Forum Topic

Any other Hounslow Housing leaseholders got their building insurance bill today?

We're leaseholders of an ex council flat so we pay Hounslow Housing (ex Hounslow Homes) a service charge and buildings insurance every year. Just got our bill, and our buildings insurance that was £300 last year is now £666. We can't go elsewhere, we have to pay this, and they are expecting us to pay it in a lump sum at beginning of April. Don't know if it's just us that has this utterly ludicrous bill....anyone else in the same boat? I spoke to a woman today at HH who could not explain it (or did not want to)- just said that 'costs have risen'...and would only go into tiny detail about what insurance tax rate was, rather than explaining why our premium was so much higher than last year (ie over 100%). I have suspicion that this is HH trying to claw back some of the money they've lost by being useless at other things....but wanted to see if I'm the only one who has this, or if it's shared across all leaseholders.  Not quite sure where they expect us to pull a further £350 ish quid from in less than 2 weeks to pay the bill!  If it is all of us, we probably need to get together some sort of leaseholders forum and get this sorted out. Anyone? appreciate anyone else's experience- and thanks in advance

Alison Draper ● 3975d18 Comments

I wonder what exactly is involved in your buildings insurance?  Can you say and maybe get an idea of what an open market quotation would be?  I imagine from what you say that the biggest risk is the fact that your leaseholder is the Council who will not, from what you suggest, deal with the early stages of potential damage in reasonable time...a water leak in an any other property has the owners running around in circles to get a plumber in as quickly as possible.

Sarah Felstead ● 3965d

I'm also going to ask if we can pay it in installments, like the rest of the service charge. ha ha...see how I get on with that one!

Alison Draper ● 3965d

Well, before the message from the Council about the fact that the insurance premiums were too high, I did put in a Freedom of Information request about the tendering process for the insurance contract, plus a breakdown of how leaseholders on our estate are charged for insurance etc.And my very helpful local councillor raised it with the head of the council and asked what was going on.  Of course I have no idea whether that had anything to do with the announcement that there had been a mistake ;) I did that so I could gather information for the Tier 1 Tribunal to challenge it, but since I'm assuming our new bill will be more reasonable (I have yet to receive it) I'll just get the information anyway which will be useful to see and happy to share here. I also note that there are plans for a leaseholders (and tenants) forum, so I may see what happens with that. There does appear to still need to be some level of 'holding to account' despite the change into being run by council. To be fair, given my previous experience with Hounslow Homes, (8 months to fix a very urgent leak) this is a very swift response. At least they fessed up though, so hopefully things are changing. just a shame the leaseholder sevices manager when I queried the bill didn't say 'that does seem high, let me look into it for you' rather than her rather brisk 'that's just what it costs, it's very good value for money, you wouldn't get as good a deal on the open market' response. Oh well, customer service training clearly not yet kicked in.....

Alison Draper ● 3965d

Leaseholders should demand an internal investigation at the council as to how this happened and what confidence they can have in other charges levied on them by the council. And it is the council now, no hiding behind 'Hounslow Homes' anymore.

Ian Speed ● 3965d

Lol, of course they were.

Phil Andrews ● 3966d

We’re very sorry about this but leaseholders were incorrectly informed about rises in their buildings insurance charges. We are writing to every leaseholder with revised estimates - the charges will be lower for 2015/16 than previously indicated.  There’s more information at http://bit.ly/1GtQawc

Corporate Communications ● 3966d

AlisonThere is an interesting thread on the Chiswick forum about this topic:"Steep rise in Buildings Insurance for Hounslow leaseholders"http://appasp.chiswickw4.com/server/app/forum/ShowMessage.asp?ID=1064218

Phil Kay ● 3966d

Bernadette, Thank you so so much for all of this. Sounds like a hideous situation with your daughter - my experience so far of Hounslow is pretty awful but that story takes the biscuit! So sorry. Anyway, not too much info at all, all really really useful. thanks. I shall battle away and not expect too much response from HH but there is no way I'm paying this bill- so perhaps I too will go to court! thanks again

Alison Draper ● 3973d

Alison1.  You say More just concerned that other residents might have the same problems.  I’m sure your concern is appreciated but my experience with fighting a freeholder over profiteering indicates that you will have to fight your own battles before helping others.2.  I agree with Vanessa – The Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) is an excellent place to start: http://www.lease-advice.org/020 7832 2500Weekdays 09.00-17.00https://clients.lease-advice.org/Default.aspxinfo@lease-advice.orgFleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX3.  LEASE has a link on their website to the “Top Issues at Tribunal”, one of which is Can a leaseholder of a flat challenge the cost of building insurance placed by the landlord? as follows:http://www.lease-advice.org/lvtissues/lvtissue.asp?item=94.  You can also search their “Tribunal Decisions” at these links:http://www.lease-advice.org/lvtdecisions/Where it states that: Most disputes that leaseholders and their landlord or management company cannot resolve between themselves can be taken to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (“the Tribunal”).  The Tribunal can adjudicate on such matters as: insuring the building; how much you have to pay in service charges; & the quality of services providedI think this is the correct search page: http://www.lease-advice.org/lvtdecisions/tables.asp?table=25.  I did quite a bit of research on this a few years ago – but fortunately my freeholder backed down before it went to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT).  The stated increase in my insurance was actually less than yours, in percentage terms, but I was mindful that: a) I was likely to live there for many years, so over time would be massively overpaying; and b) that any future purchaser would be appalled at how much I was having to pay and it might well put them off buying my property.  Knowing what I do now, I would hope to never buy another property where the lease terms allow the freeholder to jerk me around.6.  Based on my experience / research, I would suggest the following.  Even if you decide not to take HH all the way to an LVT, you might also find that they back down if you are thorough:- Insist on an “audit trail” for everything.  If you are emailing HH, keep all emails and each time you reply, ensure that all the relevant text is shown in the thread below.  If you are corresponding, do everything by recorded delivery at the very least.  This will ensure that there is a record of what they have and have not received.At the LVT, the presiding panel will accept this as proof of their having received your correspondence.  Ask that they do the same, as freeholders tend to have huge volumes of outgoing post, it’s “easy” for some of it to go missing.  If they have internal records showing that correspondence was issued, the LVT will also accept this – unless you have proof that you told them that replies were not received – e.g. by emailing or writing to them with a reminder, also recorded delivery.  Sorry to bang on about this but all the LVT decisions are very similar – each party’s word will be accepted unless there is reasonable evidence to the contrary.- LEASE will be able to tell you the law but I know that freeholders are compelled to tell you precisely what insurance cover you are being charged for.  A properly worded email or letter to them should make them tell you every item on which cover has been based.  This will allow you to get a like-for-like quote from a range of insurance providers.There are 4 issues here – i) if you ask HH the question about cover and they don’t respond properly or in time, the LVT will be more likely to find in your favour but ii) if you don’t take all aspects of the cover into consideration, the LVT will accept that HH has acted “reasonably”.  In the case of my freeholder, previous LVTs had proven that they were taking backhanders from the insurance co – which they part-ownediii) I have heard others say that it is a criminal offence for a freeholder not to respond to a request about insurance cover from a leaseholder within a given timescale.  LEASE will be able to advise on thisiv) LEASE are, in my opinion, obsessed about the positives of a whole block being insured on a single policy or by a single insurance company.  I’m sure this is best practice etc but is no reason why you should be shafted.  If an LVT rules in your favour, HH will still use the same insurance company but will have to charge you a proper rate for your cover.Sorry to write so much!Good luckPhil

Phil Kay ● 3973d

A friend of mine bought her flat on Ivybridge and I was staggered at the outrageous cost that the council charged for replacement windows. Given the massive purchasing power of local authorities, if they can't get a good deal on things like that then there is something radically wrong. If anything costs should be lower not higher. It beggars belief that they go on year after year getting away with robbing people, good for that lady who took them on, shows what you can do if you're prepared to stick at it and play the game.

Vanessa Smith ● 3974d

When I attended tenent and leaseholder meetings as a Director of Hounslow Homes and also as a councillor I must admit how staggered I was at times when costs were discussed and leaseholders concerens were simply dismissed as they were always considered wealthy enough if they owned property to stump up any billOf course its human nature to vote for improvements to your flats or estate if you are not actually stumping up any cash and this is always without fail what happened

Paul Fisher ● 3974d

http://www.lease-advice.org/This seems to give lots of advice on various issues that affect leaseholders, might be well worth a peruse?

Vanessa Smith ● 3974d

I don't know if these problems are experienced countrywide but I do know that Hounslow is a pure nightmare to deal with and you cannot win even when you do!My daughter bought an ex council flat on the open market and after a year or two started to receive what she considered to be ridiculously high service charge demands bearing in mind that her flat was in a small development of 14 where only 4 flats had been sold privately.  It certainly appeared that any small works carried out were expected to be paid for by the 4 lessees rather than spreading the overall cost between the 14 flats e.g. a new tv aerial was installed (which evidently didn't work) and her share of the bill was something like £500?  She also had problems with them re the property insurance and noting her lender's interest.  In any event she refused to pay and it went to court.  Hounslow did not attend and their claim was thrown out.  Hounslow reinstated the claim and on the second attempt did show up but the judge agreed with my daughter based on the paperwork supplied by the council no justification could be provided for the level of charges being claimed.  The judge made an order for my daughter to pay a far lesser amount than that being claimed and this figure was paid immediately.  She then sold the flat but the council refused to accept the notice of assignment and charge served by the new purchaser as they were still attempting to recover the amount thrown out by the judge at the previous court hearing.  My daughter had to retrieve all the paperwork and copies of the order and start a chain of correspondence with her purchaser's solicitor and the council blah, blah, blah.I worked for solicitors when we were acting on a sale of a property on the Ivybridge estate where the owner had in fact died and we were acting for the deceased's elderly parents.  The dilemma was that on the sale of the property after payment of the HUGE service charges being demanded by the council (which were at least as much as those mentioned in Vanessa's earlier post) there would not be sufficient to redeem the mortgage held on the property to give clear title to the proposed purchaser.  In other words the property was virtually unsalable. Unfortunately I can't remember the outcome.However, the original posting was about insurance charges and these should be transparent inasmuch as they should be reasonable.  I would try and get quotes myself furnish the council with these (if they actually are cheaper) and ask them to justify their proposed costs.  Presumably the insurance is on a block policy I don't know how big an estate your flat is on or whether you live in a block with a lift - this is important because lifted properties carry a real premium.  In any event if you can show that insurance for your particular flat/block could be achieved at a substantially lower rate elsewhere you should at least try and challenge it but I doubt it would get you far when dealing with the council. Good luck!

Bernadette Paul ● 3974d

Anne- we aren't council tenants- we bought on the open market, first time buyers, only place we could afford. We bought from the lady who was a council tenant who bought in 1990. Regardless of whether you agree with the right to buy system....this isn't about this. All of us have to pay buildings insurance through HH. We have no choice which is totally fine, so long as it's reasonable. Being landed with a bill,  being expected to pay £350 more than expected within 2 weeks (when it's totally unreasonable charges) I think is a bit rich. Anyway, thanks for all the help and suggestions, I'll look into it. More just concerned that other residents might have the same problems.

Alison Draper ● 3974d

Do they factor in the money made from renting out roof space to telecom companies?

Sarah Felstead ● 3974d

This is totally unacceptable by HH. You should for a full analysis of the costs making up the old and new bills and see where the difference is - I'm sure this is an entitlement under FOI, let along if you're actually paying the bill. I might be able to find out what cost differences there are at other boroughs, viz Ealing.

Ian Speed ● 3975d

How much discount did you get on the cost of your house/flat, assuming you are the one(s) who purchased it/them?

Anne England ● 3975d

This may be of interest and it's recent too  - try Googling leaseholder for info.rules in favour of leaseholders over repair costs18 February 2015 | By Daniel Douglas  ...Landlords must consider the financial impact on leaseholders when seeking to charge for non-vital improvement works to their homes, an upper tribunal has ruled.Miss Waaler, one of 140 leaseholders on the Ivybridge estate owned by Hounslow Council, was charged £55,000 for improvement works which included replacement of roofs, windows and exterior cladding and the removal of asbestos. The charge was upheld by a first-tier tribunal.However, in a landmark upper tribunal decision on 26 January, judge Siobhan McGrath upheld Miss Waaler’s appeal against the first-tier tribunal ruling.Judge McGrath said some of the works were non-vital ‘improvements’ as opposed to vital repairs, which leaseholders have to agree to fund under the terms of their lease.  Judge McGrath said for non-vital works landlords must consider leaseholders ‘views on the proposals and the financial impact of proceeding.’A barrister, who did not wish to be named, said the ruling means landlords ‘must consider alternative and less expensive remedies, and give greater weight to the views of leaseholders’. Giles Peaker, partner at Anthony Gold solicitors, said: ‘I think it’s a significant decision and one that a lot of leaseholders will look to.’Mick Donnellan, partner at Trowers & Hamlins and expert in real estate disputes, said: ‘I think landlords will now have to give more thought to improvements. More transparency and justification will now be needed in the process.‘It may lead to landlords looking very closely in future on whether something is a ‘repair’ or an ‘improvement.’In her decision, judge McGrath found that the council was justified in carrying out repairs to the roof, but that the council could not justify its work to windows and exterior cladding on ‘extremely speculative’ costings.The management decision to replace windows and cladding includes ‘no evidence that the cost of the work to leaseholders was taken into account’, the decision states, and there is ‘in fact, very little evidence to demonstrate how or why the decision was taken at all.’A further first-tier tribunal hearing will decide by how much the charges to leaseholders should now be reduced.A Hounslow Council spokesperson said: ‘The council is reviewing the judgement and considering its options.’

Vanessa Smith ● 3975d