• 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
    • 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
      • 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 / Latest News / £146,257 – the highest major works bill ever?

£146,257 – the highest major works bill ever?

April 9, 2019 //  by Admin2

Leaseholders at Tustin Estate run by Southwark Council have had an estimated major works bill at a staggering £146,257.22p for a two bedroom flat.

This may well be the highest bills ever to have been sent out in the social sector. If anyone has seen a larger bill per flat for a social sector major works project please let us know.

Eric Pickles introduced Florries Law in 2014 to limit major works bills to £15,000 per flat in London. But the law only applies if the works part funded by central government.

An average family would need to not eat, drink or spend a single penny for more than 6 years to be able to pay this bill of £146,257. Even the chief executive of Southwark Council paid £216,236 a couple of years ago might find the need to scrimp and save to find this much money.

The S20 consultation document landed on the leaseholder’s doorsteps in February but because Southwark has a Qualifying Long Term Agreement in place (QLTA) the leaseholders only right is to make observations rather than submit potentially lower quotations.

The council does not even feel it relevant to inform leaseholders who the contractor might be simply assuring that the council is committed to ensuring “the best price for the work”. The leaseholders are not informed of how long this QLTA has been in place.

LKP spoke at the Southwark leaseholders conference last year. We explained we have never seen any evidence these long term contracts provide benefit to the consumer. The opposite may well be the case. For over 20 years the whole of the social sector and all the experts who advise them seem to have based their purchasing decisions on a set of misunderstandings.

1) The social sector often quotes the European Procurement Rules as requiring certain types of tender which tends to encourage the use of these QLTAs. While this may be true for some providers the government told LKP they do not think the European Procurement rules apply to all providers in the social sector. We are also aware of at least one local authority which has taken legal advice which says they do not need to use QLTA and can, therefore, more easily place smaller contracts which fall outside the European contract rules.

2) The social sector often quotes their obligation to use QLTA under the governments’ value for money obligations. The government tells LKP this is not true their guidance makes no reference to the need to use these QLTA’s.

3) The social sector often quotes “Egan Principles” which supposedly recommend the use of QLTA’s. According to Sir John Egan who wrote the Egan Report on improving construction techniques in the late 1990s his “Egan Principles” simply do not exist. He never spoke to the social sector and never intended his report to be used for buildings maintenance.

A copy of the full s20 can be read here:

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [532.03 KB]

Related posts:

BBC R4 You and Yours features £36,000 car crash leasehold defiance over Southwark major works scheme Hurray! Clarion leaseholders fight £32,000 major works bills Southwark council leaseholders see major works bill slashed from £17,000 to £8,000 Board ousted at St Katherine’s Dock after whopping £5.5m major works bill BBC features 50 Oxford City Council leaseholders facing £50,000 major works bill

Category: Latest 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 (44) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (39) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (40) 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 (64) 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 (200) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (42) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Beware ground rent addicts bearing gifts with their good conduct pledge
Next Post: Freehold for Elan Homes leasehold house doubles in price to £15,900 four months after being sold to Landmark Investments »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Paddy

    April 9, 2019 at 8:14 pm

    I blame Thatcher.

    When RTB came in I probably wasn’t the only public sector minion to wonder what eejit would buy a leasehold title in a council run block.

    Certainly not council procurement folk.

    Council blocks were built with public funds for social TENANTS.

    The concept worked for years. Then Thatcher saw a way to get votes.

    How has that property owning democracy faired?

    Councils seem to operate in a world were cost is no object.

    On the other hand, how many RTBs sell on as buy to let? Old affordable social housing with secure tenure paid for by taxes ends up as private letting for higher rents on six month shortholds.

    And you expect this lot to reform leasehold?

    Reminds me how councils used to evict council tenants for arrears caused by the housing benefit chaos when councils took over HB, only to end up paying far higher housing benefit for temporary accommodation.

    Single folk had no homeless priority, so empty unpopular voids went asking while voluntary sector hostels claimed many times more than the void rent in housing benefit to warehouse the non priority singles.

    Be interesting what angst will emerge from government about this bill.

    Cheaper to be forfeited?

    • Sophie Peach

      April 14, 2019 at 10:19 pm

      I agree about the Thatcher comment. Her legacy was a housing disaster, but what’s done is done. Where do we go from here?

  2. Michael Epstein

    April 10, 2019 at 8:36 am

    First and foremost the leaseholders need to club together and get an independent surveyor in to verify the scope and cost of the proposed works.
    I note the intention to build further flats . I wonder how much that intention has influenced the scale of works?
    Given the extent of the proposed works, how could it be that as the freeholder, Southwark Council could have allowed this development to decay to this degree? And if it was known that such extensive works were needed did Southwark Council communicate this to purchasers?

  3. ollie

    April 13, 2019 at 4:01 am

    A proper consultation to leaseholders complying under Section 20 L& T Act 1985 should provide quotations for the specified work by 3 totally independent contractors.

    The quotation based on prices from the Council’s long term contractor partner does not fully comply to the L&T Act 1985 because they are “business partners” and NOT an independent contractor.`

    .

  4. chas Willis

    April 17, 2019 at 1:16 pm

    This was posted on About Firstport this week and is of interest to Leaseholders who follow Firstport Retirement Services Ltd and Proxima GR Properties Ltd.

    Administration and Management Charges
    In the last financial year, the exterior of my development was repainted. The cost for the whole development was £90k, inclusive of VAT. FirstPort then added a 17% administration fee, which they said was for arranging the repainting. They then added on top of that their standard 17% + VAT management fee, bringing the total bill for the project to over £123k. I’ve challenged them on it, but they have said it is standard practice to charge both an administration fee and a management fee for large projects and that they remain of the position that £33k fees on a £90k bill are reasonable.
    Has anyone else experienced this doubling of fees? Is it really standard practice? Does anyone know if it is legal? Many thanks for any advice.
    Posted on 16 April 2019

    Then in answer to a posting from chas

    Thank you very much that’s helpful. I’m in London. Its standard residential block, not retirement property. Our head lessee is Proxima GR Properties Ltd and they appointed FirstPort.
    Five companies were approached for this work. Three submitted tenders. The cheapest was appointed and, as far as I can tell, completed the work themselves. Their charges were £75k plus VAT, making £90k. Firstport added a 17% administration charge which they said was for sending out S20 notifications and getting advice about what work needed to be done and to what specifications i.e. the type of paint to be used etc. This made the bill £105,300. They then added their standard 17% + VAT charge (as allowed by my lease) to the combined total.
    I’ve raised this right up the chain with FirstPort, but they are saying it is standard practice and they are entitled to charge both administration fees and management fees in major projects.
    I guess my next option is either arbitration or a tribunal. Any advice anyone can offer on these two options would be very gratefully received. Thank you.

    • ollie

      April 18, 2019 at 4:45 am

      The Homebuilding magazine suggests 10% -12% for management fee on renovations work .

      So if the site work contractor charged £75K + 20%VAT on his work . Nobody can claim the right of management fee on Government 20% VAT tax .

      The “supervision of work completion and making payment ” fee by the Managing Agent may charge 12% on the £75K = £9K + 20% VAT = £10800.

      The claim of £17000 + VAT is really double charging and should challenged by application to FTT.

      • chas Willis

        April 19, 2019 at 9:18 pm

        Thanks again ollie for someone who knows the leasehold Industry. Do you have my new email address?

  5. Paddy

    April 17, 2019 at 6:34 pm

    If you check the standard agent contract you’ll find they do charge extra for major works and many other things. The management fee is the ‘basic’ charge.

    Of course, the leaseholder never sees the agency contract, just the client. Also, I’ve read somewhere that an agent might have no written contract at all with the freeholder. Just a verbal one. Seems that works.

    You”d maybe think government would long ago insisted in law that leaseholders see an actual signed agency contract given the powers they wield. Able to check their liability insurances etc too. After all, the ‘landlord’ pays not a penny. And to check that the qualifying long term agreement malarkey is working.

    But leaseholders seem to exist merely to pay and shut up. Know their place.

  6. Carolyn

    April 25, 2019 at 2:56 pm

    In my opinion, leases that allow leaseholders to be charged unlimited amounts for “improvements” are toxic. They are clearly being abused.
    These people are having their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property violated.
    Our laws shouldn’t allow this, but with leasehold law, they repeatedly seem 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