By Rosie Lavan
A leading local campaigner has warned the council not to underestimate the “political force” of leaseholders in Islington.
Brian Potter, chair of the newly formed Islington Leaseholders Association, told Islington Now that the 11,000 leaseholders in the borough “really do stand out, not just as a financial force. We are now a political force.”
He said: “That sort of [political] leverage is the only thing that works and it works right up to central government. That’s why they have been so loathe to allow leaseholders to join hands.”
Housing concerns continue to dominate the political agenda in the borough, and the leaseholders issue has become particularly contentious.
Leaseholders, who bought their properties from the council, have been struck with huge bills for repairs to communal areas of buildings and estates they share with council tenants.
Residents on the Spa Green estate, just off Rosebery Avenue, have faced bills of up to £40,000 per leaseholder, and on the St Luke’s estate bills have reached £20,000.
Anna Scott, a leaseholder on an estate in St George’s, said the charges had “slaughtered a lot of the leaseholders round here”.
She said two of her neighbours, also leaseholders, had been forced to move because they could not pay the bills: “It’s absolutely diabolical that some leaseholders have had to move out – further out of the borough and further out of London.”
Ms Scott said one of the main reasons for the huge service charges leaseholders have received was the Major Works programme, which the council has undertaken to meet a target set by the government in 2000 to bring social housing up to a “decent standard” by 2010.
She said the council had been forcing through these works all at once in an effort to meet the target. Works include repairs and replacement of windows, roofs, and improving security for shared entrances.
Ms Scott said that complaints from leaseholders, and suggestions for alternative, cheaper ways to carry out the works, had been ignored.
The major works programme is being handled by Homes for Islington (HfI), the much-criticised Arms Length Management Organisation set up to manage the borough’s housing stock.
A senior spokesman from HfI’s Major Works department said leaseholders were consulted throughout the early stages of planning major works.
He said: “We do listen, but then it’s about how they [leaseholders] are going to pay.”
He defended the controversial process for appointing contractors to carry out the works: rather than the open bidding that used to determined which firms would carry out work on social housing, HfI chooses which firms it will award contracts to.
He said HfI offered leaseholders favourable interest rates when paying their bills and independent debt advice was available for vulnerable leaseholders.
For those who struggle to pay, he said ultimately options include putting a charge on the property or arranging equity release.
He conceded that these serious steps, which effectively relinquish the security of peoples’ homes, could cause enormous concern, and said that he knew of only three people in the borough who had been forced to investigate these options.
Councillor Terry Stacy, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrat council and executive member for housing, defended HfI and the council’s housing policy.
He said: “By securing and setting up the ALMO we released over £120 million investment into the council’s housing stock.”
He said the council been “catching up on 30 years worth of underinvestment” by previous Labour councils.
Both Cllr Stacy and the HfI spokesman said that the £40,000 bills for Spa Green leaseholders were due to the fact that the estate is listed by English Heritage and all works carried out have to meet with the original design specifications set by the architect Berthold Lubetkin in the 1940s.
Cllr Stacy says leaseholders should have taken this into account when they bought their properties.
“They should have had a good survey done – they would have been told that.”
He also suggested leaseholders who bought under Mrs Thatcher’s right-to-buy policy were in a comfortable position, now owning flats worth a great deal more than the amount they paid in the 1980s. A two bedroom flat on Spa Green can fetch up to £400,000.
Cllr Stacy said the Liberal Democrat council was committed to the housing issue – former executive members for housing have included a council leaseholder and a council tenant. Cllr Stacy himself is a housing association tenant.
But his words are unlikely to convince campaigners. Referring to the situation for leaseholders in the neighbouring borough of Camden, Mr Potter claimed: “People working for Camden council were told to treat leaseholders as an open cheque book. I don’t doubt that for one second that the same applied to Islington.”
Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Leaseholders forced to pay council £40,000 each for repairs
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Fair wage for Islington's carers
By Cordelia O'Neill
ISLINGTON Council last night unexpectedly apologised to its hard-pressed carers, as it announced an internal inquiry into the million-pound decision to privatise carers’ contracts in 2003.
In a change on the council’s previous position, Terry Stacy, the executive member for communities, said he “apologised for any distress caused” by the decision that left 83 carers on a minimum wage of £12,000 a year.
A task force headed by Andy Jennings, the deputy chief executive of the Liberal Democrat council, will investigate the circumstances that led to Islington Council paying £980,000 to Care UK to provide for the borough’s elderly people.
The council were accused of “paying to force people into poverty” and “employing people on the cheap” by Labour councillor Phil Kelly, after Care UK, who made nearly £200,000 profit last year, announced they were to cut carers’ wages in half in November 2006.
“Everything to do with this case has been kept secret,” said Andrew Berry, who is deputy branch secretary of Unison, the public sector workers’ union. “I very much hope that the review will help us.”
Councillor Natasha Chatterjee said the decision had created “huge problems” for the borough as it struggled to look after its elderly residents.
Figures from the Islington Carers Forum suggest that there are 5,000 elderly people in Islington who are dependent on home care provided by the Council, 3,000 of whom have been diagnosed as having ‘high support needs’.
Cllr Chatterjee said that the pay cut would “drastically reduce” the availability and quality of care for the most vulnerable people in the borough.
“I am deeply concerned we can’t get the same quality workforce,” she said. “Thirty per cent of the care workers we had have left the profession.
“We’re going to see huge problems with living costs and housing for care workers. Islington Council should never do business with a company that doesn’t give staff a fair wage.”
“They need almost constant care,” Councillor Chatterjee continued. “There are more elderly people than there are to look after them. I’m worried that the support just isn’t there for them.”
A Care UK spokeswoman said: “The proposed changes to the contract are driven by a desire to ensure the council receives best value for money. The changes will result in savings for the council and the borough’s council tax payers while at the same time ensuring there is no reduction in the quality of care for residents.
“Care UK’s proposed changes reflect standard terms and conditions within the care industry. Already the majority of staff employed on this contract are on these terms.”
The inquiry signals a turnabout in the council’s attitude to the crisis. In October Liberal Democrat Councillor George Allan said it would be “inappropriate” for the council to get involved and insisted the Liberal Democrat Executive had done nothing wrong.
“It is a private contract between Care UK and its staff,” he said then. “It isn’t a matter we could have intervened in.”
Wednesday, 8 November 2006
Council spends £3,000 on “pointless” video
By Anh Nguyen
ISLINGTON Council has spent £3,000 on making a presentation video for this week’s executive meeting at the Town Hall.
The council showed the video, which illustrated its plans to improve services for disabled people in the borough, to an audience of less than 50 council employees and residents.
Councillor John Gilbert, executive member for health and audit, introduced the video, saying that the new format “makes a change from me talking with a powerpoint presentation.”
The video showed images taken from the consultation days that the council held with local disability groups in early September. The scenes were interspersed with people praising the council for their plans to introduce better services for disabled people, which includes appointing a Disability Access Officer.
Residents in the audience, however, were not impressed with the presentation.
Jenny Williams, an Islington resident and carer, said: “I can’t believe the council wasted so much money on making the pointless video. They should be spending the money on actually doing something to improve services for disabled people.”
At first, the council said that the video would only be shown at the meeting, but when an opposition queried the cost of the video, it said they would make the video more widely available.
Councillor Lucy Watt, deputy leader of the council, said: “The DVD was commissioned because it presents positive images of disabled people and the Disability Equality Scheme is an example of good practice in involving disabled people in consultation.
“There are plans to use it at the Disability Equality Scheme launch next month, and we will use it internally and make it available externally for training purposes.”
Wednesday, 25 October 2006
Council accused of 'gentrifying' Islington
By Rosie Lavan
A LABOUR councillor has accused the Liberal Democrat council executive of deliberately selling houses in an effort to gentrify Islington.
Councillor Paul Smith, deputy leader of the Labour Group, was speaking after the meeting of the executive last week.
He said the executive was “making decisions first before consulting people”, and he attacked its “deliberate policy” of selling council homes – a practice that recalls Conservative government policy in the 1980s.
He said: “They’re selling houses off because they want to gentrify the area.”
Councillor Terry Stacy, of the Liberal Democrat executive, opened the meeting by highlighting the “excellent results” of the recent MORI poll on resident satisfaction with Homes for Islington (HfI), the body which manages housing in the borough on the council’s behalf.
But opposition Labour councillors immediately disputed this, and accused the executive of ignoring the fact that 13,000 people in Islington are on the waiting list for council homes.
HfI was introduced in 2004 as an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) and has been a source of controversy in the borough.
Islington council tenants were surveyed before HfI’s introduction and were promised new kitchens and bathrooms once the organisation was established. But many people were disappointed when it emerged that in order to qualify for the new facilities bathrooms had to be 40 years old and kitchens 30 years old.
Housing is one of the most contested problems in the borough, and while Labour councillors champion council tenants the Liberal Democrats and the local Conservative party are promoting the rights of leaseholders.
During the meeting Mr Stacy proposed the introduction of an organisation for leaseholders, similar to HfI.
Party politics dominated the meeting, and Mr Smith and his colleague and Labour group leader councillor Catherine West were vocal in their opposition to the executive.
During the meeting the council chair, James Kempton, warned Mr Smith that he would be asked to leave if he continued to shout across the chamber.
Labour councillor Wally Burgess, of St George’s, was not at the meeting but defended councillors Smith and West.
He said: “Sometimes the only way to get things across at those meetings is to stand up and shout.”
Wednesday, 4 October 2006
Councillor warns of wasting grant money
By Jes Salter
COUNCILLORS are wasting up to £20,000 of community grant money by playing party politics, one councillor on the committee warned today.
Emily Fieran-Reed said that the West Area Committee, which has a Labour majority, ignored her community proposals and instead said they needed to spend up to £20,000 on consultation.
Fieran-Reed, a Liberal Democrat councillor in St Mary’s ward, said: “Each area got £80,000 to spend on the community and I was the only one who submitted any ideas. I liaised closely with different community leaders but my ideas have all been thrown out.
“Labour councillors have suggested spending £10-20,000 on a consultation. That has not even been costed, it’s just a figure plucked from the air.”
Fieran-Reed also suggested that the committee should involve local residents but this was refused by other councillors.
Fieran-Reed said: "This budget is meant to fund local projects. I had several things that local residents told me they wanted, so I put them forward. It seems that Labour just aren't in touch enough with their residents to be able to get ideas together.
"As far as I can see, when Labour saw that a Lib Dem was the only person with any suggestions, they just decided to delay it. They wouldn't even consider my suggestions and voted instead to create more bureaucracy and waste £10,000 from this small fund.”
The community chest has £80,000 available to local groups in St Mary’s, Caledonian, Barnsbury and Holloway wards who pledge to make West Area cleaner and safer. Applicants have to apply for the money by December 8 and Fieran-Reed accused her fellow committee members of wasting time.
The Lib Dem councillor’s proposals included an environmentally friendly garden, more CCTV cameras, revamping a football pitch and a new stage at Unity Church.
She said: “I don’t feel like I’ve let people down - I presented their ideas. Labour have let people down.”