Leaseholder critices North Lincolnshire Homes after being billed £10,500
A LEASEHOLDER has hit out at North Lincolnshire's biggest social landlord after being billed £10,500 for home improvements he did not ask for.
Phil Stockdale says he will not be "bullied" into paying the bill to North Lincolnshire Homes (NLH), from whom he leases a two-bedroom flat in Warley Road, Scunthorpe, and has threatened to barricade himself in his home.
-
The 37-year-old cement factory worker has been told he must share the total cost of re-roofing the three-storey block, other external work and upgrading the communal hallway with five other residents who are all tenants of the housing association.
But Mr Stockdale said he understood his five rent-paying neighbours would not be presented with huge bills because their charges would be covered by NLH's £125 million investment programme.
He said: "I'm the only one actually paying a bill."
But NLH has denied this claim. In addition, NLH has told him he needs to allow builders access to the property to carry out the work, which he says would require him to take four days off work. He said: "I have offered to sell back the flat to the association on three occasions but they have refused.
"I am unable to sell it or lease it because the site is rundown and the area has a reputation for anti-social behaviour.
"I was thinking I would to have to give in, take the week off and somehow find this huge sum of money. But I will not lay down and accept it.
"If they insist on violating my home then I will barricade the doors. I will not be bullied by this huge corporation."
Head of tenancy support Ian Bridge said: "While we recognise Mr Stockdale's frustration, the work we are carrying out is essential to ensure the buildings are properly maintained and in a good state of repair for current and future residents.
"We cannot allow the state of the properties to decline as this would lead to far higher costs.
"We have gone through a comprehensive consultation process with leaseholders, individually, at open meetings and through our leasehold panel, and have set up several payment options to assist them as best we can in meeting their share of the costs for this essential work.
"We are committed to working with our leaseholders and tenants to try to ensure minimal disruption and hardship. We would not insist that people take time from work but we do require residents to make arrangements for access to the properties."
12 Comments
View all
by Phil Stockdale, Warley Road
Sunday, August 01 2010, 2:58PM
“Many thanks to those who are wishing me luck. I hope I can take it as far as possible. I am in total agreement with beejay too. I have lived in and around those flats for 15 years and would love to see them as a model of social housing. Is it £125 million they have to spend or £12.5 million? Either way it's a huge sum of money and we have one senior NLH employee saying it's necessary to spend it because nothing has been done for 25 years and another saying it's being done for future generations of tenants but when the music stops I'm in the chair picking up the tab for past present and future. Well managed schemes like this have a so-called 'sinking fund' that leaseholds chip into every year to cover these kinds of expenses but not NLH.
Normally the annual service charge for maintaining these flats is £300 per leaseholder, this year I'm being charged that plus an estimated £10,503 which could in reality be much higher.
There are pages of stuff that they are twisting round and doing wrong. Without wanting to be a bore, here's a quick summary.
1) When I objected I wasn't consulted NLH said I was in breach for my lease for not telling them of times when I was away from the flat. But I can't find where it says I should do that and no one has told me.
2) When they first visited my business and served the landlady with notice with notice that they would force into my flat, the dates they said they would do it weren't legal under the very clause they cited to me as giving them permission.
As I mentioned before, they are breaking in while I'm at work to take out my privately paid for double glazing which is almost identical to the units they are putting in. This is being done for thermal efficiency and not just so they are all matching - but no one can tell me the thermal efficiency of my existing double glazing!
3) Both times when they visited my business I was on 12 hour days in my main job. But the second time the senior NLH employee cynically asked "Where is he, at work again?" as if I was doing it to spite them rather than to pay the mortgage and my bills. When getting back in her car I neighbour overheard her say "That sorted them".
4) In this article I mentioned that as my 5 neighbours paid rent, NLH cover the cost of their works and that I was the only leaseholder that I was the only one actually paying a bill; a claim which NLH denied. Maybe the land registry has omitted to record the details of the other lease(s) issued or maybe they just want to turn things round again so it's my fault?
If you got this far, thanks for reading! Phil.”
by beejay, nth Lincs
Sunday, August 01 2010, 10:48AM
“You are caught between the rock & the hard place. How sad. I would want to see the area being improved, but surely they cant force you to pay. I would get onto a solicitor. Good luck.”
by Geoff, Ashby
Sunday, August 01 2010, 10:27AM
“Phil
I hope you have kept your quote and the surveyor's report, they could be useful if legal action is taken against you. From what you say I think it is pretty certain that the consultation procedure required by law has not been followed and you should have good grounds to stand fast and see how far NHLA are prepared to go. Bullying tactics are not looked on as the way social housing landlords, or any others come to that, should behave.”
by Phil Stockdale, Warley Road
Saturday, July 31 2010, 11:42PM
“I raised a smile at the comments of "Sell It Back Wothout Any Profit, You Understand Your Contract" who is sticking up for NLH.
Interestingly they comment that I should sell it back at cost if I get the chance and not market value. Strangely the Telegraph's article doesn't mention the fact that I asked NLH fair market value for the flat.
Maybe it was just a lucky guess on their part or maybe they an insight into the emails I sent to NLH? What do I know? In their opinion I'm unfit to be a home owner.”
by John, Scunthorpe
Saturday, July 31 2010, 10:14PM
“David v Goliath.
The big corporate bully boys against the little man.
Best of luck mate.”