DEVASTATED residents say they could be forced to sell their homes after judges ruled leaseholders should pay a bill of up to £26,000 EACH for repairs to social housing.
Neighbours in Kingsway Gardens, Andover, went through a tribunal with the Aster Group to determine if some of a multi-million-pound maintenance contract should be paid by leaseholders and if work on the blocks was necessary and reasonable.
As previously reported by the Advertiser, in 2017, leaseholders of Saxon, Stuart, York, Tudor and Atholl Courts were presented with individual bills for the renovation works, some totalling more than £30,000, following a 2014 survey undertaken by Aster as the freeholder of the buildings.
The tribunal sitting at Winchester Combined Court and Havant Justice Centre heard from leaseholders and experts from both sides, with chairman of the bench Judge Elizabeth Morrison, along with a Judge Tildesley and a Mrs Bowers presiding.
They issued their verdict on Thursday, May 10, declaring some of the work highlighted by Aster needed to be carried out which meant a lower cost to leaseholders than originally presented.
While residents agreed that works need to be carried out to solve ongoing problems with water ingress, it was the extent of the work that was disputed.
During the hearing, Aster argued that “if long-term solutions are to be provided” then the large sum of work needed to be done to “end up with a group of buildings that needed little or no planned work for a considerable number of years”.
But Judge Morrison, in her report, said the tribunal did not entirely agree the costs should be recovered from the leaseholders.
Judges also considered much of the work was in fact unnecessary or not reasonably required to deal with the ongoing problems with water ingress, but in some cases, she highlighted that remedial works or even smaller-scale works could solve the problems.
Due to this, leaseholders will still face a bill totalling thousands of pounds to pay for the work with those living in Stuart Court potentially having to fork out the most at £25,941.07, down from the original estimate of £31,341.
The tribunal also deemed Aster had acted within the law when consulting some leaseholders of the expected work, despite concerns from neighbours that there had not been enough discussion.
But it found that residents in Atholl Court “were denied the opportunity to make representations as too many aspects of the works, as they did not even know they were in prospect” until a second document had been sent and their main opportunity to speak out had passed.
Questions were also raised by residents about a 15 per cent administration charge.
However, the tribunal said it did not find the charge unreasonable as Aster would have to “commit a substantial amount of management time” during the project.
A spokesman for Aster said that it was still considering the full implications of the judges’ determination but it is looking at the current programme of work and will be reducing the level of work on Stuart and Tudor Courts as a result.
The spokesman for Aster added: “We are also in the process of re-calculating the estimated amount homeowners will need to pay and will continue to offer a variety of payment options to help homeowners to cover these costs.
“We know that it has been a difficult time for homeowners, but this was the best way to ensure everyone’s opinion was taken into consideration and for us to demonstrate complete transparency in our approach.
“We have done our best to ensure that any future maintenance costs are kept to a minimum and have gone beyond our legal obligations to ensure that leaseholders were kept informed throughout the process, which was reflected in the positive comments received from the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) in its determination.
“On the whole, we welcome the outcome of the FTT and want to support homeowners as much as we can whilst the works continue at Kingsway Gardens.
“We appreciate that the cost to leaseholders is still significant and we would encourage homeowners to talk to us if they have any concerns.”
Parties involved in the tribunal have 28 days from the issuing of the decision to lodge an appeal.
For reaction to the news from residents, read here.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel