Lewisham scraps homes sell off

[Tim Lund]

In response to a question from Cllr Johnson, Lewisham Council officers have confirmed that a planned sell-off of Council-owned homes in the borough has been cancelled. Here's the Q&A:

Question

Could you update me on any change in approach regarding the disposal of Lewisham Homes properties, since my question to the 29th February Council meeting and the answer I received then?

Answer

It remains the Council’s policy not to dispose of any land or property without considering all the possible options for retention. Our response in February of this year highlighted a small number of properties that were being considered for sale. These were identified by an independent survey that concluded it was not economically viable to retain them due to the high cost of the repairs required to bring them up to Decent Homes standards and the lack of appropriate funding to support these works.

However, with the changes in April 2012 to the housing finance framework, new funding opportunities were made available. In addition, other changes coming from the housing and welfare reforms will have a substantial impact on housing needs and supply and the downturn in the economy is making home ownership more difficult for local residents. Hence a report was presented to Mayor & Cabinet on the 30th May 2012 to reconsider the earlier decision to sell these properties in the light of these changes.

The decision was made by the Mayor & Cabinet to retain these properties. Work is underway to look at how we can maximise the opportunities both for housing for local residents in housing need waiting to move but also to investigate opportunities to link with local training and employment schemes to bring these properties back into use.

As STFers will know, I'm interested by a whole lot of issues to do with housing, which seems to be bedevilled with politics. I don't know the full background to this, but it is being claimed as a victory by Lewisham People Before Profits - "Occupied Lewisham Homes - We've Won". On Brockley Central I've commented with the following questions:

• Are these the properties which Lewisham People Before Profit have been occupying, arguing that 'the community' can keep them in good repair?
• What were the changes in April 2012 to the housing finance framework which opened up new funding opportunities?
• Is there any published research on whether properties are best maintained by (1) 'the community'; (2) social landlords; (3) owner occupiers doing their DIY or paying tradesmen to do any repairs; or (4) private sector landlords?

I'd like to think we could all agree that from a policy point of view, the last question is what really matters

[Manwithaview1]

Lewisham Homes did receive £20 Million October 2010 for selling approx 3,500 properties to L&Q.

Properties in Rushey Green, Catford, Perry Vale, Forest Hill and Sydenham (incl Sydenham Hill Estate) were part of the stock transfer.

[Tim Lund]

Lewisham Homes did receive £20 Million October 2010 for selling approx 3,500 properties to L&Q.

Properties in Rushey Green, Catford, Perry Vale, Forest Hill and Sydenham (incl Sydenham Hill Estate) were part of the stock transfer.

Are those numbers correct? That makes an average price per property of £5,714. Was that anything like a fair price? What sort of condition were these properties in? That's either a massive gift to L&Q from Lewisham, or there's something I'm missing - which I think is more likely.

There's a piece on the Estates Gazette web site about this

A London council's plan to auction off 15 houses on the cheap appears to be temporarily halted as local people stage an occupation of the properties to try and stop the sale.

Lewisham Council wants to sell 15 three- and four-bed houses on Friendly Street at a knock down price of £130,000 each. Local people claim that this is too cheap and with improvements the houses could demand a price more in the region of £400,000 each. However, Lewisham Council say the homes are run down and too expensive to refurbish. According to one of the protesters, the council say that it would cost around £40,000 per house to improve.

[CaptainCarCrash]

L&Q are a joke when it comes to maintaining properties; I worked as a finishing Forman for Sears of America for five years so I like to think that I am reasonably qualified to comment.

My personal experience tells me that they do hire professional tradespersons to carryout communal decorating but the problems we have encountered relate to sub standard works being carried out in the home. My first encounter with their sub skilled failed tradesmen was when the flue to our boiler developed a fault. Our lounge and Kitchen is open plan and the boiler is situated in the middle of the rear wall by the Kitchen and has a flue which has been boxed in with access panels. We had a blockage in the drain which stopped the boiler firing up correctly. This repair was carried out but the plumber/gas fitter who carried out the work did not refit the access pannel back properly and left filthy handprints all over it, I will have to refit it myself when I redecorate.

We also had a problem with the shower controls which had developed a leak, the plumber they sent out destroyed the bath panel and the mastic job he did looks as though it was performed by a chimp wearing boxing gloves. What’s more he dropped his spanner in the bath and smashed a substantial amount of enamel off of the bath. An enameller was sent in for yet another substandard repair which is rough to the touch and yellowing.

Be afraid if you have to deal with their bash and bodge it trades contractors brought in on the cheap.

L&Q do not care what sort's of people they let their properties out to. Drug dealers and gangbangers and other such scum will be moved in. As long as they get rent they do not care.

[Annie.]

Whos L&Q? And why can they get away with bodge jobs?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

I'm going to see if a couple of Lewisham Councillors - the chair of its Audit Panel

and the chair of its Public Accounts Select Committee

have to say on the matter.

But don't hold your breath - judging by their tweeting, House of Lords reform (in which I have little interest) and the Freedom of Information Act (which I think does matter) will be of more pressing concern.

[Manwithaview1]

Lewisham Homes did receive £20 Million October 2010 for selling approx 3,500 properties to L&Q.

Properties in Rushey Green, Catford, Perry Vale, Forest Hill and Sydenham (incl Sydenham Hill Estate) were part of the stock transfer.

Are those numbers correct? That makes an average price per property of £5,714. Was that anything like a fair price? What sort of condition were these properties in? That's either a massive gift to L&Q from Lewisham, or there's something I'm missing - which I think is more likely.

There's a piece on the Estates Gazette web site about this

A London council's plan to auction off 15 houses on the cheap appears to be temporarily halted as local people stage an occupation of the properties to try and stop the sale.

Lewisham Council wants to sell 15 three- and four-bed houses on Friendly Street at a knock down price of £130,000 each. Local people claim that this is too cheap and with improvements the houses could demand a price more in the region of £400,000 each. However, Lewisham Council say the homes are run down and too expensive to refurbish. According to one of the protesters, the council say that it would cost around £40,000 per house to improve.

The problem was very few of the homes transferred met the Decent Homes Standard. LH also had no money to invest in these properties. L&Q offered to spend £168million in the next 30 years on the Perry Vale, Forest Hill and Sydenham properties and all properties to be brought into Decent Homes Standard within 2 years. The DHS works on Sydenham Hill are nearly complete. The average DHS spend on properties is about £14,000 so far. I haven't seen the latest firgures. Residents were faced with living in their same old worn out conditions or a better decorated flat.

Lewisham Homes in its various PFI guises had run the estate into the ground. Our lifts for example were 9 years over their replacement date. I saw the metal taken out of the lift when they were stripping it and a lot of it was badly rusted. The lift engineers were quite shocked at how badly 2 of the estate lifts were.

The estate will be landscaped soon (3 year project) and hopefully trees and pigeons will be addressed at their earliest convenience.

I am Chair of the Community Board for FH, PV and Sydenham.

[Manwithaview1]

Whos L&Q? And why can they get away with bodge jobs?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

London and Quadrant Housing Association. They and other housing providers shouldn't be allowed to get away with anything like that.

[Tim Lund]

Whos L&Q? And why can they get away with bodge jobs?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

London & Quadrant (L&Q)

Established:1963

Regions: London and south-east England

Stock: 67,000

Turnover: £330m

Number of staff: 1,070

Key areas of work: General needs housing; estate management; community investment.

Inspection results: Two stars with excellent prospects for improvement

For more information, see here

I appreciate Mike's account, since it address what seems to me the key question of how well housing stock is maintained, and avoiding the politics. But without any general analysis, it's only anecdotal. That's why I'd be interested to know if anyone has published any research on this.

[CaptainCarCrash]

Whos L&Q? And why can they get away with bodge jobs?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

L&Q are a housing association. They get away with bodge jobs because they are a souped up version of the council in terms of housing and lets face it if you have ever had a council trades person do any work it will never be up to much because they only hire cowboys. Their new build properties are so insulated it feels like a violation of my human rights when the sun comes out. I'm glad for the rain and tremble with fear when the sun is out. It feels like a greenhouse, you could grow an orange tree in the lounge, brazil nuts in the bedroom, plantine in the hall and kiwi fruit in the bathroom it's that hot.

[Annie.]

Thanks Tim

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Manwithaview1]

I'm going to see if a couple of Lewisham Councillors - the chair of its Audit Commission

and the chair of its Public Accounts Select Committee

have to say on the matter.

But don't hold your breath - judging by their tweeting, House of Lords reform (in which I have little interest) and the Freedom of Information Act (which I think does matter) will be of more pressing concern.

Alex has been very supportive of residents on Sydenham Hill Estate during the process of the Stock Transfer. It would to handy to know what LH intend doing with that money raised.

[Tim Lund]

In hopes of understanding more about these issues, I've been following various housing experts on Twitter. A tweet yesterday that caught my attention - more because of its possible relevance to The Greyhound - was from the Housing Consultant, Colin Wiles, in which he suggested that housing associations should buy threatened local pubs, linking to this story.

He also has an interesting blog, with this recent article summarising current issues in housing. Some of the comments are perhaps not as balanced and objective as Colin Wiles' blog, but one of them refers to:

the cash cows and Quango's called housing associations..every one of them should be made accountable to the electorate and forced back into council control

The part of this that interests me is the suggestion that housing associations are cash cows. Is this true? Some things which make me think it is are (1) the tweet I mentioned from Colin Wiles that housing associations could help fund a community pub; (2) that the business model of Eco-Computers, who run Sydenham Community Library, depends on housing association support; and (3) that Councils transfer properties to housing associatons at average prices such as £5,714. With assets on their books this cheap, they certainly will be cash cows.

[Manwithaview1]

In hopes of understanding more about these issues, I've been following various housing experts on Twitter. A tweet yesterday that caught my attention - more because of its possible relevance to The Greyhound - was from the Housing Consultant, Colin Wiles, in which he suggested that housing associations should buy threatened local pubs, linking to this story.

He also has an interesting blog, with this recent article summarising current issues in housing. Some of the comments are perhaps not as balanced and objective as Colin Wiles' blog, but one of them refers to:

the cash cows and Quango's called housing associations..every one of them should be made accountable to the electorate and forced back into council control

The part of this that interests me is the suggestion that housing associations are cash cows. Is this true? Some things which make me think it is are (1) the tweet I mentioned from Colin Wiles that housing associations could help fund a community pub; (2) that the business model of Eco-Computers, who run Sydenham Community Library, depends on housing association support; and (3) that Councils transfer properties to housing associatons at average prices such as £5,714. With assets on their books this cheap, they certainly will be cash cows.

All HA's are not for profit and any surplusses have to be put back into the housing stock.

[Tim Lund]

All HA's are not for profit and any surplusses have to be put back into the housing stock.

Maybe - but there must be some flexibility in how surpluses are used, or in what can be taken as allowable expenses before the the figure for surpluses is arrived at. How otherwise could a leading housing consultant tweet

Housing associations, why not buy a failing pub and run it as a community/social hub for your residents? Save our pubs!

?

I suspect it is a matter of what are allowed as expenses, e.g. payments of corporate support such as from Affinity Sutton, Hyde and Hexagon pay to Ecocomputers

I still can't quite believe the number you gave as going to Lewisham Homes in that stock transfer

Lewisham Homes did receive £20 Million October 2010 for selling approx 3,500 properties to L&Q.

To be conservative, if we take the lower quartile number of £200 per week for a 2 bedroom flat in SE26 from the GLA web site, that's a potential income of £29 million a year, assuming affordable rents at 80% of market rent. That's an awful lot of money sloshing around housing associations!

I feel sure there is something I'm missing here

[Tim Lund]

I've just realised part of what I've been missing was right there in what MWAV1 wrote

L&Q offered to spend £168million in the next 30 years

I came up with that ball park figure of L&Q potentially getting about £29 million p.a. out of this deal, but £20 million paid is only part of the story; it sounds as if L&Q will also be saving Lewisham Homes this £168 million, so totalling £188 million - which is far more significant. OTOH, £29 million p.a. over 30 years adds up to £870 million, so that's quite a transfer of financial resources away from the relatively democratic accountable structures of Lewisham Council.

These are very crude numbers, and depend very much on the estimates of what rents L&Q will receive on these properties.

[Manwithaview1]

I've just realised part of what I've been missing was right there in what MWAV1 wrote

L&Q offered to spend £168million in the next 30 years

I came up with that ball park figure of L&Q potentially getting about £29 million p.a. out of this deal, but £20 million paid is only part of the story; it sounds as if L&Q will also be saving Lewisham Homes this £168 million, so totalling £188 million - which is far more significant. OTOH, £29 million p.a. over 30 years adds up to £870 million, so that's quite a transfer of financial resources away from the relatively democratic accountable structures of Lewisham Council.

These are very crude numbers, and depend very much on the estimates of what rents L&Q will receive on these properties.

By law HA's must use the same charging criteria as councils with one difference. Their prices must be a maximum of £1 more than council rents. For example most rents on Sydenham Hill Estate are under £100 a week, only 3 beds, with rent of £106 a week are above that and there are very few of those, sadly. Some of the three bed properties are still taken up by one person.

I would guess a figure of £18 mill pa would be more accurate...(3,500 properties @£100 a week times 52)

[Tim Lund]

I've just realised part of what I've been missing was right there in what MWAV1 wrote

L&Q offered to spend £168million in the next 30 years

I came up with that ball park figure of L&Q potentially getting about £29 million p.a. out of this deal, but £20 million paid is only part of the story; it sounds as if L&Q will also be saving Lewisham Homes this £168 million, so totalling £188 million - which is far more significant. OTOH, £29 million p.a. over 30 years adds up to £870 million, so that's quite a transfer of financial resources away from the relatively democratic accountable structures of Lewisham Council.

These are very crude numbers, and depend very much on the estimates of what rents L&Q will receive on these properties.

By law HA's must use the same charging criteria as councils with one difference. Their prices must be a maximum of £1 more than council rents. For example most rents on Sydenham Hill Estate are under £100 a week, only 3 beds, with rent of £106 a week are above that and there are very few of those, sadly. Some of the three bed properties are still taken up by one person.

I would guess a figure of £18 mill pa would be more accurate...(3,500 properties @£100 a week times 52)

Thanks - I realise you're going to have a better idea on these details than me. But even at £18 m pa,. L&Q are getting a pretty amazing deal. I don't know enough about the set up of Lewisham Homes, from whom this was transferred, but if future income it received would have been available for Lewisham's general budget - say paying for enforcement officers, parks, libraries - then this transfer represents a significant dedication of resources to one particular purpose - improvement of the housing stock. Improving the housing stock in general should be a high priority - albeit one which Councillors are notably reluctant to talk about - see the 'Housing - let's just not go there' thread. But why has L&Q been chosen to perform this task, and what are they going to be doing with the £100s of millions more than it seems they need?

[Manwithaview1]

By law HA's must use the same charging criteria as councils with one difference. Their prices must be a maximum of £1 more than council rents. For example most rents on Sydenham Hill Estate are under £100 a week, only 3 beds, with rent of £106 a week are above that and there are very few of those, sadly. Some of the three bed properties are still taken up by one person.

I would guess a figure of £18 mill pa would be more accurate...(3,500 properties @£100 a week times 52)

Thanks - I realise you're going to have a better idea on these details than me. But even at £18 m pa,. L&Q are getting a pretty amazing deal. I don't know enough about the set up of Lewisham Homes, from whom this was transferred, but if future income it received would have been available for Lewisham's general budget - say paying for enforcement officers, parks, libraries - then this transfer represents a significant dedication of resources to one particular purpose - improvement of the housing stock. Improving the housing stock in general should be a high priority - albeit one which Councillors are notably reluctant to talk about - see the 'Housing - let's just not go there' thread. But why has L&Q been chosen to perform this task, and what are they going to be doing with the £100s of millions more than it seems they need?

We, as a steering group, had the choices of L&Q, Broomleigh, Hyde or going back to Lewisham Homes and saying these choices aren't good enough. To be honest most of the £100 a week that Lew Homes would receive in rent would just about cover the repair budget such was the appalling state of many of the flats. All 3 would borrow money to finance their bid/operation. L&Q and Hyde turned out to be the best bids as Broomleigh turned up and acted like they had won the bid. They were very shoddy tbh and we discounted them immediately the day they did the personal presentation with Q&A's.

The main issue, and it goes back to the Islington Council vs Westdeutsche case, which resulted in councils being unable to borrow for various projects including housing. If councils were given a level playing field, which was removed in the 1980s by someone who hated local Govt esp in London, then we wouldn't need to have any stock transfers at all.

You must remember the state of the properties before the stock transfer. Barely 4% were upto Decent Homes Standard, which should have been completed in 2006. If it had been completed by then the level of repairs LH would have needed to carry out would have been far less financially. Many people were against the Stock Transfer but we couldn't live in the squalor LH had left us. It would have cost LH a minimum of £10 million just to get Syd Hill Estate up to scratch and they didn't have/couldn't generate the revenue to do that works. It would be interestinmg to find out the level of percentage that repairs have cost LH over the years from their total budget. I bet it is huge, sadly.

L&Q will complete 6 5 year plans with a fair proportion of the money being used up front and towards the end as many of the properties will need new windows, kitchens and bathrooms again by closure.

If you need any more info on the process we used just shout.

[Tim Lund]

Thanks again, MWAV1. This is an area I come to with limited detailed knowledge. It is thanks to people like you responding to what I hope are reasonable questions that I - and others, I hope - can come to understand more.