Homeowners win case against council over repairing bills for work on two blocks - PropertyBlawg

Homeowners win case against council over repairing bills for work on two blocks

by duncan12 on November 8, 2012

The leaseholders on the Tremlett Grove Estate, in Archway, took Islington Council to the Leaseholders Valuation Tribunal (LVT) arguing that the authority was overcharging by seven figures for work on two blocks.

The LVT had told the council to slash the bill by £225,000 meaning each of the 14 leaseholders were getting a discount of £16,000 off their original £28,000 bill.

But the council contested the contested the decision and took their appeal to the LVT and the Land Tribunals a higher body but both of the bodies refused their claim.

But the council then thought of going to theAdministrative Courtwhich is the highest authority to decide such cases but on Thursday of last week the authority said it was going to drop the appeal.

Judy Granville, 62, one of the leaseholders behind the action said: that she was relieved after learning the decision of the council as it had been two years since she first downloaded the form to go to the LVT. She said that she was delighted.

She said that she hoped that it would encourage others in a similar position now and in the future. it was a scary and daunting but with the right help and advice by the housing solicitors they had shown that it was possible.

The plight of the leaseholders was featured on Channel Four investigative documentary Dispatches in August.

A spokesman for the council said that the council was committed to investing in its homes for the benefit of its tenants and leaseholders, while keeping down pressure on rents and service charges. Getting this balance right often involved difficult choices.

The tribunal is not saying that this work was unnecessary, but rather that they wanted more evidence to prove it was necessary.

Decisions about whether to appeal LVT rulings were very finely balanced and after careful consideration, the council had decided not to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Leave a Comment


Previous post:

Next post: