My name is Dr. Stefan Piechnik, as of recent a very reluctant nominee OTLA
(Oxford Towerblock Leaseholder Association) Chairman to fight irrationally high
service charges served by Oxford City Council to the Leaseholders in the five
Tower blocks around the Oxford.
I have been alerted to this discussion and I feel that I need to rectify and
clarify on several points made here, in particular by Mr. Darke.
Firstly, for one, I do live in the Tower block. It is conveniently placed about
7 minutes walk from my office, which helps enormously a self-confessed
workaholic who usually would be fully dedicated to fighting heart disease.
Unfortunately for the cardiac patients, students, and potentially my career,
unduly large proportion of the wake-time (and sleepless nights) now is now
spent trying to make sense of the web misinformation and plain absurd that have
lead to the current situation. It is so complicated so that it needs being
explained in sections:
* Who are those horrible leaseholders? *
Given multiple other discussions, I believe some individuals engage in a
dangerous attempt to alienate the Leaseholders from Council Tenants as
apparently rich individuals who live elsewhere and do not care.
_This is not just only dangerously socially divisive but plainly not true:_
By my accounts, 25 of 31 current OTLA members live in their flats. Even by Mr
Darke's count 23 who do not live there would be still a minority. Not that it
really matters, right-to-buy was intended as springboard to social mobility and
housing market. Some poeple stay, some moved out, some rented, some bought and
moved in. Nobody else's business really!
Are we rich? Well that certainly depends. As career academic (~70 scientific
papers, 1 professional, 3 learned degrees) I am likely to be considered one of
the more successful. But, to pay off the service charge proposed by City
Council within their interest free 3-year offer, I would need to have salary of
>£47’000 to afford living just at the minimal wage level for those threee
years.
When I talked to solicitor who conveyanced my flat purchase (Mr
Pilling/Headington, with regards) he asked me if I make much enough, Based on
my answer he smiled and very kindly advised me to consider changing the job.
Oh, and as the final proof, he did not charge for the advice. wheter you find
it funny or not, the other story is that there are OTLA members who asked to
pay £10 (TEN pounds, not missing any zeros!) instalments towards the voluntary
£200 legal costs of OTLA. That’s to fight the lawyers towards whom they ALREADY
pay £120 monthly service contributions. Ironic, isn’t it?
(NB. If anyone can chip in for our fight, you are welcome, do get in touch with
me -- as academic I am used to begging, that all what OTLA does, we do not
charge any fees!).
* Have leaseholders been consulted? *
_The answer is simple, as the paying party – NEVER!_
Oxford City Council did engage in extensive public consultation with *all*
residents, which were declared great success and city officials declared in
media full support and no mention of any reservations made. For one, I know
there were some, mine at least!. Albeit I cannot prove they were passed to the
people who spoke.
In any case, with 85% of residents not paying for improvements, quite
expectedly, the most expensive and extravagant solutions were chosen. Well,
nearly...., One exception already known are the triple glazed Swedish-designed
foldable aluminium windows shown and discussed at exhibitions, which silently
degraded to just "modern" (whatever that means) double glazing, ...
That's "not as advertised" in the first place, And thus why would I replace my
perfectly functional "double glazing" for some other "double glazing" , which
desription seems to have a life on its own. The only reasonable answer from
anyone certifiably sane is "No thank you". Just for the hassle of a properly
major refurbishemnt lasting over a year that apparently involves packing up all
my stuff and moving out of one's home...
And, that's before the £12'000 bill is mentioned to make (arguably yet much
easier!) decision on economic grounds. Oxford City Council gave no indication
of the relevant cost to the leaseholders, going as far as to refuse a very
specific Freedom of Information Act enquiry as early as 2008 (quoting an
undisclosed legal advice), and uttered not a word since. Not just on charges,
of which the value they may claim not to have to the last penny, but even
generally - on items and proportions of what is chargeable and what is not. Oh
yes! - and this is where the fun begins.
* What Leaseholders think we should pay for and should NOT pay for *
Let me quote Mr Darke’s own post 2016-02-10 at 1:01 pm:
In the very first sentence he uses nearly all terms of distinction lying at
the core of dispute: “The proposed work to *repair* and *refurbish* the
Council's five tower blocks will *improve* the living conditions of all the
residents.”
Rest of post
-------- *repair* YES: Leaseholders already pay annual fees for this. These
fees must be considered "resonable".
-------- *refurbish* NOT really: The word used by City Council is not
mentioned anywhere in our obligations and introduced, purposefully or not, most
confusion. Luckily by most dictionaries its definition amounts to superficial
cleaning and painting.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/refurbishment
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/refurbish
If this project is just"refurbishment", I do tell you, for £50'000 one can fill
my flat with paint and soap from the floor up to the ceiling and well over!
-------- *improve* definite NO: by the explicit understanding of current law,
the leaseholders are not expected to pay however for “improvements” such as
consistently mentioned above by Mr. Darke, many other Oxford City officials,
press and pretty much anyone sapient caring to consider the scope of works.
Rationally, that includes any measures leading to improvements that are
reaching above the restoration/repair of prior quality levels.
ILLUSTRATION: In "car" terms, insurance premium would not increase for
*repairing* the brakes in one's car, but only as long as repairs just return of
the original performance. To the contrary, if you install water cooled brakes
and tune the engine, add trims, alloy wheels, and HiFi system for a few grand,
to imprve beyond the intital design, do expect to face that insurer will ask to
pay the premium.
*Why Leaseholders should NOT to pay for improvements that benefit from them*
It is a protection - fair and reasonable. It should be in place for any type of
leasehold property, because "improvement" works can be conceived as (and appear
in this case!) to be arbitrarily large, expensive, poor value for money and/or
benefit landlords interests unfairly. Let me explain why.
Since I moved in, the progression of the major work’s invoices is already
deeply worrying: ~£400/intercom, then ~£1400/consultancy, now ~£50’000
"refurbishment". Based on these numbers estiamte the next charge to be
~£500,000. Seriously, no joke! HALF A MILLION pounds, next time!
For value for money let me give an example of intercom installed 2 years ago.
This costed ~£35'000 (per block) in two installmets. One for "intercom", the
other for the "entry system", which are the same system to my eyes of a trained
electronic engineer. Somewhat intrigues, I spent 5 minutes on internet search
to find the off-the-shelf devices costing ~£400 (total!) that do all that is
necessary and beyond. In particular having no malfunction-prone miles of
cabling, likely much more convenient and cheaper to run. See:
http://www.onlinesecurityproducts.co.uk/gsm-door-entry.html
That was 2 years ago. Now guess what? Charges for "refurbishment" provide for
*repositioning* of the cabled system at cost ~£2'000 (before profits and
management costs!!)! Good value for money? I dare say not!
If the current madness could be proven valid, in future, Oxford City Council
should just get together with NASA, create common budget from all sources
possible and claim they want to improve our life by engaging in indisputably
worthwhile and even potentially life-saving mission to Mars for the possible
case of doomsday. Based on timely press releases on ongoing success, they would
be able to claim a "fair" share from leaseholders? Yes? Apparently!
*Are those MAJOR works all necessary?*
Lets talk about the really important one - i.e. doomsday’s "is the roof going
to cave in"?
I would guess if the immediate dangers were discovered by existing surveys, the
tenants would be all out by now. But I do not know really - this is really to
be ascertained based on survey information that no one but city official ever
saw.
However, already there are important questions:
Question 1) Why would any one entertain committing to all blocks, all elements,
all improvements on such scale at once. This is important, because the cost
offered to leaseholders is only an estimate and clearly stated to depend on
future surveys by the very company who does the remedial work.
ILLUSTRATION: If anyone has MOT on an old car, you know what that means! --
MOT garage will always find problems to repair and charge accordingly.
Now, the current situation looks like passing the whole fleet by the same
garage at once. They have full control and a lot of cost can be rationalised.
Perhaps no need even to call NASA to pump the charge to £0.5M. In fact only
£100k is enough to make all leaseholders to be wiped out... Absolutely not a
laughing matter!
Why? because of question 2:
Question 2) Why do all blocks cost virtually the same amount per flat to
"repair/refurbish"? That’s despite just one having widely advertised structural
and roof problems and all other blocks looking pretty damn solid to the naked
eye. Coincidence?... Really!?
* Are those MINOR works sensible? *
This is something a home-owner may actually have an opinion, and while no home
is perfect and everyone wants it better. The essential questions for any
homeowner are however “can I afford it” and “will that save me money”. And here
there are already a few indications of corporate attitude to leaseholder’s (and
taxpayer’s!!!) money:
--- Mould (mentioned by Mr Darke): When I moved into my flat, north wall and
the corner above the balcony window did have mould. I sorted this with about
£10 of mould removing spray and purchased dehumidifier (~£100) which prevents
recurrence at minimal running daily cost (~fridge..). I am not sure if the
ventilation system being installed will do all the same, as the model to be
installed does not actually appear to have humistat. Most interestingly the
price for the system listed in specifications (Nuaire MEVDC2, check yourself)
is ~£200; installed by City council it costs ~£900.
--- Warmth. I did find the windows too draughty for my tastes when I moved in.
My solution: spend £2.97 (seriously! TWO pounds NINETY SEVEN pence -- think 99p
shop) to get the tape to seal windows. This lasted the last three winters (and
I still have some tape left). Given that I got about 2-3 hours exercise
cleaning the windows I guess it is actually a saving of about £20 on a gym fee.
Now - Oxford City Council’s solution: replace the windows with frames using
high rise scaffolds at ~£12’000 per flat. Oh, and add thermal cladding for good
measure without any care about the cost! The cost in meters square, so hard to
work out, but already the first sum makes my eyes water... Crazy or what?!
--- Heating. The flats are equipped with standard and seriously robust storage
heaters designed by pretty thrifty folk in the 1960’s. These can be repaired
with a hammer (proverbially, one usually needs a screwdriver to replace the
thermal fuse at a cost of £10, and perhaps check if thermostat did not get
stuck).
Now, please, please, please do… do see with what the City council wants those
to replace with: http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R1U6TO438J3M87
Interestingly the retail prices for those devices are ~£120 with delivery,
while the schedule of costs indicates replacing the three existing storage
heaters will cost £1400. Before management fees! Quadruple or what!?
.... and so on....
* Loans and financial help *
Yes, Oxford city council did advertise review of personal financial situation
to Leaseholders in the last quarter of 2015. The little problem was, none of us
knew we actually needed a loan at that time. More serious problem is that city
council is not regulated financial institution, and apparently did not even
record or formalise those “chats”. My impression is that such “friendly” chats
can be obtained freely from any local loan shark. And given that the bill is
not final because a lot of works are provisional I am not willing anyone in
powers to invoice me to rubme through my finances. Even though I personally am
assured that will be "taken good care of...". Like shorn to the skin? No, thank
you. Please… Police? Anyone?!
*Efficiency and savings*
Put £50’000 in a bank for long term loan at 3% (high street bank!) to get £1500
annually. To beat this, given my current energy bill, those efficiencies need
to save more energy than I currently use and the energy company would have to
PAY me BACK £500 (or £2000, considering 6% on investments can be achieved
after a bit of search).
Now, VERY IMPORTANTLY, I suspect somewhat that very few are lucky enough to
have £50’00 hidden behind the sofa, and thus most leaseholders must get a LOAN
at ~6%. Then, even if the energy company magically would pay the £500 back, the
borrower is still £1500 deep in red. In my dictionary this is not exactly
“saving” but rests pretty solid under the “liability” term. A rather LARGE
liability.
Or perhaps I miss something in the profit calculations. Something like “magic”
perhaps?
* Financial impact on leaseholders in Oxford and nationally *
As result the leaseholders will eventually be forced to take equity options
with Oxford city council, which effectively puts the properties back under
Council’s management. Even if not now, the increase in charges (think NASA,
i.e. astronomic scales!) second charge would wipe out any right-to-buy freedoms
that were paid for previously, pretty much applies anywhere.
---- Entertained? I am nearly done. As the summary let me tell that as an
ANECDOTE:
City Council kindly switched the lights off in a dark alley for eight years,
and under candle light arranged cosy meetings for people to tell preferences
about stuff being made of gold, silver or wood. Having finally produced a
baseball bat made of the material chosen by such public consultation, the
officials appear to believe clearly that the best way forward is to address the
only people who seem to own a suit with the most existential choice of them
all: "pay or else?".
Fairytale? Absolutely not! Apparently that passes for a completely legal
process nowadays and Oxford City Council is prepared to test that in courts,
completely voluntarily and at its own (oops, wrong, not own! - “taxpayer’s”!)
expense. Hurrah!
Well, hopefully something to chew on for everyone.