Westminster council wasted thousands pursuing leaseholder Roger Allen of Holcroft Court over fees worth less than £40.
The example of profligate wastefulness was reported in the London Evening Standard.
In spite of the thousands wasted the leaseholder at Holcroft Court owed nothing.
Roger Allen, 47, of Fitzrovia had previously led fellow leaseholders to win a tribunal ruling against the council and got almost a quarter cut from a £3.4 million major works bill.
Mr Allen paid his £20,000 share of the bill but the council, which owns the freehold of the site and runs it through City West Homes chased him for the £40, threatening court action for two years.
In March Mr Allen took the matter to the Central London County Court for clarification. It was told he owed £39.70 plus £500 in legal fees.
He was refunded £7.91.
Mr Holcroft, who chairs the Holcroft Court residents association said there were around 80 similar cases faced by neighbours.
A Freedom of Information Act response showed the council had spent £126,000 in legal and professional fees against the residents of Holcroft Court.
Mr Allen accused the council of “wasting over £120,000 of taxpayers’ money defending a case it could never win”.
CityWest Homes said the money was incurred chasing £355,000 in arrears.
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE
Related posts:
Local authority is charging £20 and £75 subletting fees (pay up and count yourself lucky, says Leasehold Knowledge Partnership)
Peverel / FirstPort pays back £39,377 wrongly taken from Hillside Court, but the pensioners say another £3,498 is missing
‘Don’t make the pensioners of Regent Court take you to court AGAIN, Mr Moskovitz,’ urges Bottomley
OFT cuts deal with Tchenguiz on leasehold retirement sub-letting fees, but exit fees on sale still stand
Three MPs worth voting for if you are a leaseholder
DCLG leasehold team issues raft of improvements
This looks very much as vindictive as the LA lost in a Tribunal, typical of those who use other peoples money to get revenge.
I saw this on Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and thought of us leaseholders?
G Farley says: August 15, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Leasehold property are not in the interest of the people and it is time that the government stopped this practice in England & Wales Most properties in the UK have increased in value but the leasehold properties has plummeted Many residents are losing between 30 to 50 thousand on new leasehold properties If residents need to go into a nursing home the government will be expected to pickup the bill when such losses are made If these people had stayed in their own homes they would be in a much better position to fund their old age
Reply:- Charles Willis says: August 15, 2014 at 8:57 pm
G Farley
Not all Leasehold developments are plummeting, it is mostly ex McCarthy & Stone built since 2005/06 as they were 40% over priced?
These developments were sold on to Fairhold Homes with a number i.e. (No 7) or (No 9) after being built and they used to use Peverel Retirement Ltd/Division as the Managing Agents?
Peverel Retirement no longer have the contract as Managing Agents when the contracts came up for renewal?
What a combination McCarthy & Stone and Peverel Retirement !
Reply
This case was brought by my brother who spent years dealing with idiots on the council who refused to accept new windows installed leaked. Is refusing to live in a property with leaking windows ‘vindictive’ ? As for ‘other peoples money’ who’s money was spent by the council defending a case they couldn’t win ?
The article is about myself. Yes WCC are corporate bullies. The comment about WCC spending the money to chase money in arrears is simply not true. We took up the right to have our (shockingly abysmal) major works assessed for their true value at an LVT. WCC spent the money issuing County Court Claims against us after us winning the LVT – totally unnecessary and a waste of time and money. Cllr Phillipa Roe was the cabinet member for housing at the time and literally threw us to the courts as she refused to discuss the matter., she is accountable. Unfortunately WCC have also forgotten that LVT ruling suggested we should now take the matter to a county court.