• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • JB Leitch
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • JB Leitch
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / News / ‘Guesstimate’ £50,000 new roof blamed for death of leasehold owner aged 93

‘Guesstimate’ £50,000 new roof blamed for death of leasehold owner aged 93

June 6, 2013 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

LKPExpressThe family of a woman, aged 93, who died in her ex-council leasehold flat blames the council causing her death by submitting a “guesstimate” £50,000 bill for a new roof.

It now appears that an LVT has accepted a surveyor’s report that the roof might have lasted another 40 years.

Florence Bourne died in her first floor flat in Newham, North London, which was covered in scaffolding for the unnecessary repairs.

Indeed, her family told the Express newspaper that she died of a heart attack after being startled by a falling tile when she stepped on to her balcony.

Her son Roy Bourne, 65, is quoted as saying: “”I was sitting there next to her on the day before she died and all she could say to me was, ‘I’m so sorry, son, I’ve left you with such a debt’.

“For a woman that was proud, who had served her country and who had always lived as we all should live, honestly and decently, that was a horrific way to die.

“She was so independent it was a job to get her to accept help even from her own family.

She died of shame because she thought she’d left the family with a massive debt [for the roof]. It’s the last thing she’d ever want.”

The case highlights the perils that can face those who buy their council flats.

Councils are notoriously spendthrift on repairs of their property. While the bills aren’t paid by the council tenants, they are by those who have bought the property.

They then discover that they have very limited protections under leasehold law when councils start issuing eye-watering payment demands for repairs.

The LVT said: “No survey or other expert evidence is provided”, adding that it was “satisfied that the existing roof remained in reasonable condition with a remaining life of 40 years and that it was not reasonable to replace it in 2010”.

Florence was a constituent of Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

He is quoted: “We are looking into this problem and trying to find out how widespread this problem is across the country. Newham had a duty of care to exercise proper control over what happens to those properties.

“Either they were excessively and supremely incompetent or they didn’t care.”

Any leasehold owners in ex-local authority property facing disproportionate repair bills should raise the matter with Pickles, or housing minister Mark Prisk.

LKP thanks Nigel Wilkins, of CARL (Campaign Against Residential Leasehold) for bringing this case to our attention

Related posts:

Florrie’s Law means new £15,000 cap on repair bills for council leasehold owners Pickles to stop councils charging leasehold owners more than £10,000 for major block repairs. But will it help many? Today’s BBC Five Live interview with Eric Pickles and Leasehold Knowledge Partnership … Second Christmas of misery for ‘squirrels in the roof’ leasehold owners Default ThumbnailCentreForum think tank urges £2 per flat owner to regulate leasehold

Category: News

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (45) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (42) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (67) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (201) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « All change for Leasehold Valuation Tribunals on July 1
Next Post: Hopeless case on course to RTM … »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. maxtee

    June 6, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    This is not confined to the public sector landlord. When I, without prior notice, just received a £5K ‘demand’ from my private freeholder/landlord followed one month later by a demand for a further £3K this made me physically sick for a month. No details were given until the subsequent LVT hearing, about a year later, and then schedules were suddenly conjoured up to suppoprt the gueesstimate and the demands which by then had topped £20K (and growing). Needless to say this only gave me a long bank holiday period in which to fruitlessly consult experts (Easter) and then they ‘faxed’ a further 30+ sheets to the actual hearing. The LVT seemed to be quite happy about this ‘tactic’. Also the surveyor who allegedly prepared the original ‘guesstimate’ declined to attend so I was unable to cross-examine.
    Apparantly, so long as you call your demands a ‘reserve fund’ specific details nor s20 consultations are not required nor does the s20 capping protection apply.
    Since advanced warning would have, at the very least, been polite and prepared the leaseholder for the sudden assault of formal ‘demands’, one has to assume that at the back of the minds of those reputed building professionals who sent out the first demands out of the blue, there was the notion that if the odd leaseholder did drop dead with shock, that would only clear away a potential obstacle to their and the landlord’s objectives.

    • Paul

      June 9, 2013 at 10:29 am

      Maxtee
      It is outrageous the way that leaseholders are sent demands without any consultation; leaseholders end up in a legal dispute, where most of the time we are not aware of the legal maze we find ourselves in

      Where managing agents are using their professionals on a day to day basis No wonder leaseholders are under terrible stress for months or even years.
      When I bought my first block leasehold flat, I had never heard of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal—however four years later I am still involved with them to this day.

  2. Jeff platt

    June 10, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    “While the bills aren’t paid by the council tenants,” Wrong! The Housing Revenue Account is ring fenced – expenditure on repairs is met out of rental income i.e. by the tenants.

  3. julie

    June 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    Jeff, Could you elaborate on this? As I understand it, the repairs in a council block would be paid for out of the council’s entire Housing Revenue Account – ie by all the tenants in a particular council.

    This causes resentment among leasehold owners as proportionally a higher levy is raised from them, ie a calculation based on their individual block.

    Is this the case. Thanks,

  4. Jeff platt

    June 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    Julie,
    Why is that wrong or inequitable? Why does that lead to leaseholders paying more than their due proportion of the actual costs incurred? All tenants pay as per their tenancy agreement / lease. Some tenants (leaseholders) pay towards the actual cost of works when incurred. Other tenants pay every week within their rent. That is what each has agreed to do.

  5. Michael Epstein

    June 10, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    I seem to recall mention being made of contractors making contributions towards expenses to councils in relation to being awarded work. This creates yet another conflict of interest. As ever, it is the leaseholder who suffers.

  6. Julie

    June 10, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    Jeff, Well the problem is that people buy these leasehold properties thinking that they are taking a step forward, and then find it is in fact three backwards as the bills are so much higher for them than their tenant neighbours. Of course, whether council accommodation should be sold off is another discussion altogether.

  7. LHA

    June 11, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    Well thats wrong to say that the secure tenants or assured tenants in RSLs pay as they do not pay toward capital works of this nature as those rents are artifcially set , have no relation block to block for their payment and the resulting expenses, while the leaseholder does pay for the full cost of the works. Morover much of this work is funded, and only possible, by funding for items such as decent homes initiatives so that the priority for spending is to “spend it while we have it/can get it”. There is therefore a marked difference in an RSL approach to works than Councils.
    The secure tenant is almost always is a position of need and has no choice to the terms of the tenancy, unlike leaseholders so its wrong to say that these are terms that either party freely agreed to .

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web