Minutes of the Social Sector Working Party meeting held 27th February 2008 at 31 Worship Street, EC2A 2DX

Present:

Anthony Essien (AE), John Paterson (JP), Robert Skeoch (RS), Ian Fuell (IF), Peter Wright (PWr), Pauline Walton (PW), Audrey Clark (AC), Mark Wagstaff (MW), Sam Lister (SL), Steve Holmes (SH), Mike Edmunds (ME), Randall Bevis (RB), Anna Dent (AD), Steve Chapman (SC), Andy Hercberg (AH) Nicolette Davis (Note taker)

1. Chairman's Welcome

   The Chair welcomed everyone for attending this, the first SSWP meeting of the year.

2. Apologies

   Lydia Noon

3. Ministerial Statement of 7th February

   Members were asked to comment on Caroline Flint's ministerial statement. PWr wanted clarity as to whether as stated in the statement it was stated that the Board would be chaired by the mayor, or whether this was a mistake. In any event PWr felt that as this was what was stated in the ministerial statement that, that should be commitment.

   IF and RS to confirm.

4. Housing and Regeneration Bill

   The group were asked to comment on the above bill.

   Representative leaseholders felt that leaseholders generally did not have a voice, where not given access to specialist advice they needed, and Council's had no standard code of conduct or regulation. It was also mentioned that the process of LVT was not effective as there was no effective recourse to get things changed once a decision had been made.

   Concern was expressed that RSL stock would enter into public ownership. It also suggested that the bill should be scrapped and started again. However this was not general consensus MW informed the group that the bill was now at the third reading before going to the lords and any ideas for amendments would need to be put forward as quickly as possible.

   Some members of the SSWP felt that this issue was too important to rush and not get right and it was suggested they get an idea of timetable. CLG informed group to get suggested amendments to Minster as soon as possible.

   ME of London Councils stated that equity shares are a welcome tool for local authorities.

5. National Tenant's Voice

   CLG were asked to explain the National Tenant's Voice. IF explained that this was not his area, so did not want to misrepresent them.

   MW gave an overview of what he thought the ministers intentions are to establish a super complainant body for social housing tenants whom would sit inside the National Consumer Council or as a separate body.

   There was concern that this body would be non-representative of leaseholders. IF and RS informed SSWP that Charlotte Sewell had spoken to Richard Crossley and he had informed her that the SSWP would have an input.

   However the group were concerned that there was no leaseholder representation. AE suggested that he write to Mr Crossley seeking clarification the leaseholders would be represented.

6. Organisation of SSWP

   1. Workplan and Scheduling

      CLG informed the group that there would be nothing else in relation to service charge, bar a response from Chris Meader.

      PW felt that management did not have an understanding of the types of tenants they were dealing with, and they lacked consistency.

      It was suggested that what was needed was a fundamental analysis of the groups of leaseholders to understand the needs of types of leaseholders.

      The group were informed that Hyde and Crest Nicholson are doing a commonhold development in Milton Keynes, and that there is a commonhold consultation paper coming from HMCS in April and maybe the SSWP could comment. It was suggested that there was a lot to fit in and maybe look at commonhold further down the line.

      The group agreed that the following items would form the next stage of SSWP's work:

      1. management standards and their variation across the country;

      2. the management of mixed tenure;

      3. the lack of knowledge of user-profile;

      4. the effectiveness of existing management guidance;

      5. the degree of institutional buy-in for good practice; and

      6. qualifications for those who manage leasehold stock

   2. Code of Practice

      MW mentioned that a new regulator, Off Tenant, with the power to issue codes of practice where it felt necessary would be forming soon with the chair being appointed by summer and the Board by autumn.

      AD stressed that the National Housing Federation took issue with the new regulator issuing codes of practice to matters not relating to housing. It was suggested that this would be something that would have to be dealt with by the new regulator.

7. Any Other Business

   SH mentioned that in Manchester leaseholders had requested landlords to purchase leasehold properties back, however landlord's had declined. CLG informed him that this would very much depend on the local authority and if they had the capacity to be able to do this.

8. Date of next meeting

   28th April 2008.

Minutes of the Social Sector Working Party meeting held 18th May 2006 at 31 Worship Street, EC2A 2DX

Present:

LEASE - Anthony Essien (Chairman)

ALG - Alice Ellison, Martin Green

HCL - Lydia Noon

LLN - John Paterson, Peter Wright

LGA - Steve Gallagher

MLA - Stephen Holmes

NFA - Randall Bevis

NHF - Fola Ogunjobi

NLA - Ken Leggett

DCLG - Chris Humphreys

1. Apologies for absence were received from Mark Wagstaff (Housing Corporation), Kevin Jones (National Housing Federation) and Peter Haler (LEASE). Members expressed their disappointment that the Housing Corporation had not sent a representative to the meeting.

2. Confirmation of previous minutes
   1. The minutes of the meeting of 16th March 2006 were confirmed.

3. Matters arising from the minutes
   1. There were no matters arising from the minutes.

4. Report of the Service charges sub-group
   1. At the outset of the working party considering the sub-group's report John Paterson thanked Steve Gallagher for his contribution to that group and in particular his assistance on the HRA and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

   2. Martin Green was concerned that the report was more akin to minutes rather than a full report. Chairman commented that, at this stage, a full and final report from the sub-group would not be possible because of the matters that remained outstanding.

   3. Item 3.0: Apportionment of charges - Ken Leggett noted that the sub-group had not come to a conclusion on one particular method. Randall Bevis clarified that no single method was felt to be applicable in all circumstances.

      Martin Green added that questions of apportionment were now matters that the leasehold valuation tribunal could address, something that had already occurred in Southwark for leaseholders on the Tabard Estate.

   4. Item 4.0: HRA issues- Martin Green revealed that the Pembrokeshire County Council v Gulliksen case has spurred tenants of Southwark Council to threaten judicial review of the manner in which Southwark allocates items to the HRA.

      Steve Gallagher clarified item 4.4(i) in that LEASE would seek from the Treasury any guidance it has as to the treatment of "amenities" with respect to the HRA in light of Schedule 4 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and sections 12 and 13 of the Housing Act 1985. In addition, enquiries would be made whether the powers contained in the Housing Act 1996 enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations affecting section 12 and 13 would be considered.

   5. Item 5.0: Assisting leaseholders to pay- Ken Leggett complimented Randall Bevis on the City West Homes's brochure detailing the assistance that it provides for leaseholders, and added that nothing of this kind is distributed by Norwich City Council. Martin Green commented that it is mandatory that information about loans must be included in demands for payment for works.

   6. Peter Wright queried what the action point at item 5.2 meant. Steve Gallagher clarified that essentially the scheme would involve the agreed deferral of payment of the service charge until sale of the property. At that time the outstanding sum due would be paid and the authority would also receive some of the profit arising from the sale. John Paterson queried if any, especially vulnerable, leaseholders would enter into such an arrangement. Martin Green that those unable to receive assistance from the DSS might opt for this type of scheme.

   7. Alice Ellison expressed concern at the amount of work LEASE had undertaken. Chairman clarified that LEASE would seek external assistance when required.

5. Review of progress

   1. Chairman referred the working party to the Agreed Work Programme saying that although we were essentially on track, Management and Code of Practice had not been placed on the agenda for this meeting. This was due to the expectation that the discussion of section 20 consultation would consume a substantial part of the time available.

6. Section 20 Consultation issues

   1. Martin Green submitted that section 20, as far as it concerned long-term agreements, is ill conceived. It has become an enabler for the partnering schemes that the old-section 20 would not have allowed. The issue is beyond the confines of landlord and tenant and is really a question of how the public sector approaches procurement. In addition when the cost and complexity of section 20 was set out by the ALG in their response to the Regulatory Impact Assessment to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, ODPM's reply was that they did not understand the response and, in any event, they could seek dispensation from the leasehold valuation tribunal.

      There was widespread agreement with this view and Randall Bevis added that it has raised expectations amongst leaseholders that are simply not compatible with the 'Egan' reforms.

      Steve Gallagher expressed the view that the procurement side of any local authority or registered social landlord was at the heart of the problem. This was evidenced, in his own experience, by the amount of time his department spends in seeking dispensation, having to address defects in the works by the contractors and attempting to liaise with those elsewhere who select contractors for the preferred list. Likewise, consultation on qualifying works is another indicator of the lack of clarity on what is within or outside the Housing Revenue Account.

   2. John Paterson saw section 20, as it now stands, as a means to enable government's PFI policy to thrive. Peter Wright raised the fact that in enabling these methods of long-term procurement it raised the real danger of 'graft and corruption'.

      Lydia Noon considered that the new section 20 had been perceived as giving leaseholders more involvement, but the reality was rather different and might explain the increased apathy amongst leaseholders when it comes to this issue. Ken Leggett highlighted that his association was working with Norwich City Council to establish an approach that has section 20 as part of a broader scheme of consultation.

   3. Members generally felt that the approach to 'Qualifying works' under section 20, outside of long-term agreements, was not a problem.

   4. It was agreed that LEASE would prepare a draft paper highlighting that the new section 20 procedures revealed that there were real problem in the procurement of services by local authorities. A draft would be circulated amongst the working party for comment in due course, with the agreed document being sent to the Minister of Housing.

   5. Stephen Holmes raised concerns over leaseholders in Manchester whose homes were substantially constructed with Diatomite. These leaseholders have recently been told by their landlord, the local authority, that the substantial cost of remedying the structural problems, will be met by the leaseholders. None of the lessees were alerted to these matters prior to purchasing their homes.

      Martin Green commented that they would have their service charges capped if they were still within the 5-year reference period. John Paterson submitted that Manchester City Council were in the habit of carrying out such works when the reference period has expired. He also queried if a substance like Diatomite ought to have been commented on by the surveyor carrying out the mortgage valuation during the sales process. If so then the issue had similarities with Izzard v Field-Palmer.

7. Any other business
   1. Stephen Holmes queried about the possibility of video-conferencing for the meetings of the SSWP as an aid to leaseholder participation from the regions. John Paterson thought that there might be organisations that provided such schemes.

      Tenants and Residents Organisations of England (TAROE) may have a scheme and it was agreed that LEASE would contact TAROE to see what, if anything, they offered.

   2. Alice Ellison understood that the Right-to- buy (RTB) section of DCLG were presently looking into the issue of public sector leaseholders, which seemed unnecessary in the light of the work being undertaken by the SSWP and its sub-group. Martin Green felt that they should address the sales process under RTB, leaving the leasehold reform section to address the issues before the SSWP.

   3. Peter Wright reminded the working party of the need for more information about the absence of resource accounting in the Housing Revenue Account.

   4. Steve Gallagher raised the point that the new 'Social Homebuy' scheme will involve leaseholders with as little as 25% of the equity in the property paying 100% of the service charges, and queried if the leaseholder members of the working party felt that this was satisfactory. Leaseholder members responded, unanimously, that it was inappropriate.

   5. The working party congratulated Martin Green on his recent promotion to Assistant Director of Housing at the London Borough of Southwark.

   6. The ALG agreed, as had already been noted at item 4.6 (b) of the minutes of 12 January, to contact its members to see if they had lists of representative leaseholder groups to put forward as additional leaseholder representation; the LGA agreed to do likewise.

      Peter Wright queried whether DCLG had any formal mechanism of identifying leaseholder representative groups. Subsequent to the meeting Chris Humphreys advised that DCLG had no formal means of identifying such groups.

8. Date of next meeting SSWP - Thursday 20th July at 2pm.

   Meeting closed at 4:10 p.m.

Minutes of the Social Sector Working Party meeting held 16th March 2006 at 31 Worship Street, EC2A 2DX

Present:

LEASE - Anthony Essien (Chairman)

LEASE - Peter Haler

ALG - Alice Ellison, Martin Green

CIH - Sam Lister

HC - Mark Wagstall

HCL - Lydia Noon

LLN - John Paterson, Peter Wright

LGA - Steve Gallagher

MLA - John Tierney

NFA - Randall Bevis

NHF - Kevin Jones

NLA - Ken Leggett

ODPM - Charlotte Sewell

1. Subsequent to the meeting an apology for absence was received from Nick Green (Brighton and Hove Council Independent Leaseholders' Forum). The Forum has written to advise that Nick Green has stepped down due to ill health and that the Forum has withdrawn from the SSWP]

2. Nominations for additional representation
   1. At the last meeting it was agreed that ALG, LLN and NHF would be accorded one additional representative to the group: nominees were agreed as follows

      ALG - Martin Green (LB Southwark)
      LLN - Dr Peter Wright (Camden Leaseholders' Assn)
      NHF - Kevin Jones (Tower Homes)

      John Paterson felt that the nominees provided a disproportionate level of representation for London.

3. Confirmation of previous minutes
   1. The minutes of the meeting of 12th January 2006 were confirmed; in accordance with the decision of the group the minutes would be published on the LEASE website.

4. Matters arising from the minutes
   1. Item 2.2 - Ken Leggett felt that leaseholder representatives were disadvantaged by lack of technical knowledge; agreed LEASE would arrange invitations to training events, including two days presently being arranged with CIH, and would provide copies of CIH and ALG good practice guides.

   2. Item 2.3 - John Paterson felt that the lack of present Government commitment to legislation should not preclude discussion, particularly in the context of the accepted need for amending legislation to resolve outstanding 2002 Act issues; possibly other proposals could be included.

   3. Item 3.3- Terms of Reference- Group discussed ALG's circulated alternatives; amendments and additions agreed and the Terms of Reference of the SSWP are as attached at Appendix 1.

   4. Item 4.6(c) - The funding issue was presently under discussion as part of LEASE funding arrangements for 2006-7.

5. Draft Work Programme
   1. Peter Wright queried whether the group had the appropriate level of representation to achieve results; group confirmed intention to work toward one or more open reports to the relevant Minister, to be widely circulated with representations for local action as appropriate.

   2. Work programme agreed, attached as Appendix 2; agreed all members would submit key items for discussion prior to each meeting.

6. Service Charges
   1. Agreed principal issues for examination by sub-group:
      1. S152 issues, including ODPM consultation

      2. basis of apportionment of charges

      3. effects/implications of Government policies/financial controls, including Decent Homes programme

      4. management charges, size and composition

      5. S20 consultation issues

      6. recharges under leases, relationship with Housing Revenue Account, what can/cannot be recovered

      The issues would be discussed with reference to conclusions already reached by ALG Housing Steering Group "blue sky thinking" (attached as Appendix 3).

   2. Membership of Service Charge Sub-group agreed as follows:

      ALG - Martin Green

      LLN - (to be nominated)

      LGA - Steve Gallagher

      MLA - (to be nominated)

      NFA - Randall Bevis

      NLA - Ken Leggett

      - plus LEASE/ODPM

      Date of first meeting - Monday 10th April 10am - 4pm.

7. There was no other business

8. Date of next meeting SSWP - Thursday 18th May 2pm.

Minutes of the Social Sector Working Party meeting held 12th January 2006 at 31 Worship Street, EC2A 2DX

Present:

LEASE - Peter Haler (Chairman)

LEASE - Anthony Essien

Norwich Leaseholders Association (NLA)- Ken Leggett

Manchester Leaseholders Association (MLA) - John Tierney

London Leaseholders Network (LLN) - John Paterson

Housing Corporation (HC) - Mark Wagstaff

Association of London Government (ALG)- Alice Ellison

National Housing Federation (NHF) - Fola Ogunjobi

National Federation of ALMOs (NFA) - Randall Bevis

Local Government Association (LGA) - Gayle Gibson

Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) - Sam Lister

Harlow Council Leaseholder sub-group (HCL)- Lydia Noon

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) - Charlotte Sewell

1. Apologies for absence were received from Nick Green (Brighton and Hove Council Independent Leaseholders Forum) (BHLF). The East Midlands Tenants Forum had not yet provided a nominee.

2. Chairman's opening remarks
   1. The Chairman welcomed those attending, and set out LEASE's views on the overall purpose and objectives of the group. The previous Public Sector Working Party managed by ODPM had become too large to be productive and lacked a focus; LEASE hoped that the present structure would parallel the Leasehold Reform Working Party in an overall objective of a formal report to the Minister of Housing on proposals for change.

   2. The group was intended to be generally representative of the social leasehold sector to operate as a unique forum for the identification of problems peculiar to the sector affecting tenant and landlord, discussion in a neutral format and the development of proposals to deal with them, either by practical implementation or recommendations for legislative change. All member organisations should approach discussion in a spirit of openness and a mutual commitment to resolution of problems.

      No votes would be taken on any issue, as any reports produced by the group should reflect discussion, including differences in the relative perspectives of members

   3. ODPM reminded the working party that its predecessor worked in the context of a government commitment to legislate. Now there is no such commitment.

3. Terms of reference
   1. The working party discussed the terms of reference, during which the London Leaseholders Network (LLN) raised its view that the history of leases in the social sector was very relevant to paragraphs 2.1.4, 2.41. And 2.5.1 in particular. The Association of London Government expressed concern about the tone of these same paragraphs and advised that it would be submitting proposals for rewording of the terms of reference. The group regretted that these had not been submitted in sufficient time for discussion at the meeting.

   2. Housing Corporation (HC) highlighted that government policy, for example the Decent Homes Initiative, had an effect on service charges. Thus, it would be worth including the effect of government policy on the social sector leaseholders in the terms of reference.

   3. After further discussion it was agreed that the terms of reference would also include:
      1. Commonhold; and

      2. The effect that wider government policy has had on service charges of leaseholders in the social sector

      It was also agreed that the ALG would submit the alternative proposals and these would be circulated; final terms of reference to be agreed at the next meeting.

4. Membership
   1. Discussion opened with the ALG suggesting that there should be additional members representing London landlords. LLN cautioned that the previous working party, over time, had become too large and eventually unwieldy. LLN felt it would be wiser to have sub-groups, on particular issues, when necessary, rather than enlarge the working party unduly.

   2. The NHF suggested that if any present members of the working party thought that there should be additional members, this should be limited to one nominee from each of them.

   3. ODPM expressed the wish that if there is additional London representation that the representative not have a narrow field of experience, but as broad as possible to assist the working party across the range of issues that may arise.

   4. LLN felt that in the light of the number of social sector leaseholders in London, they ought to have more representation on the working party, especially when one considers the resources at the disposal of landlords.

   5. MLA felt that rather than having more representation for London, simply invite speakers, when necessary, in order for the working party to receive their views. However, membership ought to be expanded to include representation of leaseholders in the midlands and the West Country. Discussion then ensued on the difficulty of finding representative bodies for these areas.

   6. After further brief discussion it was agreed that:
      1. LLN, ALG and NHF would each submit another nominee for membership of the working party;

      2. LGA would see if any of its members have lists of leaseholder representative groups;

      3. LEASE would discuss with ODPM the possibility of funding to publicise, amongst leaseholders, the work being undertaken by the working party;

      4. The NHF will include publicity about the working party in its newsletter and invited members to submit articles for publication;

      5. External expertise would be invited to attend the working party when necessary. Sub-groups would be established, and would meet in between the meetings of the working party, where matters of detail needed consideration;

      6. In the event that ODPM became aware of policies on Real Estate Investment Trusts, it would alert the working party;

      7. Membership of the working party is made up of the organisations invited, not the individuals who attend meetings. Thus, members are free to send alternates to attend meetings.

5. Work programme and overall objectives
   1. After discussion it was agreed:
      1. The working party would aim to produce an interim report in 12 months time;

      2. LEASE would prepare a draft programme for the next 12 months;

      3. the working party would meet every 2 months on Thursdays at 31 Worship Street , with meetings commencing at 2 pm and lasting for approximately 2 hours;

      4. The beginning of every third meeting will be used to review progress of the working party;

      5. LEASE will circulate in hardcopy , or by email if preferred , discussion papers that have been submitted , and that discussion papers would be submitted no less than two weeks before the date of the next meeting;

      6. Matters that members wish to see on the agenda , would also be submitted no less than 2 weeks before the next meeting;

      7. Once approved by the working party , the minutes of its meetings will be published on the LEASE website.

6. Any other business

   1. Chairman opened discussion of a letter from BHLF about section 152 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and its amendment of section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

   2. ODPM explained the difficulties that landlords had expressed in complying with the requirements within reasonable costs recoverable from leaseholders; ODPM is looking to amend section 152 in order that leaseholders still receive information , but that the statutory burden will not result in undue costs being imposed on them. Example of the scale of this burden was provided by NFA where , in Randall Bevis' own experience, the cost of compliance was estimated at £100,000. ODPM commented that they had received statements of substantially higher figures.

   3. LLN expressed disappointment that landlords appeared unable to comply with section 152's amendment of section 21 , but also, section 21 as it presently stands.

      It was agreed:

      1. ODPM would submit to the working party its proposals for amending section 152; and

      2. A sub-group would be created to address the changes panned for section 152.

   4. Housing Corporation brought 'Social Home Buy' and changes to Sinking Funds to the working party's attention. The former would involve yet another version of the leasehold relationship into social sector; and the latter concerns the governments apparent intention to soften the current taxation , at 40% , on such funds. The Housing Corporation has also asked the Treasury to clarify which social sector landlords holding such funds are supposed to be taxed.

7. Date of next meeting - Thursday 16th March 2006 at 2pm

   Meeting closed at 4pm.