CHA's privatisation of community space

For 30 years - since long before Community Housing Association/One Housing Group took control of Hillview Estate - no.1 Midhope had been a community space available for use to all who lived on the estate. But a few months ago our landlord CHA, without warning, changed the locks and so denied access to the keyholders of Hillview Residents Association and the wider Hillview community. Since then we've been told by CHA officials that 'all CHA community spaces must make a profit'. But CHA is officially registered as a charity (yes, amusing, isn't it?) so why the talk of profit making? Ah, well, that was a temporary slip of the tongue - CHA/OHG usually call it a "surplus". Even though OHG are expanding property speculators - using tenants' homes as assets to lend against/as security for investment risks - and the top management personnel get massive wages several times the average wage of most of their tenants, regular well above-inflation pay rises, and a big fat pension waiting at the end of the line THERE IS NO PROFIT. Nobody profits, got that?

Since CHA privatised 1 Midhope they have insisted that anyone who wants to use the space must pay a commercial rate of £30 an hour. (We believe - and hope - there have been no takers so far.) CHA say this is the same policy across all their estates and that the charge helps cover costs of electricity bills and cleaning etc. But tenants already pay for all these costs in their service charge - so CHA are trying to charge us twice for use of 1 Midhope!

There is a regular youth club in no. 1 Midhope; but this is also used by kids who don't live on the estate - so why should tenants also pay the bills for what is a public youth club? If it is available to the general public then the council, government and/or CHA should bear the cost as they do for other similar public services. Otherwise Hillview tenants are paying twice again - by the service charge and by paying taxes. We intend to challenge this. Feel free to write to CHA and ask for an explanation.

Hillview Residents Association (HRA) have been using and managing 1 Midhope for 30 years and holding its meetings there. But since CHA's change of locks coup they have insisted that HRA phone up to book usage of the room - then couriers will be sent to deliver the keys at the time the room is booked for. All this extra cost for couriers will presumably be added on to our future service charges, as the £30 fee charged for the room will probably be eaten up by courier costs. A typical example of the financial efficiency and common sense of CHA/OHG...

The privatisation of no. 1 Midhope is a small incident - but one that shows the larger general attitudes of CHA/OHG towards tenants and finances.

Pest control - your landlord DOES have obligations

Recently a few Hillview tenants have been infested with cockroaches and/or mice. (By the way, infestation is not related to being 'dirty' - the cleanest homes can suffer infestation if the pests somehow gain access. But it's true that infestation is made worse if there is plenty of dirt left around for pests to feed on.) Some have been told by CHA that as a landlord they have no legal obligation to provide any pest control services. This is nonsense - CHA and other landlords have a legal obligation to provide a property that is fit for habitation and in a state of good repair - infestation does not conform to this.

After having relevant legislation quoted to them, CHA now admit they have this obligation. But they have still sometimes recently claimed that more than one home must be infested before they will act. This is a ridiculous policy - 'let the problem get worse and harder to get rid of before we'll act' - but it can be challenged (see legislation below and contact Environmental Health Dept. if necessary). The landlord's legal obligation is to every individual tenant regardless of whether others are immediately affected. (In any case, the nature of most buildings - especially blocks like Hillview, for example - mean that infestations can rapidly spread via old chimney flues and pipework running through the blocks. Since the refurbishment of Hillview Est. in the late 1990s many flats have large gaps below their skirting boards and airbricks set into the connecting chimney breasts - all ideal routes for pests to travel between flats - something not taken into account when CHA carried out refurbishment.)

Camden Council now charges over £63 for two visits from their pest control services - they no longer provide any concessions for those on low incomes. Therefore many people simply can't afford to pay for effective treatment, making the problem worse for all.

Any landlord who cared about the living conditions of their tenants and the upkeep of their properties would be taking care to abide by these regulations - instead we get OHG's attempts to avoid their legal obligations by giving tenants inaccurate information. Yet they have the cheek to talk about wanting to promote 'tenant empowerment' (the current buzzwords) - yeh, right, as long as it doesn't cost them anything. If tenants stop paying the rent for 2 or 3 weeks we can expect to get dragged into court by OHG - but they give the impression that they believe they can bend and evade their legal obligations to us as and when they like.

Below are the relevant parts of the law, it's worth quoting chapter and verse if a landlord tries to be difficult;

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949

Part 1 - sec 3

3 Obligation of occupiers of land to notify local authority of rats and mice

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, the occupier of any land shall give to the local authority forthwith notice in writing if it comes to his knowledge that rats or mice are living on or resorting to the land in substantial numbers.

[...]

(1)If in the case of any land it appears to the local authority, whether in consequence of a notice given in respect of the land under the last foregoing section or otherwise, that steps should be taken for the destruction of rats or mice on the land or otherwise for keeping the land free from rats and mice, they may serve on the owner or occupier of the land a notice requiring him to take, within such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice, such reasonable steps for the purpose aforesaid as may be so specified; and where the owner of any land is not also the occupier thereof separate notices may be served under this section on the owner and on the occupier.

(2)Any such notice may in particular require—

(a)the application to the land of any form of treatment specified in the notice;

(b)the carrying out on the land of any structural repairs or other works so specified,

and may prescribe the times at which any treatment required by the notice is to be carried out.

==========================

Public Health Act 1961

Part 2 - Sec 35

35 Filthy or verminous premises

(1)Section eighty-three of the Public Health Act, 1936 (which relates to the cleansing of filthy or verminous premises), shall be amended as follows.

(2)For subsection (1) of the said section eighty-three there shall be substituted the following subsections—

“(1)Where a local authority, upon consideration of a report from any of their officers, or other information in their possession, are satisfied that any premises—

(a)are in such a filthy or unwholesome condition as to be prejudicial to health, or

(b)are verminous,

the local authority shall give notice to the owner or occupier of the premises requiring him to take such steps as may be specified in the notice to remedy the condition of the premises by cleansing and disinfecting them, and the notice may require among other things the removal of wallpaper or other covering of walls, or, in the case of vrminous premises, the taking of such steps as may be necessary for destroying or removing vermin.

=======================

If a landlord refuses or fails to deal with an infestation the two Acts quoted above give the Local Authority (local Council) powers to serve a Service Request on the landlord, ordering them to carry our the necessary pest control procedures . So if CHA or OHG refuse to deal with an infestation one option is to go to the Council Environmental Health Department, explain the situation and ask that they deliver a Service Request to CHA/OHG.

======================

Defective Premises Act 1972

Sec 4 Landlord's duty of care in virtue of obligation or right to repair premises demised

(1) Where premises are let under a tenancy which puts on the landlord an obligation to the-tenant for the maintenance or repair of the premises, the landlord owes to all persons who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the state of the premises a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that they are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect.

(2) The said duty is owed if the landlord knows (whether as the result of being notified by the tenant or otherwise) or if he ought in all the circumstances to have known of the relevant defect.

This 1972 Act above states clearly the landlord's obligations - if CHA/OHG try to fob you off with excuses then quote this legislation and say that, if they make it necessary, you will ask the local Environmental Health Department to enforce these laws against CHA/OHG.

================================


Serving a Disrepair Claim on your landlord;

If you have notified your landlord of a repair/maintenance problem (including infestation or other conditions that may be harmful to your health and safety) and they fail to carry out necessary works to resolve the problem, you can serve a disrepair claim on them. You must allow a 'reasonable time' for the repair to be carried out.

Then contact the Environmental Health Department at the Town Hall and explain the problem. To take action on your behalf, this Dept. must inspect your home - if they agree that your claims are valid they can order the landlord to carry out the work.

As with most legal issues, it doesn't always work quite as simply as that and there are also other options- so for further information see the Shelter site.

==============

PREVENTION & CURE
Cockroaches are a potentially serious health hazard - they can travel back and forth between your home and the sewers (and they ain't fussy eaters). They can also aggravate asthma and contaminate food, causing illness - and are generally one of the more unpleasant house guests to have around. If your home is infested, act fast and get help...

Some practical tips for dealing with cockroach infestation - and even better, avoiding it:

1. Be careful what you bring in the house; roaches often nest in food containers such as packets of rice and beans. Large sacks and baskets are especially dangerous. Don't leave packets of rice and pulses open in the kitchen - keep them in sealed airtight containers.

Roaches also nest in electrical equipment such as TVs, stereos etc - they are warm cosy homes for them. So be careful if buying secondhand and treat with anti-roach sprays. The same goes for secondhand furniture. (Moths can also become unwanted house guests by this route.)

2.Keep the kitchen and elsewhere clean - crumbs left around are a free meal for roaches. Sweep and mop floors regularly and keep surfaces and sinks dry after use - roaches need plenty of water.

3. Block off possible entry points, such as gaps in skirting boards, airvents/airbricks connected to old chimneys (sometimes sited conveniently - for the roach - behind cookers) .

4. There is no shame in being infested, it can happen in the cleanest homes. If you have an infestation ask your neighbours if they do too. If so they'll need to be treated too, and - if things are bad - possibly the whole stairwell or block. You will need professional pest controllers to visit and treat the infested properties.

Ujima - the depths to which social landlords and their 'regulators' can sink

The Inside Housing article linked to below* tells the story of the decline of Ujima Housing Association, the first HA ever to go bust in the UK, in December 2007. The Housing Corporation (HC) - at the time the official government 'regulator' of HAs - ignored several whistleblowers who worked for Ujima and who contacted the HC to express concern at Ujima's dubious financial and ethical practices. Instead the HC continued throwing money at Ujima, awarding it millions of pounds in grants. The HA was led by Chief Executive Keith Kerr (a former British Airways executive, pictured above) who had massive empire-building expansion plans - seeing himself as like a Biblical prophet, he named his property egomania plan ‘Project Jerusalem’.

"Under him Ujima would become one of the England’s five largest housing associations within five years, it proclaimed".

Well, it didn't end up quite that way - instead Ujima collapsed in a heap of debt and fraud charges and the supposed 'regulator' - the Housing Corporation - was left with lots of egg on its face. One can speculate that the HC was happy to fund the expansion of property speculation by its HA Chief Executives - especially one who brought with him the baggage, attitude and status of a former BA 'captain of industry' such as Kerr. One can imagine the HC 'regulators' turned a blind eye to the whistleblowing of 'minor employees' and kept throwing money at Ujima just so long as Kerr dazzled them with corporate buzzwords, optimism and slick progress reports - and generally made them feel good about what clever and important people they believed they were. In this trance-like state the Housing Corporation bosses continued to hand over wads of cash to Kerr's house of cards - until finally the inevitable happened.

*The Ujima article is here.

Mr Kerr was not one of those charged, but he was dismissed when London & Quadrant HA took over Ujima after its financial meltdown. But he claimed racial discrimination against L&Q and it was revealed at the employment tribunal hearing that;

"The previous December, Ujima had become the first housing association to go bust following its attempt to enact an ambitious expansion plan dubbed ‘project Jerusalem’.

The plan’s financial assumptions were described to the tribunal as ‘incredible’ by David Montague, chief executive of L&Q. According to the trust’s analysis, Ujima suffered a loss of £28 million while implementing the project - the highest recorded in the history of the social housing sector.

Mr Kerr was appointed chief executive of Ujima on 16 January 2006 on an initial salary of £100,000, the tribunal heard. This was increased to £120,000 in June of the same year and then to £130,000 a month later under delegated powers operated by Sandra Ebanks, vice chair of Ujima’s human resources sub-committee.

Although Mr Kerr had never worked in a housing association before, he had been on Metropolitan Housing Trust’s board and chaired its audit committee."

Most people get one pay rise a year if they're lucky; but in the surreal world of social housing management you can award - sorry, negotiate - yourself three pay rises in seven months. Pretty good wages too for flushing £28 million down the bog... A nice bit of 'regulation' that was.

The Housing Corporation has since been replaced as regulator by the Tenant Services Authority, who have today launched their new "regulatory framework" for social housing landlords. It promises many improvements for tenants - but whatever is written in the document, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - and any improvement for tenants will depend on Housing Associations being regulated in practice much more strictly than in the past. It would mean an end to the blatant bias in favour of the landlords' interests shown by the Housing Corporation for many years. As a regulator the HC and its Ombudsman was generally worse than useless - as many tenants who brought complaints there can testify, and as the Ujima incident proves.

Inside Housing is always worth a read to check up on what's happening policy-wise (and scandal-wise) in the world of social housing. The comments under articles (often by dissatisfied tenants) are worth reading too. There are also discussion forums; see this thread for example, where fed-up tenants have a good moan about their appalling HA landlords. (London & Quadrant Group HA, who took over Ujima after its collapse, comes in for plenty of criticism.)

---

A short article in the latest edition of Private Eye no. 1250 (27 Nov-10 Dec 09) gives further info on the Ujima collapse;

HOUSING
To Kerr is human

KEITH "Charismatic" Kerr, last chief executive of the black housing association Ujima, which went belly up owing £28m, had a novel explanation for the disaster: his dismissal for gross incompetence was, er, racist.

Ujima's collapse in December 2007 left a huge hole in the provision of housing and specialist support for young black people. Its 4,600 homes were handed to the housing association London & Quadrant, which promptly sold off its care homes and shed staff. A police investigation into alleged fraud at Ujima has led to three people being arrested. Two of these have been charged, but the third is on the run. The alleged fraud was not of sufficient scale to bankrupt Ujima.

Kerr, the former whizzkid special adviser to Charles Kennedy and ex-managing director of Bournemouth Airport, failed last month to convince an employment tribunal that his dismissal from Ujima amounted to racial discrimination. He insisted he was never "ultimately responsible" for the association's financial position - despite drawing a £130,000 salary to run the show. So who or what was responsible for turning Ujima's £7m surplus in 2004-5 into a £28m loss in just two years - the highest recorded in social housing history?

Losses mounted as a result of "Project Jerusalem", Kerr's overly-ambitious expansion plan, dreamed up with a crew of expensive consultants soon after he took over in January 2006.

The man supposedly checking Ujima's books was George Avwunu, the chief financial officer who was appointed personally by Ken in February 2007 even though the recruitment firm handling the appointment had not recommended him for a second interview. Avwunu was later suspended following claims he had been involved in fraudulent business activity in Nigeria. Avwunu is now on the run from police after failing to make a bail appearance in May. He was arrested last year with Rose Avwunu, who police describe as "a housewife", and Paul Campagne, a consultant - both of whom were charged with money-laundering offences in September.
Management accounts which were meant to provide monthly snapshots of Ujima's finances dried up following Avwunu's appointment.

Meanwhile the association showered outside consultants with cash. Avwunu recruited an IT consultant for £2,000 a week to do work that would normally command a salary of £25,000 a year; and Kerr hired a human resources consultant for £10,000 a month. Staff meanwhile leapt at an over-generous redundancy scheme sparking a mass exodus costing £600,000.

Kerr and Co also enjoyed benefits unusual in the housing association world. Ujima - Swahili for "working together" - rented an executive box at Reading football club, while its Wembley office complex had a £2m makeover by Metro Design. Kerr himself pocketed £32,000 in expenses in his two years as boss.

The Housing Corporation, the housing association watchdog, eventually appointed statutory advisors to Ujima's board in October 2007. Kerr was suspended in November and dismissed two months later. Staff are said to have applauded when they heard the news.

Being ripped off with OHG service charges - to the tune of £100,000! (And counting...)

After the long efforts of two Hillview tenants CHA have been forced to agree to refund nearly £100,000 to tenants as a result of overcharging for services. Though so far no one has actually received any repayments. The refund will in most cases be 'paid' as credit/reduction on future service charges - though we presume that those who are not on benefits can demand it is paid to them as cash/cheque, if they can be bothered with the hassle.

The refund is, so far, for three blatant overcharges over at least three years;
1) Hillview tenants were being charged £80 a week for a salaried CHA employee to sit in an office on the estate for 4 hours per week. This officer was already being paid a full-time wage as a CHA employee - yet Hillview tenants were being charged again for her weekly appearance, so paying twice for her 'service'. It seems that the CHA officer did not even always turn up, and when she did she was visited by very few tenants as her attendance was not publicised.

2) For over three years lighting in common areas throughout the estate was on 24 hours a day - including on top floor balconies open to natural daylight. When this was challenged CHA first claimed that it would be too expensive to fit timers to the lighting system - it was then pointed out by a tenant that there was already a timer system fitted that had been previously in use and that one stairwell was still working on it. For some stupid reason the timer system had been bypassed.

CHA then made the excuse that Royal Mail had insisted on 24 hr lighting as a safety measure for postmen delivering. This seemed strange to tenants, as no one could remember any postmen ever being attacked - and other similar estates in the area did not have 24 hour lighting. When CHA was asked for proof of Royal Mail's request for 24 hr lighting they produced a letter - but the letter had only requested 24 hr lights in two small blocks with some dark internal corridors. For whatever reason, laziness or incompetence, the whole estate had then been put on 24 hr lighting, adding thousands of pounds to the electric bill paid by tenants via the service charge. Finally, after all the excuses, CHA was forced to admit the error and agree a refund.

3) CHA overcharged for a year for a non-existent cleaner's wage for the estate - at a time when the reduction in cleaning staff meant the estate was not receiving a proper cleaning service.

We expect that further over-charges on Hillview will be revealed. The lessons from all this?
CHA have been overcharging tenants for years and this has only been revealed by the unpaid efforts of tenants - who have had to deal with evasions, excuses, refusals to reply etc from some CHA staff.

If £100,000 has been overcharged on just one of CHA's estates, it leads us to think that unchallenged overcharges could be still occurring on many other CHA/OHG estates and properties - and the total overcharged by OHG across all its properties could be a massive sum. So we strongly advise tenants to get together and go through your service charge with a fine tooth comb; if something doesn't look right or is unclear, then ask OHG for a full and clear explanation and proof that the costs they charge for have been incurred.