about 12 weeks but he agreed that there had been some
regrettable delays. He said that Homes for Haringey was working with
contractors to reduce the time taken for them to issue the final
accounts, but in some cases issues had arisen which were taking a long
time to resolve.
 Action point.
Mr Thevanesan said he would obtain some
information from Asset Management and report back to the Panel
on the action being taken to speed up the issue of the final
accounts for major works.
6. Minutes of the meeting of the 13 October 2015 –
These were agreed as a true record with Mr Martin-Clark dissenting in
relation to item 7 since he believed that he believed that the
questionnaire had not been properly consulted on before it had been
issued.
7. Any other business
Ms Brown expressed the view that an urgent meeting of the Leasehold
Panel should now be called to discuss the future of the Resident
Involvement Agreement. In response Mr Thevanesan said that In the first
place the agenda had to be agreed with Homes for Haringey and the
Chair in advance of the meeting.
Furthermore Haringey Leaseholders Association had now raised the
matter by means of a letter from their solicitor. This meant that as far as
Homes for Haringey was concerned it was subject to a formal legal
process outside of the Panel and so he could not comment any further.
In relation to the future of the Panel, Homes for Haringey had decided to
continue its existence as a result of the views expressed through the
survey to all leaseholders (discussed at item one on the agenda).
Page 7 of 8
Mrs Goodhew then raised the following matter. A proposal was going to
the Cabinet to reduce litter picking and street cleaning to once a week
so if anyone wished to comment on the matter they should raise it with
their Councillor as soon as possible.
Mrs Goodhew thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.
Page 8 of 8